There goes Pay Go

[ayabe]

More sniveling from the party of puss.

 

[techs]

Yes, lets ignore the Republican caused financial meltdown and ignore realities.
That's what Bush did for 8 years, ignore reality.

After we fix the Bush/Republican mess, then we can revisit paygo.

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: techs
Yes, lets ignore the Republican caused financial meltdown and ignore realities.
That's what Bush did for 8 years, ignore reality.

After we fix the Bush/Republican mess, then we can revisit paygo.

Had Obama campaigned to increase spending because its the democratic parties turn. You would be ok with that?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: winnar111

I guess we can axe another part of the falsified Obama plan.

Good

we need to spend and tax at home

YES WE CAN :thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

Hahaha that didnt last long.

A schucks and I thought these guys were going to keep their promise! Sounds like Democrats are laying the groundwork to fail just as bad as Republicans.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: AFMatt
People need to wake up and smell reality. PayGo is not a reality, it is a fancy vote getting fluff tactic. The idea worked for a few years and started unravelling in about 1998/99. Shoot, the Dems touted PayGo as something they would abide by and enforce while on their way to winning majority status 2 years ago. Have they? Hell no. There hasn't even been an attempt made to do so.

News flash: Unilateral Wars are fucking expensive and often unnecessary (Iraq) and are not compatible with "Pay as you go".

EDIT: Unless, as was the case with Iraq I - Desert Storm, you have the whole world paying large percentages of the cost of the war and the reconstruction. Then "Pay as you go" could possibly still be feasible.

Can you name us a multilateral war that was cheap?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Hahaha that didnt last long.

A schucks and I thought these guys were going to keep their promise! Sounds like Democrats are laying the groundwork to fail just as bad as Republicans.

No worries. The Iraq war has the (R)'s far in front in the failure department.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87
Hahaha that didnt last long.

A schucks and I thought these guys were going to keep their promise! Sounds like Democrats are laying the groundwork to fail just as bad as Republicans.

No worries. The Iraq war has the (R)'s far in front in the failure department.

Well it shouldnt take long for the dems to catch up in this regard. How many hundreds of billions in spending did the democrat lead congress authorize this year? How much will be authorized under Obama's first term?

I know Obama ran as a centrist. Becausee of this I await with interest to see if he smacks his own party down or just goes with the flow.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
The Con knee-jerk is off the charts on this one.

The original PayGo was adopted in 1990 and expired without reauthorization by the Rethug Congress prior to the 2002 Bush tax cits.

It was reauthorized by the Dem Congress in 2007 and was never intended to apply in times of War or Economic Recession.

Instead of acting 'offended' I wonder how many posters have contacted their elected representatives or the White House demanding that Commander Codpiece veto the legislation ??
I'm thinkin' ..... zero

The PAYGO rules could NOT have been vetoed. They do not have the force of law and are just parlimentary rules for each chamber.

Link

PAYGO rules, such as what the House did in January, do not have the force of law, are not self-enforcing, and cannot sequester funding. They establish parliamentary points of order that must be raised by a Member to take effect. They are binding only in the chamber that created them. To suspend them, only the chamber to which they apply must approve. In the House, the Rules Committee must make a rule that exempts a piece of legislation from PAYGO. In the Senate, 60 Senators must vote affirmatively to overturn a PAYGO point of order.

If this site is accurate, the PAYGO from the 90's was statutory, and the current one is not.


Also, looks like winnar111's (or the WSJ) point about PAYGO's purpose (taxation) might be correct. (This form of PAYGO did not affect discretionary spending, rather looks to have tied mandatory expenditures to tax policy. I would think it better to tie discretionary spending to tax policy. I can only assume it was done the *backwards way* for political/partisan games.)

Does PAYGO apply to discretionary spending?
No. No type of PAYGO applies to discretionary spending. Several procedures and rules put constraints on the annual appropriations process, but PAYGO is not one of them. PAYGO only applies to mandatory spending and taxation legislation. This means programs funded through the annual appropriations process, such Head Start, many environmental programs, and defense spending, are not covered by PAYGO.

Reading this site's description makes me think it's was mostly political BS anyway.

Oh, I don't see any con-knee jerk stuff, I do see apologists though.

IMO, the Dem Congressman quoted would have been better off just saying PAYGO doesn't make sense during a recession and left it at that (but I suppose that would have been at odds with their earlier remarks).

Fern

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
The Con knee-jerk is off the charts on this one.

The original PayGo was adopted in 1990 and expired without reauthorization by the Rethug Congress prior to the 2002 Bush tax cits.

It was reauthorized by the Dem Congress in 2007 and was never intended to apply in times of War or Economic Recession.

Instead of acting 'offended' I wonder how many posters have contacted their elected representatives or the White House demanding that Commander Codpiece veto the legislation ??
I'm thinkin' ..... zero

The PAYGO rules could NOT have been vetoed. They do not have the force of law and are just parlimentary rules for each chamber.

Link

PAYGO rules, such as what the House did in January, do not have the force of law, are not self-enforcing, and cannot sequester funding. They establish parliamentary points of order that must be raised by a Member to take effect. They are binding only in the chamber that created them. To suspend them, only the chamber to which they apply must approve. In the House, the Rules Committee must make a rule that exempts a piece of legislation from PAYGO. In the Senate, 60 Senators must vote affirmatively to overturn a PAYGO point of order.

If this site is accurate, the PAYGO from the 90's was statutory, and the current one is not.


Also, looks like winnar111's (or the WSJ) point about PAYGO's purpose (taxation) might be correct. (This form of PAYGO did not affect discretionary spending, rather looks to have tied mandatory expenditures to tax policy. I would think it better to tie discretionary spending to tax policy. I can only assume it was done the *backwards way* for political/partisan games.)

Does PAYGO apply to discretionary spending?
No. No type of PAYGO applies to discretionary spending. Several procedures and rules put constraints on the annual appropriations process, but PAYGO is not one of them. PAYGO only applies to mandatory spending and taxation legislation. This means programs funded through the annual appropriations process, such Head Start, many environmental programs, and defense spending, are not covered by PAYGO.

Reading this site's description makes me think it's was mostly political BS anyway.

Oh, I don't see any con-knee jerk stuff, I do see apologists though.

IMO, the Dem Congressman quoted would have been better off just saying PAYGO doesn't make sense during a recession and left it at that (but I suppose that would have been at odds with their earlier remarks).

Fern

You forgot the obligatory Fail remark.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122628143512612399.html

As Congress gears up to pass another spending "stimulus" bill, there's one political silver lining: Democrats are being forced to abandon the pretense of fiscal conservatism known as "pay as you go" budgeting.

Late last week the leader of the House Blue Dog Coalition, Tennessee Democrat Jim Cooper, announced that with Barack Obama about to enter the White House, "I'm not sure the old rules are relevant anymore." Why not? Because, Mr. Cooper said, "It would be unfair to the new President to put him in a budget straitjacket."

Democrats ran on "paygo" in 2006, promising to offset any new spending increases or tax cuts with comparable tax increases or spending cuts. Once in charge on Capitol Hill they quickly made exceptions, waiving paygo no fewer than 12 times to accommodate some $398 billion in new deficit spending -- not that the press corps bothered to notice. That didn't stop Majority Leader Steny Hoyer from announcing in May that "We're absolutely committed to paygo. Speaker [Nancy Pelosi] is committed to paygo. I'm very committed to paygo. Our caucus is committed to paygo."

Yet now Mr. Cooper is delivering official last rites, as the Washington spending machinery powers up in earnest. Paygo was always a big con designed not to reduce spending but to stop tax cuts. It was invented to stop the GOP Congress and then a Republican President, but it is inconvenient when Democrats run the show. With the recession available as an excuse for just about anything, get ready for the first $1 trillion federal budget deficit. And don't expect any howling from the Blue Dogs.


I guess we can axe another part of the falsified Obama plan.

#1 - Since when is the Wall Street Journal NOT part of the MSM? Excuse me, but they very much are. They should slap themselves for being part of the press corp, yet not reporting on any of these "attrocities" either.

# 2- How is a "falsified Obama plan" when he's not even in office yet? WTF?!? Are you people that fucking dense? He hasn't had a chance to prove himself either way.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Well it shouldnt take long for the dems to catch up in this regard. How many hundreds of billions in spending did the democrat lead congress authorize this year?

Are you referring to the trillion+ dollar government bailout proposed by the Bush admin and endorsed (and then opposed, and then endorsed, then opposed, then endorsed) by McCain?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Genx87

Well it shouldnt take long for the dems to catch up in this regard. How many hundreds of billions in spending did the democrat lead congress authorize this year?

Are you referring to the trillion+ dollar government bailout proposed by the Bush admin and endorsed by McCain?

Yes and dont forget voted yes on by Obama and a democrat congress.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. This is going to be great!

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87
Hahaha that didnt last long.

A schucks and I thought these guys were going to keep their promise! Sounds like Democrats are laying the groundwork to fail just as bad as Republicans.

No worries. The Iraq war has the (R)'s far in front in the failure department.

Actually, I figure the Democrats are still ahead thanks to Vietnam.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122628143512612399.html

As Congress gears up to pass another spending "stimulus" bill, there's one political silver lining: Democrats are being forced to abandon the pretense of fiscal conservatism known as "pay as you go" budgeting.

Late last week the leader of the House Blue Dog Coalition, Tennessee Democrat Jim Cooper, announced that with Barack Obama about to enter the White House, "I'm not sure the old rules are relevant anymore." Why not? Because, Mr. Cooper said, "It would be unfair to the new President to put him in a budget straitjacket."

Democrats ran on "paygo" in 2006, promising to offset any new spending increases or tax cuts with comparable tax increases or spending cuts. Once in charge on Capitol Hill they quickly made exceptions, waiving paygo no fewer than 12 times to accommodate some $398 billion in new deficit spending -- not that the press corps bothered to notice. That didn't stop Majority Leader Steny Hoyer from announcing in May that "We're absolutely committed to paygo. Speaker [Nancy Pelosi] is committed to paygo. I'm very committed to paygo. Our caucus is committed to paygo."

Yet now Mr. Cooper is delivering official last rites, as the Washington spending machinery powers up in earnest. Paygo was always a big con designed not to reduce spending but to stop tax cuts. It was invented to stop the GOP Congress and then a Republican President, but it is inconvenient when Democrats run the show. With the recession available as an excuse for just about anything, get ready for the first $1 trillion federal budget deficit. And don't expect any howling from the Blue Dogs.


I guess we can axe another part of the falsified Obama plan.

#1 - Since when is the Wall Street Journal NOT part of the MSM? Excuse me, but they very much are. They should slap themselves for being part of the press corp, yet not reporting on any of these "attrocities" either.

# 2- How is a "falsified Obama plan" when he's not even in office yet? WTF?!? Are you people that fucking dense? He hasn't had a chance to prove himself either way.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

"We can eliminate tax credits that have outlived their usefulness & close loopholes that let corporations get away without paying taxes. We can restore a law that was in place during the Clinton presidency--called Paygo--that prohibits money from leaving the treasury without some way of compensating for the lost revenue. "

 

[Genx87]

Ouch, that is going to sting a little.

 

[winnar111]

And look what's vanished from Obama's website and change.gov! :laugh:


http://www.barackobama.com/pdf...ObamaPolicy_Fiscal.pdf

Restore Fiscal Discipline in Congress
Obama will reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules, so that new spending or tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts or new revenue elsewhere.


http://64.233.169.104/search?q...=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

* Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama and Biden believe that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

 

[Genx87]

Hope somebody caches that site. It is going to change bigtime over the next few months.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: ayabe
More sniveling from the party of puss.

How's the view right next to Obama's balls?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Genx87

Well it shouldnt take long for the dems to catch up in this regard. How many hundreds of billions in spending did the democrat lead congress authorize this year?

Are you referring to the trillion+ dollar government bailout proposed by the Bush admin and endorsed (and then opposed, and then endorsed, then opposed, then endorsed) by McCain?

Endorsed by Obama, you mean? McCain is irrelevant.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: winnar111

I guess we can axe another part of the falsified Obama plan.

Good

we need to spend and tax at home

YES WE CAN :thumbsup:

Better tell your hero!

Middle class families will see their taxes cut ? and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan.

Obama?s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP).iii The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut ? his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000.



Ronald Reagan lifted us out of Carter's miserable economy and gave us unprecedented growth. Let's see what happens this time.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122628143512612399.html

As Congress gears up to pass another spending "stimulus" bill, there's one political silver lining: Democrats are being forced to abandon the pretense of fiscal conservatism known as "pay as you go" budgeting.

Late last week the leader of the House Blue Dog Coalition, Tennessee Democrat Jim Cooper, announced that with Barack Obama about to enter the White House, "I'm not sure the old rules are relevant anymore." Why not? Because, Mr. Cooper said, "It would be unfair to the new President to put him in a budget straitjacket."

Democrats ran on "paygo" in 2006, promising to offset any new spending increases or tax cuts with comparable tax increases or spending cuts. Once in charge on Capitol Hill they quickly made exceptions, waiving paygo no fewer than 12 times to accommodate some $398 billion in new deficit spending -- not that the press corps bothered to notice. That didn't stop Majority Leader Steny Hoyer from announcing in May that "We're absolutely committed to paygo. Speaker [Nancy Pelosi] is committed to paygo. I'm very committed to paygo. Our caucus is committed to paygo."

Yet now Mr. Cooper is delivering official last rites, as the Washington spending machinery powers up in earnest. Paygo was always a big con designed not to reduce spending but to stop tax cuts. It was invented to stop the GOP Congress and then a Republican President, but it is inconvenient when Democrats run the show. With the recession available as an excuse for just about anything, get ready for the first $1 trillion federal budget deficit. And don't expect any howling from the Blue Dogs.


I guess we can axe another part of the falsified Obama plan.

#1 - Since when is the Wall Street Journal NOT part of the MSM? Excuse me, but they very much are. They should slap themselves for being part of the press corp, yet not reporting on any of these "attrocities" either.

# 2- How is a "falsified Obama plan" when he's not even in office yet? WTF?!? Are you people that fucking dense? He hasn't had a chance to prove himself either way.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

"We can eliminate tax credits that have outlived their usefulness & close loopholes that let corporations get away without paying taxes. We can restore a law that was in place during the Clinton presidency--called Paygo--that prohibits money from leaving the treasury without some way of compensating for the lost revenue. "

Do you ever read posts before you respond to them? You didn't answer either of my questions.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: winnar111
And look what's vanished from Obama's website and change.gov! :laugh:


http://www.barackobama.com/pdf...ObamaPolicy_Fiscal.pdf

Restore Fiscal Discipline in Congress
Obama will reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules, so that new spending or tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts or new revenue elsewhere.


http://64.233.169.104/search?q...=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

* Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama and Biden believe that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

Uh, what? While it's not identical, it's virtually the same statement.

 

[JSt0rm]

you neocons are so funny touting fiscal responsibility like you have been fiscally responsible. If this is a turning point though and you all are going back to it then great. otherwise your just partisan racist hicks.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
you neocons are so funny touting fiscal responsibility like you have been fiscally responsible. If this is a turning point though and you all are going back to it then great. otherwise your just partisan racist hicks.

That doesn't even make sense.