Obama pitches pay-as-you-go plan for Congress

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._pr_wh/us_obama_budget

Obama pitches pay-as-you-go plan for Congress

WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama on Tuesday challenged Congress to force itself to pay for new spending as it goes rather than sink the nation deeper into a debt, calling it a matter of public responsibility. Republicans lashed back that Obama is no voice of fiscal restraint as the deficit soars.

The president's plan would require Congress to pay for new increases to federal benefit programs such as health care by raising taxes or coming up with budget cuts ? a "pay-as-you-go" system that would have the force of law. Under the proposal, if new spending or tax reductions are not offset, there would be automatic cuts in so-called mandatory programs ? although Social Security payments and some other programs would be exempt.

Not noted by the president: Tuesday's plan is a watered-down version of the so-called "PAYGO" rules proposed just last month in his own budget plan.

That version would have required, on average, all affected legislation to be paid for in the very first year. The new plan only requires such legislation to be financed over the coming decade. That mirrors congressional rules and reflects the likelihood that health care reform will add to the deficit in the early years.

Obama said the principle is simple: Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar somewhere else.

"It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved from record deficits to record surpluses in the 1990s ? and that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record deficits that doubled the national debt," Obama said, flanked at the White House by supportive Democratic lawmakers.



Lets see. We went from 70 years of deficit spending to a surplus under this rule.
And the Republicans are against it?
Well, now I know the truth. The Republicans are full of shit.

 

[alchemize]

"The new plan only requires such legislation to be financed over the coming decade." Enough said, it's BS.

 

[MotF Bane]

It only covers mandatory spending, but then stipulates that some mandatory spending items are not affected by this. :/

 

[JD50]

I thought "the most ethical congress ever" came up with paygo several years ago and has been adhering strictly to it since then?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
It only covers mandatory spending, but then stipulates that some mandatory spending items are not affected by this. :/

Curse those full of shit republicans!

 

[Budmantom]

Do we get a paygo Czar, that would be one more job.

 

[Budmantom]

Let's see who really wants to do something about the deficit.





Barry has been doing something about the deficit and you still haven't seen anything.

 

[No20bama]

Lol, this is after his people expanded the deficit to 4 times the highest its ever been.

Guess it can only go down!

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._pr_wh/us_obama_budget

Obama pitches pay-as-you-go plan for Congress

WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama on Tuesday challenged Congress to force itself to pay for new spending as it goes rather than sink the nation deeper into a debt, calling it a matter of public responsibility. Republicans lashed back that Obama is no voice of fiscal restraint as the deficit soars.

The president's plan would require Congress to pay for new increases to federal benefit programs such as health care by raising taxes or coming up with budget cuts ? a "pay-as-you-go" system that would have the force of law. Under the proposal, if new spending or tax reductions are not offset, there would be automatic cuts in so-called mandatory programs ? although Social Security payments and some other programs would be exempt.

Not noted by the president: Tuesday's plan is a watered-down version of the so-called "PAYGO" rules proposed just last month in his own budget plan.

That version would have required, on average, all affected legislation to be paid for in the very first year. The new plan only requires such legislation to be financed over the coming decade. That mirrors congressional rules and reflects the likelihood that health care reform will add to the deficit in the early years.

Obama said the principle is simple: Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar somewhere else.

"It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved from record deficits to record surpluses in the 1990s ? and that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record deficits that doubled the national debt," Obama said, flanked at the White House by supportive Democratic lawmakers.



Lets see. We went from 70 years of deficit spending to a surplus under this rule.
And the Republicans are against it?
Well, now I know the truth. The Republicans are full of shit.

In other words, another excuse to raise taxes.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._pr_wh/us_obama_budget

Obama pitches pay-as-you-go plan for Congress

WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama on Tuesday challenged Congress to force itself to pay for new spending as it goes rather than sink the nation deeper into a debt, calling it a matter of public responsibility. Republicans lashed back that Obama is no voice of fiscal restraint as the deficit soars.

The president's plan would require Congress to pay for new increases to federal benefit programs such as health care by raising taxes or coming up with budget cuts ? a "pay-as-you-go" system that would have the force of law. Under the proposal, if new spending or tax reductions are not offset, there would be automatic cuts in so-called mandatory programs ? although Social Security payments and some other programs would be exempt.

Not noted by the president: Tuesday's plan is a watered-down version of the so-called "PAYGO" rules proposed just last month in his own budget plan.

That version would have required, on average, all affected legislation to be paid for in the very first year. The new plan only requires such legislation to be financed over the coming decade. That mirrors congressional rules and reflects the likelihood that health care reform will add to the deficit in the early years.

Obama said the principle is simple: Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar somewhere else.

"It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved from record deficits to record surpluses in the 1990s ? and that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record deficits that doubled the national debt," Obama said, flanked at the White House by supportive Democratic lawmakers.



Lets see. We went from 70 years of deficit spending to a surplus under this rule.
And the Republicans are against it?
Well, now I know the truth. The Republicans are full of shit.

In other words, another excuse to raise taxes.

Actually Pay-Go is the best Idea to come in Decades. It certainly would, if adhered to strictly, control Deficits. If new Taxes are required, then they are required. It makes no sense to increase Program Spending and not ensure the necessary Funding to go with it. If you don't want more Tax, don't create more Programs on top of what is already there.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

This is, in every way, better than the spending mentality of the previous party running things. The only legitimate criticism is it may not go far enough. Anything else is just showing your partisan colors.

 

[BoberFett]

Come on mods, I can see banning the little troll, but posting his personal information seems a bit over the top, and potentially risky for Anand.

---

Kalyan Rachakonda has started at least eleven separate accounts on our forums since 2004, and he has been as malicious under every one of them.

I make no apologies for posting his personal information. If he doesn't like it, maybe it will discourage him from trying again, but knowing what POS he is, I doubt it will sink in.

Harvey
Senior AnandTech Moderator

 

[nageov3t]

step 1: pay for universal healthcare with a tax increase not scheduled to take effect for 9 years
step 2: wait 8.9 years
step 3: vote down paygo rules, repeal tax increase

?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Come on mods, I can see banning the little troll, but posting his personal information seems a bit over the top, and potentially risky for Anand.

Except for Bruce Springsteen and John Stewart, nothing Good has ever come out of NJ.

 

[jpeyton]

Slash the military budget first.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Come on mods, I can see banning the little troll, but posting his personal information seems a bit over the top, and potentially risky for Anand.

Except for Bruce Springsteen and John Stewart, nothing Good has ever come out of NJ.

The Kevin Smith Jersey movies are good.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Come on mods, I can see banning the little troll, but posting his personal information seems a bit over the top, and potentially risky for Anand.

Except for Bruce Springsteen and John Stewart, nothing Good has ever come out of NJ.

Frank Sinatra, Michael Douglas, and Meryl Streep beg to disagree! 😉

 

[StageLeft]

LOL, that's rich. It's like a rapist appealing to the general public to put in new ways to prevent rape.

This is just like what NY's paterson has done recently.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Come on mods, I can see banning the little troll, but posting his personal information seems a bit over the top, and potentially risky for Anand.

Except for Bruce Springsteen and John Stewart, nothing Good has ever come out of NJ.

Frank Sinatra, Michael Douglas, and Meryl Streep beg to disagree! 😉

ok, perhaps there's a few more exceptions..:laugh:

 

[Banzai042]

Eh, if they actually stick to it things would probably get a bit better. I do wonder how they'll decide what other programs will get automatically cut should a proposal not be paid for. Would it be a project based in the district of the sponsor(s) of new spending? Would there be a "default cut list"? This last one could obviously create a problem, if somebody wanted to kill something on a default list all they'd need to do would be propose new spending without "paying" for it. I'm very interested in seeing where this goes, some true fiscal responsibility might be nice to have.

As far as the republican concern goes, while it's easy to dismiss them as hypocrites for calling for fiscal responsibility while questioning the merits of such a plan, there can be rational arguments for doing so. For instance, Democrats might be inclined to propose universal healthcare, and pay for it by cutting into the military budget or raising taxes, something I'm sure several people here would support. However UHC, cutting the military budget, or tax increases aren't things that you'd expect republicans would support. This is obviously a less likely case, but it's an easy talking point in opposition to something like this, and I'm guessing we'll hear more about this as a pay as you go rule gets discussed more.

It's also worth nothing that republicans are calling for legal limits on appropriations, which also existed in the 90s, possibly in an effort to limit tax increases that could result from a plan like this.

Personally, I'm not seeing any real problems with limiting the government to spending money it has, and limiting how much that spending can increase in a given year.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Lol, this is after his people expanded the deficit to 4 times the highest its ever been.

Guess it can only go down!

winnar! Long time no see, bud. Please learn to see past your own partisan blindness. If you did that, then you may have been much more 'tolerated' around here. There are plenty of legitimate conservative arguments that can be made against Obama's policies/actions, and posts like these are really hurting their cause.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Slash the military budget first.

Although I support a large military and heavy R&D, for far too long the military has been a sacred cow when it comes to trimming the fat. The military is just as pork-ridden as any other government agency, if not moreso. It is time we took a more serious look at their expendatures without the blind shouting of 'you don't support the troops!'.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: winnar111
Lol, this is after his people expanded the deficit to 4 times the highest its ever been.

Guess it can only go down!

winnar! Long time no see, bud. Please learn to see past your own partisan blindness. If you did that, then you may have been much more 'tolerated' around here. There are plenty of legitimate conservative arguments that can be made against Obama's policies/actions, and posts like these are really hurting their cause.

That's correct the leftists want nothing to do with the facts.

Now lets talk about the jobs the Barry has saved or created.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: No20bama

I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain ...

And my head I'd be a scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'

If I only had a brain

$ 833,484,299,633.84 (That's $834 billion)
Accumulated Federal Debt in the last 120 days of the Bush Administration

$765,200,565,417.31
Accumulated Federal Debt in the first 139 days of the Obama Administration




Commander Codpiece is clearly the wiener at nearly $7 billion per day in Federal Debt.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..._pr_wh/us_obama_budget

Obama pitches pay-as-you-go plan for Congress

WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama on Tuesday challenged Congress to force itself to pay for new spending as it goes rather than sink the nation deeper into a debt, calling it a matter of public responsibility. Republicans lashed back that Obama is no voice of fiscal restraint as the deficit soars.

The president's plan would require Congress to pay for new increases to federal benefit programs such as health care by raising taxes or coming up with budget cuts ? a "pay-as-you-go" system that would have the force of law. Under the proposal, if new spending or tax reductions are not offset, there would be automatic cuts in so-called mandatory programs ? although Social Security payments and some other programs would be exempt.

Not noted by the president: Tuesday's plan is a watered-down version of the so-called "PAYGO" rules proposed just last month in his own budget plan.

That version would have required, on average, all affected legislation to be paid for in the very first year. The new plan only requires such legislation to be financed over the coming decade. That mirrors congressional rules and reflects the likelihood that health care reform will add to the deficit in the early years.

Obama said the principle is simple: Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar somewhere else.

"It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved from record deficits to record surpluses in the 1990s ? and that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record deficits that doubled the national debt," Obama said, flanked at the White House by supportive Democratic lawmakers.



Lets see. We went from 70 years of deficit spending to a surplus under this rule.
And the Republicans are against it?
Well, now I know the truth. The Republicans are full of shit.

In other words, another excuse to raise taxes.

Actually Pay-Go is the best Idea to come in Decades. It certainly would, if adhered to strictly, control Deficits. If new Taxes are required, then they are required. It makes no sense to increase Program Spending and not ensure the necessary Funding to go with it. If you don't want more Tax, don't create more Programs on top of what is already there.

Yes but tax hikes are unpopular, and the tax hikes to cover Obama's deficits for this year and the next 9, as well as fund all of his pet projects would amount to some VERY VERY large tax hikes. The Obama admin is already coming up with creative new taxs, fast food taxes, sugary drink taxes, even higher taxes on tobacco, higher taxes on alcohol, taxes on healthcare benefits, etc etc etc. You can tell they ARE trying to not raise the tax brackets, but they will have to do all the above and raise the tax brackets if they adhered to any REAL(which this program Obama is wanting is quasi-real) PayGo system.

The american public is about to get nickled and dimed to death with highly regressive taxes. Then when that fails to pay for everything prepare for a 3-5% tax hike for most individuals. Maybe 5%+ for those that are "rich", those being people that make over $250,000.

I can see the ending badly for the Dems(and american public) over the course of the next decade.