I can't believe I gave these people money.

  • garbage [none/use name,he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    the dnc literally says m4a is impossible because "we can't pay for it."

    the dsa knows that m4a will save money, they've seen the bill. so when they say, and i'll quote it

    currently lacks financing language (i.e. how to pay for it)

    they're saying "we have no way to pay for it." which is bogus, and the reason they're getting shit on in this post.

    • CanYouFeelItMrKrabs [any, he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      That's what I am trying to say, they are not saying "we have no way of paying for it ever" they are saying the House has not yet specified how it will be paid for. These are two very different meanings. There are many ways it can be paid for.

      Any bill that is worked on will at some point in time lack financing language. Then that language is added, then there is a vote. That's what the budget and ways and means committees do is my understanding.

      • garbage [none/use name,he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        once again, you trust them much more than I do. i'm kind of through having the same conversation over and over, but they literally share the exact same language as the DNC.

        currently lacks financing language (i.e. how to pay for it)

        which isn't even true. it's so vague, and implies that they don't know where they're going to get the funds, when all studies have shown that it saves money.

        • CanYouFeelItMrKrabs [any, he/him]
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          it’s so vague, and implies that they don’t know where they’re going to get the funds,

          To me this does not seem vague at all. It is clear, the details of how the bill will be funded are not added yet. Saying DSA means that such details can never be added because M4A was for fools all along does not make sense