Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then you haven't been listeing or reading. Just because you don't agree it doesn't mean the arguement against passing faulty legislation is not good.
Do you have evidence to back up what you're saying?
The state of the union address made it pretty clear. "We are enacting a spending freeze on all discretionary spending. This won't effect social security or defense spending"
The Presidents words, not mine.
Paygo goes after entitlement spending, but I would like it to go after all spending, even defense.
Please don't leave out the fact that a Dem controlled congress approved every single penny spent from 2006-2008, and that at least some Dems had to approve of every penny spent from 2001-2006.
In case you forgot, presidents cannot spend a single penny without congressional approval.
I know, it sort of screws up the Dems current BS of blaming everything on Bush and the Republicans.
Republicans-the party of no.
Democrats-the party of no responsibility
They also love to blame the current deficits on the Bush tax cuts, yet no tax increases were vetoed by Bush that were not also allocated by Congress for new or expanded programs. If they wanted to raise taxes for the purpose of reducing deficits, why didn't they do it?
Do you have evidence to back up what you're saying?
The state of the union address made it pretty clear. "We are enacting a spending freeze on all discretionary spending. This won't effect social security or defense spending"
The Presidents words, not mine.
Paygo goes after entitlement spending, but I would like it to go after all spending, even defense.
Why wait until 2011? Why not freeze it immediately? Think about that and look at the legislation Obama is pushing to get passed. He wants to exponentially grow the size government before any spending freeze. The healthcare reform proposed legislation created over 70 new federal agencies and offices alone. How many new agencies and offices will be created by "Cap & Trade"?
Pay-go is full of holes. Why did the Democrates not support it before Obama became President? They had the opportunity to vote for pay-go under Bush but they chose not to. Why the hypocrisy?
Do you have evidence to back up what you're saying?
The state of the union address made it pretty clear. "We are enacting a spending freeze on all discretionary spending. This won't effect social security or defense spending"
The Presidents words, not mine.
Paygo goes after entitlement spending, but I would like it to go after all spending, even defense.
You are correct. Expansion to entitlements will have to be offset via spending cuts or increasing revenue. Any tax cuts will have to be similarly paid for. As you can see, tax cuts would necessitate spending cuts or selective tax increases. Entitlements expansion would require spending cuts or tax increases, or both. It just seems logical to me, that this would be helpful to our budget. History has demonstrated that it has been. Of course, the Repubs have never liked the idea of a program that actually is fiscally responsible.
Do you have evidence to back up what you're saying?
The state of the union address made it pretty clear. "We are enacting a spending freeze on all discretionary spending. This won't effect social security or defense spending"
The Presidents words, not mine.
Paygo goes after entitlement spending, but I would like it to go after all spending, even defense.
Thats just funny... The very same individual who hasnt heard a real reason to object to paygo, the bill that does nothing, heard that Obama made it "pretty clear" that they are going to enact a spending freeze while increasing spending.
Sorry, but budget is much clearer than the presidents words..
"A pay-go law, which was stronger and harder to waive than the current rules, was in place during the Clinton administration, but Republicans in Congress and the George W. Bush administration allowed it to expire in 2002. The next year, Republicans pushed through a package of tax cuts and the Medicare drug benefit without paying for them."
It did work, the Republicans simply let it expire. Now the democrats want to pass another, strongly worded law, that doesn't allow for "bypassing" it, and Republicans don't like that. Because they'll have to raise taxes, or cut pet programs to pay for their tax cuts.
Well, that would be the party line anyways. Paygo was part of the 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act and later extended by Republicans in 1997. Since Republicans allowed it to expire in 2002, why didn't Democrats run on the promise to restore it? Why didn't they create a new Paygo in 2007? Why wait until after spending trillions on pet pork projects with borrowed money? Simple answer really. Paygo will allow Democrats to spend more money and raise taxes too. See, the issue is spending. That hasn't changed. Look for the Demo-creeps to try to pass one great big health care/cap and trade/tax increase bill under the provisions of their new Paygo rules.
Well, that would be the party line anyways. Paygo was part of the 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act and later extended by Republicans in 1997. Since Republicans allowed it to expire in 2002, why didn't Democrats run on the promise to restore it? Why didn't they create a new Paygo in 2007? Why wait until after spending trillions on pet pork projects with borrowed money? Simple answer really. Paygo will allow Democrats to spend more money and raise taxes too. See, the issue is spending. That hasn't changed. Look for the Demo-creeps to try to pass one great big health care/cap and trade/tax increase bill under the provisions of their new Paygo rules.
The other thing is the other reason Clinton was able to "balance" the budget (if one believes he did) was that there also existed a line item veto, where the president would just line out any pork programs he disagreed with. This also kept Congress in check. This was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court but it could be written in order to comply with laws..
This is from Feb. 1, but I havent seen a thread on it.
"...a vote to require that all new federal spending be paid for with budgets cut and/or tax increases.
"It’s called "Paygo," short for pay-as-you-go, a cardinal rule of fiscal responsibility. But every last U.S. Senate Republican — all 40 of them — gave it the old Roman thumbs-down last week. Earlier, the GOP senators voted "no" as the Senate approved an increase in the federal debt ceiling — never mind that the bulk of the debt was caused by two Bush-era tax cuts, two wars and a massive prescription drug plan, all unpaid for.
***
"...since at least some of these same Republicans have supported Paygo in earlier votes over the last five years and, given their perennial breast-beating about their dedication to fiscal responsibility, the stated fear of tax hikes has the strong odor of mendacity about it."
that means no more increases to welfare
that means we will never have a singlepayer health ststem, since it would cost 3 trillion a year (about 45k to EVERY american YEARLY)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
