Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer


It really is a fight for the future of the Democratic Party and it IS INDEED an attempt at virtue signaling that the Democrats want to try being "better Republicans" but the truth is:

"Progressives want to know why they have to pay for their policies now when Republicans didn’t have to pay for tax cuts."

The 2001, 2003, and 2017 tax cuts, all passed under Republican administrations, were not paid for. PAYGO was simply waived.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the newly elected New York Democrat, called PAYGO “a dark political maneuver designed to hamstring progress on healthcare.”

--It's a dark political maneuver designed to hamstring progress on EVERYTHING. As PIA said, "THERE'S NO MORE MONEY!", the Republicans already spent it all!

And they did.

Quote:
"Paying for big ideas is politically really hard
Big policy ideas eventually have to be paid for."


--Yeah? Really? Ever heard of "obscure" revelations that single payer will save about 3 trillion dollars over the next ten years, or the fact that a well educated and highly trained workforce results in massive increases in higher paying jobs resulting in a lot more taxpayers?
Big policy ideas are big investments and there is no way to mount a valid attack on investments which have, throughout history, proven time and time again to pay off in spades.

Quote:
“You can’t have government spending and taxes constantly diverging from each other,” Harvard’s Furman said. “If you have a $100 billion program, you can either pay for it today or pay for it 20 years now.”


BULLCRAP. How funny that none of this nonsense gets applied to the military. Are we casting draconian austerity measures on the military, insisting that every tank or missile we buy get balanced out by cuts to the pay of colonels and generals?
Let's expand on that idea some more. The Post Office was ordered to PRE-PAY for health care and benefits for postal employees SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS into the future, in other words, for postal employees who haven't even BEEN BORN YET. So why stop at 20 years, seeing as how Darrel Issa insisted on 75?

Money changes hands between the living. Money today is used for people today. Money in the future will go to people in the future. No tax or fund sequestration today can be saved up by the government and spent 20 years from now, or forty years from now, or 75 years from now.

This is just more scare-a-mungous hokum about "unfunded liabilities".
The real unfunded liability is the future development of this nation.

If our education, research and technology development is all falling behind other nations, we're not going to be able to buy our children's jobs back later.

If our healthcare fails to the point of near total inaccessibility and affordability for the majority, we will not be able to buy a golden coin that heals an entire generation later.
_________________________
"The Best of the Leon Russell Festivals" DVD
deepfreezefilms.com