Should There Be A Law...

[AVG-JOE]

Should there be a law that forces government to provide a source of funds before it can enact new spending?

PBS Frontline

According to Frontline on PBS, the main reason Billary handed George II a surplus was a congressional rule called PAYGO

...What made it easier for the Clinton administration to work on the budget deficit … was that we inherited from President Bush senior the budget rules which had been put together in 1990. … Basically two: One was caps on discretionary spending, the spending that Congress votes every year.

And the other was an even more helpful rule, which was called the PAYGO rule: Pay as you go. That said, essentially, that you couldn't do a tax cut or a benefit increase under an entitlement program like Medicare or Social Security unless you had an equal and opposite proposal so it would not affect the deficit over the next five or 10 years.

And that meant that the president could say no, and the Congress could say no to a lot of good-sounding ideas, including Medicare prescription drugs. It's not that nobody thought of that in the '90s -- a lot of people thought of it, but we couldn't pay for it. To pay for it, we would have had to have done a tax increase, or cut out some other spending in major proportions. And nobody wanted to do that, so we didn't do it. …

What was the fate of PAYGO?

The rules, which were put in place in 1990, were extended a couple of times through 2002. But then they lapsed, and the Congress and the president did not want to put them back. The president wanted his big tax cuts, and putting PAYGO rules back in would've made that very difficult, especially the second tax cut. They wanted to do Medicare prescription drugs and they couldn't have done that under the PAYGO rules.

Should it be a law that can't expire?

-Joe

 

[Gunny]

Should there be a law that forces government to provide a source of funds before it can enact new spending?

PBS Frontline

According to Frontline on PBS, the main reason Billary handed George II a surplus was a congressional rule called PAYGO

...What made it easier for the Clinton administration to work on the budget deficit … was that we inherited from President Bush senior the budget rules which had been put together in 1990. … Basically two: One was caps on discretionary spending, the spending that Congress votes every year.

And the other was an even more helpful rule, which was called the PAYGO rule: Pay as you go. That said, essentially, that you couldn't do a tax cut or a benefit increase under an entitlement program like Medicare or Social Security unless you had an equal and opposite proposal so it would not affect the deficit over the next five or 10 years.

And that meant that the president could say no, and the Congress could say no to a lot of good-sounding ideas, including Medicare prescription drugs. It's not that nobody thought of that in the '90s -- a lot of people thought of it, but we couldn't pay for it. To pay for it, we would have had to have done a tax increase, or cut out some other spending in major proportions. And nobody wanted to do that, so we didn't do it. …

What was the fate of PAYGO?

The rules, which were put in place in 1990, were extended a couple of times through 2002. But then they lapsed, and the Congress and the president did not want to put them back. The president wanted his big tax cuts, and putting PAYGO rules back in would've made that very difficult, especially the second tax cut. They wanted to do Medicare prescription drugs and they couldn't have done that under the PAYGO rules.

Should it be a law that can't expire?

-Joe

We elect these politicians because they are supposed to understand simple little math like this.

Since they obviously cannot, I suppose we may as well have a law that protects us from their stupidity.

But then, what does THAT say?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Should there be a law that forces government to provide a source of funds before it can enact new spending?

PBS Frontline

According to Frontline on PBS, the main reason Billary handed George II a surplus was a congressional rule called PAYGO

...What made it easier for the Clinton administration to work on the budget deficit … was that we inherited from President Bush senior the budget rules which had been put together in 1990. … Basically two: One was caps on discretionary spending, the spending that Congress votes every year.

And the other was an even more helpful rule, which was called the PAYGO rule: Pay as you go. That said, essentially, that you couldn't do a tax cut or a benefit increase under an entitlement program like Medicare or Social Security unless you had an equal and opposite proposal so it would not affect the deficit over the next five or 10 years.

And that meant that the president could say no, and the Congress could say no to a lot of good-sounding ideas, including Medicare prescription drugs. It's not that nobody thought of that in the '90s -- a lot of people thought of it, but we couldn't pay for it. To pay for it, we would have had to have done a tax increase, or cut out some other spending in major proportions. And nobody wanted to do that, so we didn't do it. …

What was the fate of PAYGO?

The rules, which were put in place in 1990, were extended a couple of times through 2002. But then they lapsed, and the Congress and the president did not want to put them back. The president wanted his big tax cuts, and putting PAYGO rules back in would've made that very difficult, especially the second tax cut. They wanted to do Medicare prescription drugs and they couldn't have done that under the PAYGO rules.

Should it be a law that can't expire?

-Joe

We elect these politicians because they are supposed to understand simple little math like this.

Since they obviously cannot, I suppose we may as well have a law that protects us from their stupidity.

But then, what does THAT say?

It would protect us from politicians like Bush and the Congress who let the rule lapse so that he could pander to the senior citizens (who vote in force) with huge entitlements while he pandered to the wealthy (who finance campaigns) with huge tax cuts.

I'll take a 'Tax and Spend' Democratic government over a 'Tax-Cut and Spend' Republican government any day, given only those two choices.

-Joe

 

[Gunny]

Should there be a law that forces government to provide a source of funds before it can enact new spending?

PBS Frontline

According to Frontline on PBS, the main reason Billary handed George II a surplus was a congressional rule called PAYGO



Should it be a law that can't expire?

-Joe

We elect these politicians because they are supposed to understand simple little math like this.

Since they obviously cannot, I suppose we may as well have a law that protects us from their stupidity.

But then, what does THAT say?

It would protect us from politicians like Bush and the Congress who let the rule lapse so that he could pander to the senior citizens (who vote in force) with huge entitlements while he pandered to the wealthy (who finance campaigns) with huge tax cuts.

I'll take a 'Tax and Spend' Democratic government over a 'Tax-Cut and Spend' Republican government any day, given only those two choices.

-Joe

Possibly. It would definitely protect us against the likes of Obama who thinks as long as he has checks left in the checkbook he can still write them.

 

[editec]

Wasn't that the idea behind PAYGO?

And didn't BUSH II run the Iraqi war OFF the BOOKS to evade that?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Wasn't that the idea behind PAYGO?

And didn't BUSH II run the Iraqi war OFF the BOOKS to evade that?

He didn't have to - the rule expired by 2003. Besides, according to the Frontline program thesis the war was very small potatoes compared to the tax cuts and the medicare / SSA entitlements.

That piece by Frontline is an amazing look at Congress and the Bush II Administration.

-Joe

 

[Meister]

Wasn't that the idea behind PAYGO?

And didn't BUSH II run the Iraqi war OFF the BOOKS to evade that?

Bush lost his conservative values (If he ever had them) when it came to spending. I don't think anyone will deny that. But does that mean the next person to become our president have a free pass on the check book?
Democrats were complaining with all the spending Bush was doing when he was in office. Not just the spending on the war, either. Now they think it's the greatest thing since apple pie. I don't understand.

 

[Xenophon]

With this house, senate and Potus it should be carved in stone.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Wasn't that the idea behind PAYGO?

And didn't BUSH II run the Iraqi war OFF the BOOKS to evade that?

Bush lost his conservative values (If he ever had them) when it came to spending. I don't think anyone will deny that. But does that mean the next person to become our president have a free pass on the check book?
Democrats were complaining with all the spending Bush was doing when he was in office. Not just the spending on the war, either. Now they think it's the greatest thing since apple pie. I don't understand.

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, that is exactly why all of Congress and the Republicans in particular deserve their current approval ratings.

-Joe

 

[Jon]

Wasn't that the idea behind PAYGO?

And didn't BUSH II run the Iraqi war OFF the BOOKS to evade that?

Bush lost his conservative values (If he ever had them) when it came to spending. I don't think anyone will deny that. But does that mean the next person to become our president have a free pass on the check book?
Democrats were complaining with all the spending Bush was doing when he was in office. Not just the spending on the war, either. Now they think it's the greatest thing since apple pie. I don't understand.

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, that is exactly why all of Congress and the Republicans in particular deserve their current approval ratings.

-Joe

Why Republicans in particular? The Democrats have ruled things for a while now, they're just as guilty as the Republicans at this point.

 

[Jon]

I'll take a 'Tax and Spend' Democratic government over a 'Tax-Cut and Spend' Republican government any day, given only those two choices.

-Joe

I would love a "tax and spend" Democratic government that taxes the amount necessary to pay for the cost of government and spends the amount necessary to keep the country stable.

That is not this administration. They are taxing more than the previous administration, but they are spending WAY more than the previous administration. In my opinion, Bush's "tax-cut and spend" was dumb, but what Obama is doing is even dumber.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Bush lost his conservative values (If he ever had them) when it came to spending. I don't think anyone will deny that. But does that mean the next person to become our president have a free pass on the check book?
Democrats were complaining with all the spending Bush was doing when he was in office. Not just the spending on the war, either. Now they think it's the greatest thing since apple pie. I don't understand.

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, that is exactly why all of Congress and the Republicans in particular deserve their current approval ratings.

-Joe

Why Republicans in particular? The Democrats have ruled things for a while now, they're just as guilty as the Republicans at this point.

You're absolutely correct about the Democrats, but the Republicans and their shortsightedness for the last 10 years, pandering to the most affected taxpayers as well as pandering to the most affected entitlement recipients (who actually vote in force), under their chosen leader, Bush II, caused the train wreck, and all for short term gains.

Name one other President who cut taxes while preparing for war.

Democratic spending was expected - The Republicans sold out their values for short term political gains with Bush leading the way.

How different things might be right now if the Republican Congress of 2003 and 2004 had stopped Bush like they knew they should instead jumping into bed with him and fucking Americas future in the ass for short term gains.

The worst market place bubble (forgetting the big picture and the future in favor of short term profits) was not the financial or housing bubbles, it was the political bubble.

Say what you want about Obama... right or wrong, he is still the only politician on the national scene who speaks about life in America 50 years from now as passionately as he speaks about life in America during the next election cycle. The only one.

-Joe

 

[Jon]

Say what you want about Obama... right or wrong, he is still the only politician on the national scene who speaks about life in America 50 years from now as passionately as he speaks about life in America during the next election cycle. The only one.

Speeches ARE nice, but actions speak louder than words. And Obama's actions have not matched his words, not once.

Republicans do hold a lot of blame for what's going on, but certainly not all of it. And just because Republicans were the cause, it doesn't mean Democrats are the cure. At the rate they're going, China will own the entire country before Obama's administration ends.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'll take a 'Tax and Spend' Democratic government over a 'Tax-Cut and Spend' Republican government any day, given only those two choices.

-Joe

I would love a "tax and spend" Democratic government that taxes the amount necessary to pay for the cost of government and spends the amount necessary to keep the country stable.

That is not this administration. They are taxing more than the previous administration, but they are spending WAY more than the previous administration. In my opinion, Bush's "tax-cut and spend" was dumb, but what Obama is doing is even dumber.

Quite the gamble, eh? We are down to our last stack of borrowed chips and we are playing a pretty ballsy hand considering how much we owe the Chinese and the Arabs... but what happens if we fold and just sit on those chips? Tax cut, health care and entitlement promises made by Bush are bankrupting us... quickly too, it seems.

What if the Treasury holds an auction and no buyers show up? There is barely enough taxes coming in right now to keep paying for Congress, let alone Social Security and Medicare... How does it feel to be at the economic mercy of the Chinese and Arabs?

I say let's go all in on the infrastructure building, health care modernizing, energy developing hand Obama wants to play with whatever we can raise in taxes and borrow and see what happens.

More of the McSame is not an option.

-Joe

 

[xsited1]

The government shouldn't spend more than they have. Period. I'm tired of all these 'crises' and 'emergencies' that politicians use to spend even more money.

 

[wihosa]

Obama deserves the chance to put his program into effect.

I think the heavy deficit spending right now is neccessary for two reasons.

First, we need a stimulus to the economy. The only reason I'm sitting here today is I have no work, the slowdown is still expanding. It was the Repub. policy to not save the banks and not stimulate the economy that led to the Great Depression. We can't make that same mistake today, even Repubs admit that it wasn't until the Gov started massive deficit spending for WWII that the economy recovered.

Second, we need to invest in our future. Again we need to learn from the past, large public investment in infrastructure is still paying off. Where would America be right now without things like the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, the Interstate Highway system, etc? Dependence on fossil fuels is far too expensive, employer based insurance is a competative disadvantage on the world market and we are losing our lead in education leaving our children even less competative.

Unless the Repubs have a better idea, they can't lead on any of these issues, so they should either follow or get out of the way.

 

[xsited1]

Obama deserves the chance to put his program into effect.

I think the heavy deficit spending right now is neccessary for two reasons.

First, we need a stimulus to the economy. The only reason I'm sitting here today is I have no work, the slowdown is still expanding. It was the Repub. policy to not save the banks and not stimulate the economy that led to the Great Depression. We can't make that same mistake today, even Repubs admit that it wasn't until the Gov started massive deficit spending for WWII that the economy recovered.

Second, we need to invest in our future. Again we need to learn from the past, large public investment in infrastructure is still paying off. Where would America be right now without things like the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, the Interstate Highway system, etc? Dependence on fossil fuels is far too expensive, employer based insurance is a competative disadvantage on the world market and we are losing our lead in education leaving our children even less competative.

Unless the Repubs have a better idea, they can't lead on any of these issues, so they should either follow or get out of the way.

Deficit spending = bad. Try again.

 

[wihosa]

Obama deserves the chance to put his program into effect.

I think the heavy deficit spending right now is neccessary for two reasons.

First, we need a stimulus to the economy. The only reason I'm sitting here today is I have no work, the slowdown is still expanding. It was the Repub. policy to not save the banks and not stimulate the economy that led to the Great Depression. We can't make that same mistake today, even Repubs admit that it wasn't until the Gov started massive deficit spending for WWII that the economy recovered.

Second, we need to invest in our future. Again we need to learn from the past, large public investment in infrastructure is still paying off. Where would America be right now without things like the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, the Interstate Highway system, etc? Dependence on fossil fuels is far too expensive, employer based insurance is a competative disadvantage on the world market and we are losing our lead in education leaving our children even less competative.

Unless the Repubs have a better idea, they can't lead on any of these issues, so they should either follow or get out of the way.

Deficit spending = bad. Try again.

Defict spending = bad = weak answer. Try again.

 

[amrchaos]

Should there be a law--no.

Think in these terms--let say that a budget ate up all funding. And we are attack later that same year--how can government legally defend us if it lack the funds.

PAYGO is considered a restriction by vying parties to keep one from running away in its on direction. It was instituted between 2006-2008 to keep the Dems from walking all over Bush with their Budget ideas while retaining some Republican control of government.

To do it now while Dems have three of a kind in houses is similiar to asking a crook to put handcuffs on even though you do not have evidence of acrime. It will not work.

What is needed is for the GOP to fight against obvious budget busting plans and develop and keep track of those that endorse them. When the Stimulus plan came out, it is easy to point to the Reps and ask "What is your plan?" because the GOP did not have a society perserving idea of what to do (Let them fall is not societal preserving. We were looking at a potentially dangerous collapse of our economy!!!)

Now that the Budget is so humongous, Republicans can gain support by pointing out and cutting off unnecessary or cost challenging programs. In other words, Reps in the house can finally go back to becoming Republicans once more. Maybe it is a good idea to keep the GOP as the weaker second party in government. Strong enough to stop some things, but weak enough to keep them from going totally nuts.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'll take a 'Tax and Spend' Democratic government over a 'Tax-Cut and Spend' Republican government any day, given only those two choices.

-Joe

I would love a "tax and spend" Democratic government that taxes the amount necessary to pay for the cost of government and spends the amount necessary to keep the country stable.

That is not this administration. They are taxing more than the previous administration, but they are spending WAY more than the previous administration. In my opinion, Bush's "tax-cut and spend" was dumb, but what Obama is doing is even dumber.

Dude... isn't that the definition of a "Classic" Republican?

-Joe