All Republican Senators Voted Against PayGo?

[Patranus]

If you actually read the link you provided you would notice that it was an amendment to the bill to increase the debt ceiling.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Thanks for my first opportunity to use this emoticon. If anyone finds a similar but better one, please PM me

"When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout"

 

[GuitarDaddy]

There was a typo on the GOP newsletter calling it PAYPO, and they thought it was a new entitlement program fo the PO.

 

[Patranus]

A better question is why is Senator Kirk still voting on legislation?

 

[woolfe9999]

Most of the budget can't be touched for either statutory or political reasons. Since there is no serious talk about actual cuts anywhere - merely a projected freeze for a few years at our already huge spending levels - any spending cuts will be minuscule and more than offset by new programs. Therefore any deficit reduction will come completely from new taxes. Right now we are borrowing roughly half of what we spend, so balancing the budget would require doubling total taxes plus enough for the new programs. That would result in having zero economy other than government-driven within one presidential term. Even the Marxist-in-Charge doesn't dare institute that much change that quickly.

We are committed to ride this tiger until it collapses. PayGo is nothing more than an attempt to give political cover to the Dems and everyone on both sides knows it.

I am not as pessimistic as that, in terms of what it would take to balance the budget. In terms of us doing, yes, I am extremely pessimistic. Doing what's actually necessary in a way that spreads the burden of it around is quite viable. Medicare can be self-sufficient with a small increase in the Medicare tax, an increase in the Medicare part B co-pyament, and some benefit cuts on Medicare part c. SS can be made viable by increasing the retirement age, some means testing, and/or increasing SS taxes, or better a combination of the three. No one effect would be devastating. If you reform these two entitlements and cut defense by about 15%, plus stall other discretionary spending, you could make do with a very small income tax increase.

So yes, we can do this without any sector or group being totally devastated by it. We just won't do it, because every element of it is politically unpopular.

- wolf

 

[Carmen813]

A better question is why is Senator Kirk still voting on legislation?

Cause he is still a Senator until Brown is sworn in on the 11th?

I did read the link I provided. I still don't understand what legit reasons there were for voting against it, even if it is a token measure. It's an amendment to a bill. You can vote for an amendment to a bill and then vote against the bill as far as I know. In that case, why not?

What reason could there be other than to be well...an ass?

 

[Patranus]

Cause he is still a Senator until Brown is sworn in on the 11th?

His term expired the day when his successor was elected by the people.

 

[Linflas]

Research George H.W. Bush and the Andrews Airforce Base deal and you will have your answer.

 

[cubby1223]

If you actually read the link you provided you would notice that it was an amendment to the bill to increase the debt ceiling.

How is that supposed to work? PayGo means you won't add to the deficit, right? And increasing the debt ceiling is enabling adding to the deficit. Don't those two concepts cancel each other out?

 

[Jhhnn]

How is that supposed to work? PayGo means you won't add to the deficit, right? And increasing the debt ceiling is enabling adding to the deficit. Don't those two concepts cancel each other out?

Paygo is just a way to not increase spending. If you add to one program, you have to make cuts elsewhere. It doesn't speak to balancing the budget other than being a start in the right direction.

 

[werepossum]

How is that supposed to work? PayGo means you won't add to the deficit, right? And increasing the debt ceiling is enabling adding to the deficit. Don't those two concepts cancel each other out?

LOL! That pretty much sums up D.C., a promise not to raise the debt tacked onto a bill to raise the debt.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Anyone else notice this?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00012

Does anyone know why?

because the republicans have openly said they do not want Obama to accomplish anything while he is in office.
Thus they have all agreed to br obstructionists and vote "NO" on anyrthing that is sponsored by the Democrats!!
After all they stand no chance in hgell of winni9ng POTUS back if Obama accomnplishes a damn thing for the citizens....yet I have a feeling their strategy will bite them in the ass!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

His term expired the day when his successor was elected by the people.

Thjats not true and you know it....
Take this last presidential election....
Bush still served his term out until Obama was sworn in.
He must be sworn in first.....sorry charlie...

 

[Patranus]

because the republicans have openly said they do not want Obama to accomplish anything while he is in office.
Thus they have all agreed to br obstructionists and vote "NO" on anyrthing that is sponsored by the Democrats!!
After all they stand no chance in hgell of winni9ng POTUS back if Obama accomnplishes a damn thing for the citizens....yet I have a feeling their strategy will bite them in the ass!!

I am pretty sure some Republicans voted for the economic *stimulus* package and we all see the disaster that turned out to be. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice.....

 

[Ozoned]

Most of the budget can't be touched for either statutory or political reasons. Since there is no serious talk about actual cuts anywhere - merely a projected freeze for a few years at our already huge spending levels - any spending cuts will be minuscule and more than offset by new programs. Therefore any deficit reduction will come completely from new taxes. Right now we are borrowing roughly half of what we spend, so balancing the budget would require doubling total taxes plus enough for the new programs. That would result in having zero economy other than government-driven within one presidential term. Even the Marxist-in-Charge doesn't dare institute that much change that quickly.

We are committed to ride this tiger until it collapses. PayGo is nothing more than an attempt to give political cover to the Dems and everyone on both sides knows it.

Hell I don't know. If you knew your party was going to loose their majority, why wouldn't you do things to limit your replacements???

 

[Ozoned]

``Sec. 316. (a) Discretionary Spending Limits.--It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any provision that would cause the discretionary spending limits as set forth in this section to be exceeded.

``(b) Limits.--In this section, the term `discretionary spending limits' has the following meaning subject to adjustments in subsection (c):

``(1) For fiscal year 2010--

``(A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $556,128,000,000 in budget authority; and

``(B) for the nondefense category, $526,122,000,000 in budget authority.

``(2) For fiscal year 2011--

``(A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $564,293,000,000 in budget authority; and

``(B) for the nondefense category, $529,662,000,000 in budget authority.

``(3) For fiscal year 2012--

``(A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $573,612,000,000 in budget authority; and

``(B) for the nondefense category, $533,232,000,000 in budget authority.

``(4) For fiscal year 2013--

``(A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $584,421,000,000 in budget authority; and

``(B) for the nondefense category, $540,834,000,000 in budget authority.

``(5) For fiscal year 2014--

``(A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $598,249,000,000 in budget authority; and

``(B) for the nondefense category, $550,509,000,000 in budget authority.

``(6) With respect to fiscal years following 2014, the President shall recommend and the Congress shall consider legislation setting limits for those fiscal years.

 

[Double Trouble]

because the republicans have openly said they do not want Obama to accomplish anything while he is in office.
Thus they have all agreed to br obstructionists and vote "NO" on anyrthing that is sponsored by the Democrats!!
After all they stand no chance in hgell of winni9ng POTUS back if Obama accomnplishes a damn thing for the citizens....yet I have a feeling their strategy will bite them in the ass!!

Sigh. You sound like Craig, and you make the same logical error. For the entire first year of the Obama administration, the dems had complete and total control of the house and senate, including a supermajority. They could do any and everything they wanted, no matter what the republicans did. Don't whine and complain about obstruction -- the dems had the chance to do what they wanted to do and didn't.

Now that the republicans have (a theoretical max of) 41 votes in the senate, they could effectively obstruct the president's agenda, so going forward that might be a fair accusation.

 

[Jiggz]

The Democrats have been the supporters of 'fiscal responsiblity' 'pay as you go' laws for many years, and Republicvans have long opposed them.

You mean the $1.4T deficit last year and $1.3T for this year? And to top it all off the increase in debt ceiling of $1.9T?

Bill "BJ" Clinton never balanced the budget, it was Congress, a Republican Congress that is!

 

[Greenman]

The republicans new job is show up, vote no, go home. They don't come up with alternatives, they don't try anything. They just vote NO. And as I said, their voting no on items they have previously said yes to.

That makes them the perfect representatives. I'd be happy if that's all they ever did. Government turns everything it touches into a clusterfuck. Yes it gets stuff done, always at ten times what it should cost and years longer than it should ever take. We need to get away from the idea of doing something good, we need to embrace the the goal of simply not fucking anything up. Once our elected representatives have gone one year without a major fiasco, then, and only then, should we consider allowing them to try and "help us".

 

[Craig234]

The Democrats have been the supporters of 'fiscal responsiblity' 'pay as you go' laws for many years, and Republicvans have long opposed them.

You mean the $1.4T deficit last year and $1.3T for this year? And to top it all off the increase in debt ceiling of $1.9T?

Bill "BJ" Clinton never balanced the budget, it was Congress, a Republican Congress that is!

To repeat this once again, after it's beensaid so many times.

Look at the 30 year history. That tells yuo what's going on. Obama didn't choose to inherit the biggest economic meltdown since the great depression, which needed the government to spend to fix it.

Bill Clinton lowered the deficit steadily every year - under both Democratic and Republican congresses.

The Republican congress you give credit to was the same basic Congress that shot up the deficit the moment Bush was in office.

 

[Craig234]

Sigh. You sound like Craig, and you make the same logical error. For the entire first year of the Obama administration, the dems had complete and total control of the house and senate, including a supermajority. They could do any and everything they wanted, no matter what the republicans did. Don't whine and complain about obstruction -- the dems had the chance to do what they wanted to do and didn't.

Now that the republicans have (a theoretical max of) 41 votes in the senate, they could effectively obstruct the president's agenda, so going forward that might be a fair accusation.

You're the one making the errors, some of which are 'logic'.

Here's the government, do anything you want! Just note that the budget items out of your control GUARANTEE massive increases in reaction to the financial crisis with built in triggers, and the need for massive funds for preventing a worse crash just mean you can't spend a cent on the programs you would like in a normal economy.

And you can do anything you want with 60 members! You can afford for a whole zero of them not to agree with you, with loyal members like Joe Liebermann who was the planned Republican nominee for VP against you. Get 55 votes in favor of your bill - just know that means it doesn't pass, until you get the last few to agree, whatever the compromises they demand, because the Republicans wil tun their tiny minority of 40 into the most obstructionist minority in history, vetoing every bill they like with an agenda to keep you from getting anything passed good for the nation that will help you in the election.

No problem, piece of cake, no one to blame but Obama.

One 'bad' Democrat, with 40 obstructionist Republicans who abused the filibuster as a veto on anything, could block the passage of any bill. For that one bad Democrat, the blame is all the Democratic party?

You can make the case for blaming the corporatist Dems who joined Repubicans more easily than you can make the argument one bad Dem is the party's fault.

You are not saying one bad word about the 40 Republicans setting new records in obstructionism and abusing the filibuster. Without that, the Senate would pass a lot.

 

[Craig234]

I am pretty sure some Republicans voted for the economic *stimulus* package and we all see the disaster that turned out to be. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice.....

Yes, that's why the economy did enter the next great depression. Oh, wait, it didn't. The stimulus worked.

Now, there are further problems - we haven't fixed Wall Street and things will crash again.

 

[Greenman]

Yes, that's why the economy did enter the next great depression. Oh, wait, it didn't. The stimulus worked.

I take issue with that. Since most of the money hasn't made it's way into peoples hands, and because no stimulus bill has ever worked, it's pretty clear that it was the biggest pork barrel in the history of ever. What it did was give the appearance that our kind and benevolent leaders were hard at work solving the problems they had created. The solution they came up with is the same solution government always comes up with, throw money at it. So they buried the problem under a huge pile of cash. The thing is, after we've pissed away all the cash, the problem is still going to be there.

 

[txrandom]

I would vote in favor of raising taxes if it actually went to paying off the debt. But that would never happen.

 

[Sclamoz]

The Democrats have been the supporters of 'fiscal responsiblity' 'pay as you go' laws for many years, and Republicvans have long opposed them.

You mean the $1.4T deficit last year and $1.3T for this year? And to top it all off the increase in debt ceiling of $1.9T?

Bill "BJ" Clinton never balanced the budget, it was Congress, a Republican Congress that is!

Congress (even the republican congress in the 90s) raised the debt ceiling yearly. The republican congress also supported Paygo on top of that, so why don't they now?