Why Do Republicans Hate Pay-As-You-Go?
- Thread starter Bonestorm
- Start date
Did it have 9000 earmarks attached to it?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
nice try, Nigel, but I suspect the Republicans were objecting to the the $1.9 trillion deficit increase that it was attached to.....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
its how dungheap debates, use dishonesty to make a point
It was a stand alone amendment. They voted against it. You can't spin that as objecting to something else. They voted against pay-go.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00012
Good Luck
New member
Bill reference? Are we supposed to just accept a straight party vote for some piece of legislation that did nothing more than describe pay-as-you-go rules?
Or are the pay-as-you-go rules a flat out lie because they are attached to a bill that is anything BUT pay-as-you-go?
Or are they not, in reality, pay-as-you-go rules, but rather pay-whatever-the-fuck-we decide-to-spend rules lyingly described as pay-as-you-go?
Or is it just you who are lying?
So let's look at the legislation.
Or are the pay-as-you-go rules a flat out lie because they are attached to a bill that is anything BUT pay-as-you-go?
Or are they not, in reality, pay-as-you-go rules, but rather pay-whatever-the-fuck-we decide-to-spend rules lyingly described as pay-as-you-go?
Or is it just you who are lying?
So let's look at the legislation.
Good Luck
New member
Okay, let's look at these "paygo rules"
s160: sets up a method of generating reports on "savings" in the budget generated by spending freezes. Could be anything they want it to be because they can say whatever they want about what they would have increased any particular spending program.
s161: States that if any upward adjustments on exempt (from the spending freeze) spending programs exceeds needs, they can't spend it on programs whose budgets are frozen. Not a bad idea, but not pay-go either.
s162: Allows the sequestering of excess funds from exempt spending programs. That DEFINITELY is not pay-go. It's allowing them to raise budgets on exempt programs beyond need in order to generate some kind of federal slush fund.
s163: Requires an annual CBO estimate of how much the tax cuts from 8 yers ago are still costing the federal government. What a fucking laugh. They still want their budget to be based on Clinton's tax rates.
s164: Described programs which are exempt from the sequestering requirement of s162. So these programs can simply spend any funds in excess of budget estimates. Again, not even close to pay-go policy.
s165: Coninues list of programs exempted from sequestering requirement.
So, all-in-all, answer B:
Not, in reality, pay-as-you-go rules, but rather pay-whatever-the-fuck-we decide-to-spend rules lyingly described as pay-as-you-go.
s160: sets up a method of generating reports on "savings" in the budget generated by spending freezes. Could be anything they want it to be because they can say whatever they want about what they would have increased any particular spending program.
s161: States that if any upward adjustments on exempt (from the spending freeze) spending programs exceeds needs, they can't spend it on programs whose budgets are frozen. Not a bad idea, but not pay-go either.
s162: Allows the sequestering of excess funds from exempt spending programs. That DEFINITELY is not pay-go. It's allowing them to raise budgets on exempt programs beyond need in order to generate some kind of federal slush fund.
s163: Requires an annual CBO estimate of how much the tax cuts from 8 yers ago are still costing the federal government. What a fucking laugh. They still want their budget to be based on Clinton's tax rates.
s164: Described programs which are exempt from the sequestering requirement of s162. So these programs can simply spend any funds in excess of budget estimates. Again, not even close to pay-go policy.
s165: Coninues list of programs exempted from sequestering requirement.
So, all-in-all, answer B:
Not, in reality, pay-as-you-go rules, but rather pay-whatever-the-fuck-we decide-to-spend rules lyingly described as pay-as-you-go.
Suuuuuuure, guy. Republicans hate pay-go. They hate it because they know that in the real world, there are two sides to a balanced budget equation, revenues and outlays. And increasing taxes is a non-starter for them. They don't care one whit about the deficit. They only care about cutting taxes. Period. End of story.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
great post asaratis
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It exempts payment of the president and payment to widows.
OHMIGOD?! HOW INSANE?!
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
asaratis is unamerican and should be hung for treason. As well as all Republicans in congress. They are destroying America.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
dude, it was a "stand alone amendment" to a bill they had no intention of passing.....it was a tactic on the part of the Dumbs to get a bill passed that the Repubs objected to.....
let's suppose one party proposed a law that they were going to make Nigel eat shit......you opposed that law......they suggest an amendment that they will flavor it to taste like chocolate first......does the flavor make you favor the bill?......
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Bullshit argument. You got pwned on this thread, badly. Admit.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
Query: why are we as taxpayers making payments to a union benefit fund that need to be "exempted" in the first place?.....
Why vote against the amendment, though? I understand why they might vote against the final bill but why vote against the amendment?
Your argument would make some sense if this wasn't a one-time thing. Here is a vote back in 2006 where the Republicans voted against the implementation of paygo:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00038
And the vast majority of House Republicans voted against paygo in 2007:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll009.xml
And when they controlled the House and Senate the Republicans abandoned paygo and turned and passed tax cuts and the prescription drug bill which could never have passed under paygo rules.
Republicans hate paygo.
I suspect we would all be surprised and puzzled to learn of some of the things we are paying for. Congress has a way of making the language of bills quite deceptive and unfathomable to the average reader...and they can name a bill just about anything they want.
Fairness Doctrine (not fair)
Pay-As-You-Go (sounds good, but doesn't describe the provisions of the bill)
Health-Care (surely, you jest........)
Kudos to the Republican Senators for voting against the Reid amendment.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
"Pay-As-You-Go" implies no deficit spending, does it not? With a family budget, that would mean no borrowing and no use of credit cards. In one breath Reid calls it "Pay-As-You-Go" and in the next calls for an increase in the debt cap.
What part of his trickery do you not understand?