I will be voting NO on the Rules package with #PayGo. It is terrible economics. The austerians were wrong about the Great Recession and Great Depression. At some point, politicians need to learn from mistakes and read economic history. @paulkrugman @StephanieKelton @RBReichhttps://twitter.com/GunnelsWarren/status/1080318713331617792 …
-
-
??? Who's side are you on? Certainly no Main Street America's. :/
-
I believe in transparency. I think we should be honest about tax hikes with the general populace. That said, I favor higher inheritance tax, capital gains tax, and a removing the cap on taxable income for social security. I favor higher rates of upper income earners.
-
It's a matter of perspective. I'm risk averse and I would prefer to line up the resources before making financial commitments. The House can suspend PayGo rules on any bill, but the provision means that they have to vote for it.
-
If you have Paygo, this means that any progressive measure actually needs to be proposed with adequate revenue. In a Democratic House and Senate, it would not matter because all legislation would have a real chance of passing and the votes would count.
-
With a Republican Senate, paygo means any legislation with actual new revenue could be used against Democrats who vote for it in 2020. Democrats in swing districts therefore would feel far less pressure to support legislation that would never pass a Republican
-
Senate because they could be attacked for voting to increase taxes. If you remove paygo, then progressives can more readily guilt moderates into supporting new programs without fully stipulating the funding mechanism.
-
It was easier to propose bills in the minority because nobody had to commit to any funding mechanism.
-
This is all about how many times do you take hard votes. In a crisis or recessions, the House would readily vote to suspend PayGo rules. Deficit financing to kickstart a shrinking or anemic economy is Keynesian economics 101.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
You need to learn Modern Money Theory (
@DeficitOwls) And read thishttp://rooseveltinstitute.org/deficit-nine-myths-we-cant-afford/ … -
Ugh. We are close to full employment; you generally don't expand deficit financing at such a moment. I also argued for progressive taxation to support programs. In English, this means you raise rates on higher earners to support programs for everyone.
-
I find this so exciting. It frees us from a tremendously destructive paradigm that makes a good case for abandoning capitalism altogether as just hopelessly exploitative. If our capitalism looked like this our lives would be totally different
-
I prefer Elizabeth Warren's recipe for framing markets to promote equity to a belief that wealth can be magically created. Monetary policy reflects calculations made by the Federal Reserve in reaction to domestic and international economic developments.
-
You sound like you are knowledgeable so hope you don't mind my questions: don't we just "magically" create money right now?
-
We float bonds that are purchase by mostly domestic and foreign financial institutions. The critical figure is debt as a proportion of GDP; as it increases, the propensity for risk increases. Right now we are at close to 80 to a 100 percent.
-
By comparison, Greece stands at roughly 200 percent. In 2006-2008, we were at 40 percent and Greece was at 100 percent. Major financial crisis increase the percentage because of an increase in expenditures (understandably) and a shrinking economy.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
-
You know how laws work. Right? Are we going to repeal tax law? Is that the plan? What are we going to replace with?
-
By repeal, he probably means to adjust rates to ensure revenue pre-2018. Still, the changes to all individual rates and deductions make the question more complicated. In crafting a tax cut benfitting mostly corporations and upper income earners, , Republicans have probably
-
ensured that future changes in tax law will be at their expense. Cuts in the rates for most Americans will be retained and the rates for wealthier Americans raised. The bill was the product of one party, so it won't have as much sticking power as a bipartisan one.
-
"adjust rates" So.. Our agenda is to repeal tax law? Legislatively speaking that's what needs to happen. Do we even understand how ridiculous it sounds? With R President and Senate? That ship has sailed.. Unfortunately.
-
Our pre-2018 revenue was less than it is now. Plus, there were fewer jobs, which means less contributions to SS. How about eliminating waste, like the tax dollars we give to the Audubon Society.
-
Again. Let me reiterate / ask the question again. Are we proposing to repeal the tax law.? If we are. That's a political suicide. If you think screaming idiocy makes bills into laws and laws get repealed. Please proceed until sun doesn't exist.
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.