All Republican Senators Voted Against PayGo?

[Carmen813]

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

Does anyone know why?

 

[Jhhnn]

Because repubs love deficits?

 

[Carmen813]

Honestly this makes absolutely no sense to me. Unless this bill did something they really despise, why could none of them vote for this? More so, why aren't Democrats jumping on it?

Something weird going on here.

 

[Carmen813]

Well, apparently this was added as an amendment to the bill that increased the limit on the federal debt. I suppose that offers an explanation. Still, I would think they would vote for the amendment then vote against increasing the debt ceiling.

 

[Dulanic]

They voted against it so they can continue to whine about the deficit and yet vote against things like this. At least a handful of them had previously voted for a similar bill back in the Bush years, but now this is Obama so VOTE NO! That's what we are good for!

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.

 

[Carmen813]

They voted against it so they can continue to whine about the deficit and yet vote against things like this. At least a handful of them had previously voted for a similar bill back in the Bush years, but now this is Obama so VOTE NO! That's what we are good for!

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.

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

 

[LTC8K6]

Were they able to split their vote? If not, then why the question? They voted against raising the debt limt, of course.

"Seeking to ease the pain of the debt-limit vote, Senate Democrats paired it with a budget-control measure that would require new spending to be offset with cuts elsewhere, an approach called 'paygo' used successfully in the 1990s to turn deficits into surpluses.

Republicans said that measure could be easily circumvented and none voted for it."

 

[Craig234]

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

'Fiscal Responibilty' is a slogan to get votes on, not a policy to enact. It's the big lie - fo Republicans to acvept the facts means they have to understand they lie THAT BADLY, and their brains explode.

So the way it works is Republicans keep the ideologue voters fed with fiscal responsibility talk and Republicans keep their heads from exploding by saying 'Repbs are bad but Dems are worse'.

Who was the last President to undo Republican deficits and alance the budget again? Oh ya a Democrat.

Republicans are lucky they have such gullible followers who can swallos the loies for decades, but the Dems are worse, but the Dems are worse.

This week in this forum, Repubs could not say that tax cuts that are borrowed are anything other than 'letting people keep their money'.

They focus the issue on 'spending cuts', by whic hthey mean cutting sdpending the government does for the benefit of people who are not the rich, and so which they want to cut badly to get more for the rich.

 

[JS80]

PayGo is a gimmick.

 

[Sclamoz]

Were they able to split their vote? If not, then why the question? They voted against raising the debt limt, of course.

This vote was not on the bill to increase the debt limit but on a specific amendment. The Rs could have voted for Paygo and against the debt limit increase if they wanted.

This vote flies in the face of fiscal responsibility.

 

[QuantumPion]

Probably because paygo for democrats = raise taxes as opposed to reduce spending.

 

[sandorski]

Probably because paygo for democrats = raise taxes as opposed to reduce spending.

It has to be both.

 

[woolfe9999]

The repubs voted against establishing a bi-partisan commission on deficit reduction, including 6 repubs who were orginally sponsors of the idea. They voted against PayGo. They don't want to have to actually pay for their own pet spending projects, whether it is new entitlement programs or foreign wars. They will never vote to reduce spending on the military, social security, medicare, or to raise taxes to reduce the deficit. When are people going to wake up about the true record of repubs on fiscal responsibility. Opposing earmarks is not "fiscal responsibility"; it's a fig leaf nod to the concept of it only. They are bankrupt of ideas or political will to reduce the deficit.

- wolf

 

[PokerGuy]

It has to be both.

No, you can cut spending without having to raise taxes.

 

[PokerGuy]

This vote was not on the bill to increase the debt limit but on a specific amendment. The Rs could have voted for Paygo and against the debt limit increase if they wanted.

This vote flies in the face of fiscal responsibility.

Paygo is full of holes and easily exploited. Why vote for something that allows the dems to pretend that they are trying to be fiscally responsible when they are not?

 

[sandorski]

No, you can cut spending without having to raise taxes.

Not gonna happen. No one, not even you will be happy with what will end up being Cut, even with Taxes. Never mind the kind of Austerity it would take to do it without Taxes.

 

[PokerGuy]

Not gonna happen. No one, not even you will be happy with what will end up being Cut, even with Taxes. Never mind the kind of Austerity it would take to do it without Taxes.

That's BS. Taxes are usually taken as a percentage of something (value, income, sales etc), so they already go up with inflation and the growth of the economy. Unless the government has a legitimate reason why additional spending is needed (ie new spending on some new program), there's absolutely no legitimate reason to ever increase taxes. Take the axe to current spending, bring it in line with income, then we can talk about increasing taxes temporarily to reduce the debt.

 

[Sclamoz]

Paygo is full of holes and easily exploited. Why vote for something that allows the dems to pretend that they are trying to be fiscally responsible when they are not?

Because the point isn't to try and make the other party look bad? Even if it doesn't work as advertised it has to be better than what we have now. How can the Rs claim to be fiscally responsible and not vote that way solely based on the fact it might help the other parties image!

What holes and exploits are there in Paygo I would like to know, because afaik it was a big reason the government was able to start cutting the deficit in the 90s.

 

[PokerGuy]

Because the point isn't to try and make the other party look bad?

What holes and exploits are there in Paygo I would like to know, because afaik it was a big reason the government was able to start cutting the deficit in the 90s.

It's not a matter of opposing it even though it's a good thing because you want the other guy to look bad, it's a matter of opposing it because you know the other guy just wants to use it to pretend that he's doing good things when in fact he's not.

Good summary of the pros and cons of paygo: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/83xx/doc8385/07-24-PAYGO_Testimony.pdf

 

[blackangst1]

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

Well, except for those pesky Republicans that voted to balance the budget under Clinton.

Oops. Nice try though.

 

[Fear No Evil]

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

'Fiscal Responibilty' is a slogan to get votes on, not a policy to enact. It's the big lie - fo Republicans to acvept the facts means they have to understand they lie THAT BADLY, and their brains explode.

So the way it works is Republicans keep the ideologue voters fed with fiscal responsibility talk and Republicans keep their heads from exploding by saying 'Repbs are bad but Dems are worse'.

Who was the last President to undo Republican deficits and alance the budget again? Oh ya a Democrat.

Republicans are lucky they have such gullible followers who can swallos the loies for decades, but the Dems are worse, but the Dems are worse.

This week in this forum, Repubs could not say that tax cuts that are borrowed are anything other than 'letting people keep their money'.

They focus the issue on 'spending cuts', by whic hthey mean cutting sdpending the government does for the benefit of people who are not the rich, and so which they want to cut badly to get more for the rich.

You lie.

 

[sandorski]

That's BS. Taxes are usually taken as a percentage of something (value, income, sales etc), so they already go up with inflation and the growth of the economy. Unless the government has a legitimate reason why additional spending is needed (ie new spending on some new program), there's absolutely no legitimate reason to ever increase taxes. Take the axe to current spending, bring it in line with income, then we can talk about increasing taxes temporarily to reduce the debt.

As inflation increases, so do Expenses to Government. You might be thinking GDP Growth, in which case Government Revenues may increase faster than Expenses. The problem with that idea is that it would take way too long to eliminate Deficits on Growth alone.

You have no idea, obviously, how much Cutting would be required to accomplish Balancing the Budget on Cuts alone. There are already major Needs for more Spending that has been put off such as with Roads and Bridges for eg. Cutting 25-30%(minus the Stimulus Spending in the Deficit which will end eventually) from the Budget will bring hardship that even you will notice. That's just too drastic a Cut.

If you are serious about Balancing the Budget, you need to do it quickly. Cutting Spending and Raising Taxes can do it within a single Presidential Term. Not increasing Taxes will end up drawing it out beyond that point and it will become next to impossible Politically to achieve.

Balance the Budget, then Cut Taxes back and restore needed Funding as the Surpluses begin to roll in. If it is not done this way it will Fail. Guaranteed.

 

[BoberFett]

No, you can cut spending without having to raise taxes.

We should be able to, but the hole we have dug for ourselves require both right now.

 

[Genx87]

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

'Fiscal Responibilty' is a slogan to get votes on, not a policy to enact. It's the big lie - fo Republicans to acvept the facts means they have to understand they lie THAT BADLY, and their brains explode.

So the way it works is Republicans keep the ideologue voters fed with fiscal responsibility talk and Republicans keep their heads from exploding by saying 'Repbs are bad but Dems are worse'.

Who was the last President to undo Republican deficits and alance the budget again? Oh ya a Democrat.

Republicans are lucky they have such gullible followers who can swallos the loies for decades, but the Dems are worse, but the Dems are worse.

This week in this forum, Repubs could not say that tax cuts that are borrowed are anything other than 'letting people keep their money'.

They focus the issue on 'spending cuts', by whic hthey mean cutting sdpending the government does for the benefit of people who are not the rich, and so which they want to cut badly to get more for the rich.

Is that why the Democrat congress dumped their own Paygo rule within a year of its implementation in 2007??????



And of course they also made so many exceptions Paygo really became nothing more than a talking point. True Paygo was implemented through the 1990s and into 2002. it was allowed to lapse for the Medicare Prescription benefit. So, we get Paygo until Obama needs a new program. Then it will be dropped like a bad habit with a small story on page 13 in your local newspaper.

How about this, instead of passing a meaningless Paygo requirement that will be broken the first time they cant afford a new program. Actually cut gov spending and do some real leg work instead?

 

[werepossum]

As inflation increases, so do Expenses to Government. You might be thinking GDP Growth, in which case Government Revenues may increase faster than Expenses. The problem with that idea is that it would take way too long to eliminate Deficits on Growth alone.

You have no idea, obviously, how much Cutting would be required to accomplish Balancing the Budget on Cuts alone. There are already major Needs for more Spending that has been put off such as with Roads and Bridges for eg. Cutting 25-30%(minus the Stimulus Spending in the Deficit which will end eventually) from the Budget will bring hardship that even you will notice. That's just too drastic a Cut.

If you are serious about Balancing the Budget, you need to do it quickly. Cutting Spending and Raising Taxes can do it within a single Presidential Term. Not increasing Taxes will end up drawing it out beyond that point and it will become next to impossible Politically to achieve.

Balance the Budget, then Cut Taxes back and restore needed Funding as the Surpluses begin to roll in. If it is not done this way it will Fail. Guaranteed.

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.