Alexandria Ocasio Cortez - "Not All Dems Are The Same"

AnonymityX1000

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
31,550
Reputation
3,248
Daps
71,844
Reppin
New York
Perfectson said:
Of course she disagrees with her , weeks ago she was all buddies but now is the perfect opportunity to begin her wedge tactic during the budget crisis .

And she's been extra than anything other politician I've seen in a while without actually doing anything remarkable
Click to expand...
She's only extra because she gets headlines. Other politicians can't muster the same shine. Trust me they are trying.
 
storyteller

storyteller

Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
16,982
Reputation
5,342
Daps
64,652
Reppin
NYC
Perfectson said:
Of course she disagrees with her , weeks ago she was all buddies but now is the perfect opportunity to begin her wedge tactic during the budget crisis .

And she's been extra than anything other politician I've seen in a while without actually doing anything remarkable
Click to expand...

Yes, on certain topics AOC and Pelosi see eye to eye and on others; in this instance PayGo a concept progressives have railed against since Pelosi intimated she'd use it...sometimes politicians can agree on one issue and disagree on another.
 
Perfectson

Perfectson

Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
9,613
Reputation
-1,835
Daps
12,054
storyteller said:
Yes, on certain topics AOC and Pelosi see eye to eye and on others; in this instance PayGo a concept progressives have railed against since Pelosi intimated she'd use it...sometimes politicians can agree on one issue and disagree on another.
Click to expand...


it's an internal rule that makes sense due to the debt we have incurred. There still is a law passed back in 2010 that they have to adhere to, so when you say she doesn't have to see eye to eye this internal measure but it is a law they all have to abide by regardless. So the house (AOC / Khanna) making noise about this is irrelevant , it's more a check and balance and brings a bit of a transparancy on what they are doing that impacts debt. I see nothing wrong with that.

on the head you're right, she can disagree with Pelosi as she chooses and doesn't create an issue - so I'll fall back, despite she's totally in the wrong and dark on this issue ( as usual)
 
storyteller

storyteller

Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
16,982
Reputation
5,342
Daps
64,652
Reppin
NYC
Perfectson said:
it's an internal rule that makes sense due to the debt we have incurred. There still is a law passed back in 2010 that they have to adhere to, so when you say she doesn't have to see eye to eye this internal measure but it is a law they all have to abide by regardless. So the house (AOC / Khanna) making noise about this is irrelevant , it's more a check and balance and brings a bit of a transparancy on what they are doing that impacts debt. I see nothing wrong with that.

on the head you're right, she can disagree with Pelosi as she chooses and doesn't create an issue - so I'll fall back, despite she's totally in the wrong and dark on this issue ( as usual)
Click to expand...

It'd help to look at what AOC and Ro Khanna are actually talking about when they oppose the rule, it's a disagreement on strategy, which is why some progressives support the rule and some don't. The article I'll post distills everything much better but in short a few main points:

Pelosi's stance: PayGo will let us design how to budget and pay for the legislation we pass before it gets to the Senate instead of Mcconnell being able to butcher the plans.

Ro Khanna's stance: Regardless of what we send, Mitch Mcconnell will butcher those plans. We're just giving them more ammunition to work with by having the Dems sign off on cuts and pushing false importance on austerity measures that have largely failed in practice.

Slate’s Use of Your Data

For Khanna, though, reinstating any pay-go rule, even a porous one, is just “bad politics,” as he told me in an interview Wednesday. On the granular level, the waiver process creates its own unnecessary problems. “Why have a waiver and give Republicans a talking point every time you’re asking for a waiver?” he said.

He acknowledged that statutory pay-go was a problem but didn’t believe that coming up with pay-fors should be the House’s initial priority when presenting its ideas.


“We can pass things in the House and not have offsets, then the Senate could come up with its offsets, and then we can negotiate,” Khanna said. “What we shouldn’t do is send the Senate a package with a trillion dollars in cuts before negotiations.” (Hammill countered that this approach “would empower McConnell to devastate Democratic priorities in the budget.”)


More broadly, though, Khanna believes that Democrats need to stop nodding in the direction of austerity, as “we now have conclusive proof that austerity politics don’t work.

“I think this would be a great provision if we were in the 1990s,” he said.
Click to expand...

It's a discussion worth having. Is there more value to showing the American people the full vision for a bill before the Senate gets a shot at mutilating it and creating a bunch of talking points around the Dems not passing their own bill. But on the other end, the Republicans will still get to dead the bill regardless except NOW they may have an opportunity to spin what cuts the Dems supported in the original bill but apply those cash saving measures to something they'd support.

For example: House Dems pass a bill with a 12 billion dollar budget and they apply cuts to offset it. The Senate Republicans go scorched Earth on the bill. After the bill dies, the Republicans turn around point out 5 billion dollars in cuts that they didn't mind from that bill and say "the Dems were okay with this money being cut to help Americans, well now we're looking to compromise and give them their cuts in exchange for using that money to fund Trump's wall." For heads that go deep on politics, that probably looks dumb and transparent. But for the broader populace and even for a lot of key media outlets; that frame could easily warp the conversation and put the Dems on the defensive.

The other issue is that I don't trust the Dems in the House to agree on how to pay for provisions their damned selves. The leftists are looking at austerity as a flawed concept and I don't get the sense centrists feel so certain about it (some of the center leaning cats here could correct me if I'm wrong). You could easily end up with a situation where the stalling out on these bills happens without the Republicans having to lift a finger and then the Dems look like they can't get anything done even when they do have power.

So in sum: This PayGo rule is not necessary (doubly so because there's already a law in place) and this is a strategic disagreement with points to be made on both ends. It's not cut and dried as you might think without looking at the core disagreement surrounding it.
 
Formerly Black Trash

Formerly Black Trash

Philosopher, Connoisseur, Future Legend
Joined
Aug 2, 2015
Messages
55,558
Reputation
-2,350
Daps
144,184
Reppin
Na
Perfectson said:
Damn she lives on Twitter, guess she has nothing better to do right now. No drinks to serve and no Congress in session ...
Click to expand...
LOL
I feel like shyt is going to get annoying after a while
But she’s of our gen
When the Prisedent posts crazy u can’t expect decorum from anyone else
 
ineedsleep212

ineedsleep212

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
31,284
Reputation
3,169
Daps
63,484
Reppin
Brooklyn, NY
Perfectson said:
That was a boo?


It's so frustrating being a moderate and have to listen to both sides making agonizingly exaggerated claims about each other
Click to expand...
michael-keaton.gif
 
Perfectson

Perfectson

Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
9,613
Reputation
-1,835
Daps
12,054
storyteller said:
It'd help to look at what AOC and Ro Khanna are actually talking about when they oppose the rule, it's a disagreement on strategy, which is why some progressives support the rule and some don't. The article I'll post distills everything much better but in short a few main points:

Pelosi's stance: PayGo will let us design how to budget and pay for the legislation we pass before it gets to the Senate instead of Mcconnell being able to butcher the plans.

Ro Khanna's stance: Regardless of what we send, Mitch Mcconnell will butcher those plans. We're just giving them more ammunition to work with by having the Dems sign off on cuts and pushing false importance on austerity measures that have largely failed in practice.

Slate’s Use of Your Data



It's a discussion worth having. Is there more value to showing the American people the full vision for a bill before the Senate gets a shot at mutilating it and creating a bunch of talking points around the Dems not passing their own bill. But on the other end, the Republicans will still get to dead the bill regardless except NOW they may have an opportunity to spin what cuts the Dems supported in the original bill but apply those cash saving measures to something they'd support.

For example: House Dems pass a bill with a 12 billion dollar budget and they apply cuts to offset it. The Senate Republicans go scorched Earth on the bill. After the bill dies, the Republicans turn around point out 5 billion dollars in cuts that they didn't mind from that bill and say "the Dems were okay with this money being cut to help Americans, well now we're looking to compromise and give them their cuts in exchange for using that money to fund Trump's wall." For heads that go deep on politics, that probably looks dumb and transparent. But for the broader populace and even for a lot of key media outlets; that frame could easily warp the conversation and put the Dems on the defensive.

The other issue is that I don't trust the Dems in the House to agree on how to pay for provisions their damned selves. The leftists are looking at austerity as a flawed concept and I don't get the sense centrists feel so certain about it (some of the center leaning cats here could correct me if I'm wrong). You could easily end up with a situation where the stalling out on these bills happens without the Republicans having to lift a finger and then the Dems look like they can't get anything done even when they do have power.

So in sum: This PayGo rule is not necessary (doubly so because there's already a law in place) and this is a strategic disagreement with points to be made on both ends. It's not cut and dried as you might think without looking at the core disagreement surrounding it.
Click to expand...



thanks for saying i didn't research or know what I'm talking about then go right into regurgitating and expounding literally what I've already said. It really makes the discussion better when you try to make one person look like they have no idea what's going on then just repeat what's been said. Kudos on that debate skill you picked up.

Like when i stated this
this internal measure but it is a law they all have to abide by regardless. So the house (AOC / Khanna) making noise about this is irrelevant , it's more a check and balance and brings a bit of a transparancy on what they are doing that impacts debt. I see nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...


and you replied with this

Pelosi's stance: PayGo will let us design how to budget and pay for the legislation we pass before it gets to the Senate instead of Mcconnell being able to butcher the plans.

Ro Khanna's stance: Regardless of what we send, Mitch Mcconnell will butcher those plans. We're just giving them more ammunition to work with by having the Dems sign off on cuts and pushing false importance on austerity measures that have largely failed in practice.


So in sum: This PayGo rule is not necessary (doubly so because there's already a law in place) and this is a strategic disagreement with points to be made on both ends. It's not cut and dried as you might think without looking at the core disagreement surrounding it.
Click to expand...

but I digress.

As I mentioned before AOC has no plans for any cuts, that's why she and her cohorts want PayGo CutGo to GOGO , it has nothing to do with your opinion on it because it's not based in fact and goes against the Progressives plans, they want to increase national debt because they feel America can just print more money and they rather invest now and assumingly kick the can down the road. That is 100% fact not what you're stating. And it's 100% obvious that if Dems or Repubs can cut certain programs to make room for others, then perhaps they aren't needed and those same cuts can/should be used on both sides since they were brought to the table. I get it, it's a game but for the American people it's real life and if there are excess programs being funded that can potentially be halted theey should be transparant and put on the table regardless of who utilizes the money. You and your mentality are kinda what's wrong, you don't want transparency unless it's on your terms.

AOC speaking up about this is irrelevant and has not impact on actually running the congress for the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top