Media ridicules "pay-go" rhetoric

[oreo]

"CBS News: “But briefing reporters, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag conceded some of PAYGO’s limitations. It doesn’t cover discretionary spending. In addition, about 40 percent of the federal budget, programs for education, energy, the military, etc., would not be covered by PAYGO … As for existing deficits and the National Debt, which today stands at an all-time high of $11.39 trillion, PAYGO has no effect, other than to slow its growth by restraining some government spending.” – (“Would PAYGO Really Limit Spending [sic],” June 9, 2009)"

Is it just me or do rational people, wanting to balance their budgets, either reduce spending or increase revenues or a combination of both? I guess this fiasco offers further evidence that Washington is full of irrational people, since apparently our politicians think they can reduce the deficit by the sheer power of their bullshit.

This is what happens when a bunch of lawyers run the Government...

DITTO--I have been saying that for years.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Funny that the difference between the two is exactly the distinction that I pointed out before. Now go fuck off, dipshit. Oh hey, its another ad hom! Oh, no, wait, I wasn't using it to attack your argument, I was just calling you a dipshit cause you are one.

I guess you didn't read the whole thing, huh? lemme help ya out AGAIN (from the same Wiki page), I just knew you'd be too dense to read the whole thing, predictability is so predictable ... .

Ad hominem abusive
Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

If you hadn't been so lazy you might have also noticed this ...
Colloquially
In common language, any personal attack, regardless of whether it is part of an argument, is often referred to as ad hominem.

Again I'll ask are you done making yourself look stupid ?

I see that you're quit the little pro with childish name calling AND Ad hominem attacks since that's what most of your posts seem to involve... when anybody doesn't agree with you, you throw a temper tantrum like a 5 year old child and call them nasty names, are You and Shogun related by any chance?

A rational person with any sort of guts would have just apologized for the name calling and we could have moved back to the conversation at hand.... but NOOOO... you had to go all out to save face and make yourself look even more foolish than your little temper tantrum made you look.... way to go.

 

[oreo]

Bill Clinton understood that he was the most powerful president ever, because Congress armed him with tools no other President had ever enjoyed and none have since: Line-item veto and Gramm-Rudman. It also helped immensely that back then, Paygo had some actual teeth instead of this garbage the House passed -- which by the way never made it to the Senate, therefore isn't law yet... -- and even if passed is just a toothless mouse in a house full of feral cats.

Obama's simply paying lip service to his massive deficit, because opinion polls and focus groups showed that's an area he needed to pay lip service to. This is how he governs, by polls and focus groups. His approval rating is by far the most important thing to him.

Line item veto was struck down by the Supreme Court.

No shit. So was Gramm-Rudman. What's that got to do with the point I made? It was the law of the land for us to have a balanced budget, and Clinton was given the tools to be able to obey that law.

That those laws were later struck down by DEMS in the SCOTUS, isn't relevant to what Clinton actually had when he had it.

Clinton got the line item veto--due to one single prior President who kept calling for it. None other than George Bush 1. Remember? Then is was struck down in the Supreme court--for G.W. 2--. No wonder we had a bunch of drunken sailors in congress. They could stuff anything they wanted to in any bill--"after the bill was passed".

 

[Missourian]

So how are we going to tax skateboarding, basketball, rock-climbing, ATV-ing, cliff diving, spelunking, scuba diving, swimming, mountain biking, and the other 100,000 ways one can end up in the hospital.

Colorodoman is going to pissed when he finds out his carabiner are going to be $500 apiece.

Do I hear a recreational tax coming down the pipeline?

Good gawd, you people are such hysterical Chicken Littles. You're all hilarious.

Deflection.

 

[Missourian]

Good gawd, you people are such hysterical Chicken Littles. You're all hilarious.

If you don't think that PayGo won't create new taxes, then your living in another world, Maggie. PayGo is just a word that is the tip of the iceberg.

PS this was a post that was joking with another poster. It was taking it to the extreme, and I really don't think we will have a recreational tax in the form stated in the posts.

Wouldn't surprise me if they tried though. They've already managed the sin taxes, and the basic living taxes. What's to stop it?

Me either, tho they won't use a direct tax...they'll just require you to take a government sponsored safety couse, like they do with motorcycles and make you get a permit, like they do with fishing and hunting.

After they bleed the smokers, drinker and cola/snack crowd for every penny they can.

 

[DamnYankee]

If you don't think that PayGo won't create new taxes, then your living in another world, Maggie. PayGo is just a word that is the tip of the iceberg.

PS this was a post that was joking with another poster. It was taking it to the extreme, and I really don't think we will have a recreational tax in the form stated in the posts.

Wouldn't surprise me if they tried though. They've already managed the sin taxes, and the basic living taxes. What's to stop it?

Me either, tho they won't use a direct tax...they'll just require you to take a government sponsored safety couse, like they do with motorcycles and make to get a permit, like they do with fishing and hunting.

After they bleed the smokers, drinker and cola/snack crowd for every penny they can.

See there! It's already being done!

 

[Nik]

Funny that the difference between the two is exactly the distinction that I pointed out before. Now go fuck off, dipshit. Oh hey, its another ad hom! Oh, no, wait, I wasn't using it to attack your argument, I was just calling you a dipshit cause you are one.

I guess you didn't read the whole thing, huh? lemme help ya out AGAIN (from the same Wiki page), I just knew you'd be too dense to read the whole thing, predictability is so predictable ... .

Ad hominem abusive
Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

If you hadn't been so lazy you might have also noticed this ...
Colloquially
In common language, any personal attack, regardless of whether it is part of an argument, is often referred to as ad hominem.

Again I'll ask are you done making yourself look stupid ?

I see that you're quit the little pro with childish name calling AND Ad hominem attacks since that's what most of your posts seem to involve... when anybody doesn't agree with you, you throw a temper tantrum like a 5 year old child and call them nasty names, are You and Shogun related by any chance?

A rational person with any sort of guts would have just apologized for the name calling and we could have moved back to the conversation at hand.... but NOOOO... you had to go all out to save face and make yourself look even more foolish than your little temper tantrum made you look.... way to go.

Sorry dipshit, but I don't go for "colloqial" uses. I go for the actual definitions, and thats not what an ad hom is. Buy a logic book sometime, dumbass.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Sorry dipshit, but I don't go for "colloqial" uses. I go for the actual definitions, and thats not what an ad hom is. Buy a logic book sometime, dumbass.

ROFLMAO! You just wanna keep sucking on that fool pipe, huh? Once again you cannot muster up the guts that it takes to admit you were wrong nor exercise enough self control not to resort to name calling, I hope you realize how truly pathetic your behavior is...... recap shall we?

Nik loses debate on thread topic, Nik throws tantrum and resorts to Ad Hominem personal attack, Nik throws further tantrum over the definition of Ad Hominem and resorts to more personal attacks, when presented with definition for Ad Hominem Nik throws another tantrum and resorts to more personal attacks...... Yep, same behavior one would expect from your average 5 year old.

Have a Nice Day

 

[DamnYankee]

Sorry dipshit, but I don't go for "colloqial" uses. I go for the actual definitions, and thats not what an ad hom is. Buy a logic book sometime, dumbass.

ROFLMAO! You just wanna keep sucking on that fool pipe, huh? Once again you cannot muster up the guts that it takes to admit you were wrong nor exercise enough self control not to resort to name calling, I hope you realize how truly pathetic your behavior is...... recap shall we?

Nik loses debate on thread topic, Nik throws tantrum and resorts to Ad Hominem personal attack, Nik throws further tantrum over the definition of Ad Hominem and resorts to more personal attacks, when presented with definition for Ad Hominem Nik throws another tantrum and resorts to more personal attacks...... Yep, same behavior one would expect from your average 5 year old.

Have a Nice Day

Surely this doesn't surprise you? Considering the "side" it's coming from....

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Surely this doesn't surprise you? Considering the "side" it's coming from....

Not at all.......

 

[Xenophon]

You would have to be an imbecile to believe him.

And how is this different from those who believed the Bush Cheney fiasco?

Considering I loathe chimpola, why would you ask me?

Don't bother, I already know, you are looking to deflect the spotlight off Obama for his latest hypocrisy.

 

[Xenophon]

BO already blew a trillion and wants to spend 2 trillion more, and he claims he wants to be fiscally responsible?

You would have to be an imbecile to believe him.

So you believe him?

If Bush neglected America for 8 years because he wanted to spend all our money on the rich, and American infrastructure suffered, and none of Bush's spending went towards America, how do you not understand that BO is now spending on shit that should have been done before he even got into office?

And BO is cutting spending on things we told you the last 8 years were wastful. Instead of agreeing that stuff was wasteful, you defended all Bush's spending and watched him double the debt. And we got nothing to show for it.

Hey asshole, infrustructure is always included in the normal budget, even under chimpy you stupid fuck.

The 'stimulous' was gift money for pet projects that would NEVER have survived comittee, which is why pelosi didn't allow anyone to read it before voting on it.