There goes Pay Go

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Paygo went 8 years ago when Bush was elected.

Do you have "Bush did it" bound to a key yet? I would hate for you to get carpal-tunnel by having to type that out every time you use it to deflect from Obama.

Why? Does it bother you that much that your president screwed up the country so bad that people say that about everything? Cant admit you were wrong?

Obama isnt even president for another 2+ months, everything we see going on here is Bush's fault. Welcome to the effects of your vote. Nice job right wingers ! Thanks alot /rolls eyes

Really? That is interesting. I'm pretty sure congress had to approve most of the legislation that has taken effect. Who runs that branch of our government, it is alluding me right now? Who voted for Iraq? Who continues to fund it?

Um... Congress, and for the past 2 years the dems control it... And yes, they voted for the war and continue to fund it. What do you want me to say? The dems were cowardly putz's for OK'ing Bush's war. They were more afraid of losing thier elections in the post 9/11 pro america - Anti middle east sentiment that swept over much of the country at that time. Totaly politics and totally lame. As for continuing to fund it. What choice do they have. If they cut off funding, they get attacked for abandoning the troops. Its too late, we are there, we cant just cut funds. There is no easy answer to the mess that we are in.

My point remains... Even though the dems were chicken shit and allowed Bush to do as he pleased, doesnt change that Bush did it... Bush, as the president of the most powerful nation on Earth, lead them in (with lies of WMD's) , and they wrongly followed... Who's war is it? Bush's?

I know one dem that was strongly against it and spoke out about it... Obama.

 

[ElFenix]

paygo is a retarted rule for morans during a recession anyway

 

[chrisho]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Paygo went 8 years ago when Bush was elected.

paygo was lip service the day it was announced.

since then it has been politics as usual.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: 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.

Um, no, he isn't, and he's still a senior sitting US Senator. Genx referred to the dems passing large spending bills. I think the fact that over one trillion dollars has been proposed by the republican president's admin and approved by the republican presidential candidate is quite relevant. And I'm not looking to absolve the dems of anything, they did pass the legislation (with wide bipartisan support), but the first 6 of the last 8 years was a rep lead congress with a rep president who buried us in record debt, so spare me the partisan outrage.

Oh boy, you're gonna have a busy 8 years trying to find things to complain about Obama that somehow measure up to a politicized justice dept, incomprehensibly unqualified nominees and appointments, endorsing and defending torture and rendition, and starting wars with manufactured evidence. I'm sure I left some stuff out, Harvey can probably recite a few more off the top of his head.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: 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.

Clearly you didn't. Obama has (had?) a plan to make Congress restore the paygo rule. Now the Democrats in Congress are saying they're not going along with it.

I'm sure when he actually reneges on everything though, you'll still be defending him.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Huh? Do you bother to learn the slightest thing about these subjects before you post?

They are talking about economic stimulus packages. Economic stimulus packages are almost by definition deficit spending. If you offset a stimulus package with a tax increase or spending cut, then you aren't adding any extra money to the economy, rendering your stimulus nonexistent. This was talked about when the first stimulus was discussed, and should be obvious.

and here come the excuses.

Pelosi et al have been hammering Bush on paygo for the last two years.

You know it, I know it, Paygo was a political farce from the get go that the dems have used to skewer Bush and his administration. Now that the messiah is in office, they can conveniently ignore their own previous arguments. And this goes beyond the "stimulus packages". It will be the same with the welfare increases, unemployment extensions and universal healthcare.

!?! This isn't about policy differences, this is about winnar not understanding what economic stimulus is. This is basic logic.

If the government puts $600 billion into the economy through deficit spending there might be some inflationary pressures, etc... but at the time roughly $600 billion still goes into the economy. If they offset that $600 billion with $600 billion in new taxes as paygo would require, then the net effect is zero, so all they are doing is wasting ink on the legislation. To think that they would apply paygo to economic stimulus would simply require someone to be completely ignorant as to what economic stimulus was, or to have a partisan agenda in which you are hoping other people are as ignorant about economic stimulus.

As far as paygo, I sincerely doubt Obama will end up following it either, and as mentioned before the Democrats in Congress had already found tons of ways around it. To try and cry about it in relation to this bill though... is completely retarded.

EDIT: And I'm also getting mighty sick of the same culprits time and time again making a stupid post about a subject they obviously don't understand, and then when people try to tell them they are wrong... not on policy... but on simple definitions and concepts, someone always chimes in with "cue the apologists!"

There are so many legitimate things you will be able to criticize Obama about, why resort to these pathetic ones?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: 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.

Um, no, he isn't, and he's still a senior sitting US Senator. Genx referred to the dems passing large spending bills. I think the fact that over one trillion dollars has been proposed by the republican president's admin and approved by the republican presidential candidate is quite relevant. And I'm not looking to absolve the dems of anything, they did pass the legislation (with wide bipartisan support), but the first 6 of the last 8 years was a rep lead congress with a rep president who buried us in record debt, so spare me the partisan outrage.

The fact that you don't mention that the $1 trillion was approved by a Democratic Congress, endorsed by a Democratic Presidential Candidate, and most importantly, spent by a Democratic President (most of the bailout money is still available) in 2 months kind of means you're looking to absolve them of something.

That Rep lead congress with a Rep president will no longer be holding the record soon. And yes, McCain is irrelevant; he's a minority senator with little membership on the finance committees.

 

[alchemize]

Can we officially declare this the first thread of Obama apologists and "but Bush!"? OP please edit the title...

Oh the ironing

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Clearly you didn't. Obama has (had?) a plan to make Congress restore the paygo rule. Now the Democrats in Congress are saying they're not going along with it.

I'm sure when he actually reneges on everything though, you'll still be defending him.

No, but nice try.

But again, why are you blaming Obama for this? Obama certainly does not control all Democrats nor has he even taken office yet, and has yet to prove one way or another how he will behave on this matter. You, on the other hand, have already judged him with absolutely zero data to back yourself up.

Nice.

Plus, you claim that something has vanished from Obama's web site when clearly the two statements you reference are virtually the same. Nothing has actually vanished, despite your claims, and anyone with two brain cells can see the meaning behind each is exactly the same.

Any comment on that? Or are you just going to blather along blissful in your ignorance?

I mean, WTF?!? WTF.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111
Clearly you didn't. Obama has (had?) a plan to make Congress restore the paygo rule. Now the Democrats in Congress are saying they're not going along with it.

I'm sure when he actually reneges on everything though, you'll still be defending him.

No, but nice try.

But again, why are you blaming Obama for this? Obama certainly does not control all Democrats nor has he even taken office yet, and has yet to prove one way or another how he will behave on this matter. You, on the other hand, have already judged him with absolutely zero data to back yourself up.

Nice.

Plus, you claim that something has vanished from Obama's web site when clearly the two statements you reference are virtually the same. Nothing has actually vanished, despite your claims, and anyone with two brain cells can see the meaning behind each is exactly the same.

Any comment on that? Or are you just going to blather along blissful in your ignorance?

I mean, WTF?!? WTF.

That link is to the google cached version of the sites, given that the original version is no longer available.

In any case, his policy is to restore Paygo in Congress, which means he's going to have to control the Democrats in Congress to fulfill his pledge.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111
Clearly you didn't. Obama has (had?) a plan to make Congress restore the paygo rule. Now the Democrats in Congress are saying they're not going along with it.

I'm sure when he actually reneges on everything though, you'll still be defending him.

No, but nice try.

But again, why are you blaming Obama for this? Obama certainly does not control all Democrats nor has he even taken office yet, and has yet to prove one way or another how he will behave on this matter. You, on the other hand, have already judged him with absolutely zero data to back yourself up.

Nice.

Plus, you claim that something has vanished from Obama's web site when clearly the two statements you reference are virtually the same. Nothing has actually vanished, despite your claims, and anyone with two brain cells can see the meaning behind each is exactly the same.

Any comment on that? Or are you just going to blather along blissful in your ignorance?

I mean, WTF?!? WTF.

That link is to the google cached version of the sites, given that the original version is no longer available.

Right, and you tried to insinuate that something had changed when the meaning of the two passages you quoted is for all meaningful purposes identical. So either you were quoting something for absolutely no purpose thus wasting your time and our time, or you were dishonestly trying to assert that Obama was covering up a change. Which was it?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: winnar111
That link is to the google cached version of the sites, given that the original version is no longer available.

In any case, his policy is to restore Paygo in Congress, which means he's going to have to control the Democrats in Congress to fulfill his pledge.

And so? You're unwilling to wait until January 2009 to find out whether he will or not? Ahhh, I get it. Do you even have a point?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111
Clearly you didn't. Obama has (had?) a plan to make Congress restore the paygo rule. Now the Democrats in Congress are saying they're not going along with it.

I'm sure when he actually reneges on everything though, you'll still be defending him.

No, but nice try.

But again, why are you blaming Obama for this? Obama certainly does not control all Democrats nor has he even taken office yet, and has yet to prove one way or another how he will behave on this matter. You, on the other hand, have already judged him with absolutely zero data to back yourself up.

Nice.

Plus, you claim that something has vanished from Obama's web site when clearly the two statements you reference are virtually the same. Nothing has actually vanished, despite your claims, and anyone with two brain cells can see the meaning behind each is exactly the same.

Any comment on that? Or are you just going to blather along blissful in your ignorance?

I mean, WTF?!? WTF.

That link is to the google cached version of the sites, given that the original version is no longer available.

Right, and you tried to insinuate that something had changed when the meaning of the two passages you quoted is for all meaningful purposes identical. So either you were quoting something for absolutely no purpose thus wasting your time and our time, or you were dishonestly trying to assert that Obama was covering up a change. Which was it?

He's certainly covering up a lot of things, given that his campaign rhetoric was on change.gov and suddenly its down for business. :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Right, and you tried to insinuate that something had changed when the meaning of the two passages you quoted is for all meaningful purposes identical. So either you were quoting something for absolutely no purpose thus wasting your time and our time, or you were dishonestly trying to assert that Obama was covering up a change. Which was it?

He's certainly covering up a lot of things, given that his campaign rhetoric was on change.gov and suddenly its down for business. :laugh:

Didn't think you could answer my question. Why do you even waste your time posting here?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111
That link is to the google cached version of the sites, given that the original version is no longer available.

In any case, his policy is to restore Paygo in Congress, which means he's going to have to control the Democrats in Congress to fulfill his pledge.

And so? You're unwilling to wait until January 2009 to find out whether he will or not? Ahhh, I get it. Do you even have a point?

I'd figure after the Bush presidency, lefties would have dropped the wait and see approach. When he and his subordinates propose policy, I take them at their word. And so do other people, which is why MLB players are looking to frontload their salaries.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111
That link is to the google cached version of the sites, given that the original version is no longer available.

In any case, his policy is to restore Paygo in Congress, which means he's going to have to control the Democrats in Congress to fulfill his pledge.

And so? You're unwilling to wait until January 2009 to find out whether he will or not? Ahhh, I get it. Do you even have a point?

I'd figure after the Bush presidency, lefties would have dropped the wait and see approach. When he and his subordinates propose policy, I take them at their word. And so do other people, which is why MLB players are looking to frontload their salaries.

Um, I hate to break it to you, but we're still forced to endure the Bush Presidency for another 3 months or whtever. Or did you think Obama's already moved into the oval office?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Right, and you tried to insinuate that something had changed when the meaning of the two passages you quoted is for all meaningful purposes identical. So either you were quoting something for absolutely no purpose thus wasting your time and our time, or you were dishonestly trying to assert that Obama was covering up a change. Which was it?

He's certainly covering up a lot of things, given that his campaign rhetoric was on change.gov and suddenly its down for business. :laugh:

Didn't think you could answer my question. Why do you even waste your time posting here?

Uh oh, we have another person telling a non obama-sheep to leave.

I can see where this is going.....

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Right, and you tried to insinuate that something had changed when the meaning of the two passages you quoted is for all meaningful purposes identical. So either you were quoting something for absolutely no purpose thus wasting your time and our time, or you were dishonestly trying to assert that Obama was covering up a change. Which was it?

He's certainly covering up a lot of things, given that his campaign rhetoric was on change.gov and suddenly its down for business. :laugh:

Didn't think you could answer my question. Why do you even waste your time posting here?

Uh oh, we have another person telling a non obama-sheep to leave.

I can see where this is going.....

Does it involve you picking up some reading comprehension lessons? Seems like you could desperately use some, because my post says nothing of the sort.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: winnar111
He's certainly covering up a lot of things, given that his campaign rhetoric was on change.gov and suddenly its down for business. :laugh:

Did you actually compare/contrast the two statements? If so, can you please tell me the difference between the two? And as a follow-up, can you please tell me what exactly Obama is "covering up" and how change.gov is "down for business?"

Thanks.

Because so far, everything you've said has either (A) made no sense, or (B) been a complete fabrication.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Right, and you tried to insinuate that something had changed when the meaning of the two passages you quoted is for all meaningful purposes identical. So either you were quoting something for absolutely no purpose thus wasting your time and our time, or you were dishonestly trying to assert that Obama was covering up a change. Which was it?

He's certainly covering up a lot of things, given that his campaign rhetoric was on change.gov and suddenly its down for business. :laugh:

Didn't think you could answer my question. Why do you even waste your time posting here?

Uh oh, we have another person telling a non obama-sheep to leave.

I can see where this is going.....

Does it involve you picking up some reading comprehension lessons? Seems like you could desperately use some, because my post says nothing of the sort.

O, u r wright, I r dumm.

That bolded part must have meant something else.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: winnar111
He's certainly covering up a lot of things, given that his campaign rhetoric was on change.gov and suddenly its down for business. :laugh:

Did you actually compare/contrast the two statements? If so, can you please tell me the difference between the two? And as a follow-up, can you please tell me what exactly Obama is "covering up" and how change.gov is "down for business?"

Thanks.

Because so far, everything you've said has either (A) made no sense, or (B) been a complete fabrication.

See for yourself:

http://change.gov/agenda/fiscal/

They're the same statement, first made on his campaign, then as part of his transition team. Then it was removed.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: winnar111
See for yourself:

http://change.gov/agenda/fiscal/

They're the same statement, first made on his campaign, then as part of his transition team. Then it was removed.

His entire agenda area has been removed, not just the paygo section.

http://change.gov/agenda/

Why do you suppose this represents a "cover up?" Perhaps they're working on the site? There could be a million reasons why this might happen.

And so? Frankly, I don't see the conspiracy here.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Wasn't pay as you go wiped out approximately 2001, first with GWB's tax cuts for the wealthy, and then with his adventure in Iraq, etc?

I guess Greenspan's opinon that it would help the economy had nothing to with the tax cuts getting passed?

The problem was not with revenue, but with spending.

If I get a raise of 10% but spend 15% more, did I get a raise? If it was your money you'd realize you got a raise but spent to much; if you're government, then you'd say that you didn't get enough money.

 

[thegimp03]

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.

Oh gee, another name-caller :roll:

 

[alchemize]

In all fairness, we do need to wait what happens when Obama gets in office. But I'm personally thinking this is merely a prelude...politicians have figured out they can spend endless amounts of money, as long as they shower it on their "base".

I hope I'm wrong.