Why Do Republicans Hate Pay-As-You-Go?

Here is what the R's had to say about it:

Post-policy PAYGO, the latest iteration of the Senate PAYGO points of order, was created in the 2004 Budget Resolution and prohibits the consideration of revenue measures or new mandatory programs that would increase the deficit by more than the level allowed by the budget resolution. Post-policy PAYGO is designed to enforce the fiscal policy parameters embodied in the budget resolution. Under post-policy PAYGO, Congress first agrees upon spending and revenue levels in the budget resolution. Once a budget resolution is set, post-policy PAYGO applies to all spending increases or tax cuts above the level agreed, thus making the budget resolution more meaningful.

Post-policy PAYGO serves a valuable purpose: it makes it difficult to increase the deficit
any more than what Members of Congress agreed to in the budget resolution. The current rule follows the budget blueprint established in the budget resolution. Recent Budget Resolutions, under the GOP, have allowed for tax relief while restricting spending growth. Republicans recognize that the combination of tax relief, coupled with restrictions on spending growth, has proven to be the most effective means of reducing the deficit and encouraging economic growth. Only the current PAYGO rule affords just that while the Democrats’ proposal will not.
Click to expand...
 
NigelTufnel said:
Anyone else find it hilarious that while Damo accuses me of trotting out "talking points" he is reading from the script of the Senate Republicans?

Now that his source is finally revealed, it makes this observation from me all the more prescient:




Poor guy.
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Not particularly since I sarcastically pointed out that if I wanted to answer your talking points (yes I can pull up multiple blogs making your same point, it isn't even difficult to find them) I would use talking points like "taxgo"...

I have avoided doing that and have simply answered your question.

The Rs support the current rule, each vote is to support continuing that rule over supporting a weaker version.
 
I'm hoping to shame Nigel into actually contributing something other than talking points to "support" his position that they don't like "paygo"...

They don't like the type that the D's keep trying to foist onto us, that's clear, they like the form that is currently in place in the Senate and that is clear as well. This would have been much easier if I could just cut and paste rather than actually taking time to take a position and support it with actual information, such as the legislation that actually created the current form of Paygo.
 
Damocles said:
*sigh*

Not particularly since I sarcastically pointed out that if I wanted to answer your talking points (yes I can pull up multiple blogs making your same point, it isn't even difficult to find them) I would use talking points like "taxgo"...

I have avoided doing that and have simply answered your question.

The Rs support the current rule, each vote is to support continuing that rule over supporting a weaker version.
Click to expand...


So you're not using Republican talking points since you didn't use the term "taxgo" yet you simply repeat the content of a Senate Republican document?

And by the way, not only is the rule from the 2004 budget resolution much weaker from a deficit-reduction standpoint than what the Senate just passed, it also expired on September 30, 2008 and is no longer in effect. The "current rule" in that 2007 Republican document that you are quoting no longer exists.
 
NigelTufnel said:
So you're not using Republican talking points since you didn't use the term "taxgo" yet you simply repeat the content of a Senate Republican document?

And by the way, not only is the rule from the 2004 budget resolution much weaker from a deficit-reduction standpoint than what the Senate just passed, it also expired on September 30, 2008 and is no longer in effect. The "current rule" in that 2007 Republican document that you are quoting no longer exists.
Click to expand...
No, I found the Senate document just before I linked to it, long after I took my position and supported it with actual information. It simply supports what I found using actual research. There is a current form of Paygo, it is better than what the Ds are proposing.

And yes, it still exists. It was part of legislation and has no expiration unless it is replaced.

So, unless the Ds voted to remove this restriction (they didn't) it is still there.
 
Damocles said:
No, I found the Senate document just before I linked to it, long after I took my position and supported it with actual information. It simply supports what I found using actual research. There is a current form of Paygo, it is better than what the Ds are proposing.

And yes, it still exists. It was part of legislation and has no expiration unless it is replaced.

So, unless the Ds voted to remove this restriction (they didn't) it is still there.
Click to expand...


You're repeating (outdated) Republican talking points. The "current form of PAYGO," the one referred to in that 2007 document expired on September 30, 2008 pursuant to the sunset provision in the 2004 Budget Resolution. Go ahead and check.

And that version of PAYGO is much weaker than that which the Democrats passed because it allowed the Republicans to pass tax cuts without passing corresponding spending decreases and to pretend that this would have no impact on the deficit.
 
NigelTufnel said:
You're repeating (outdated) Republican talking points. The "current form of PAYGO," the one referred to in that 2007 document expired on September 30, 2008 pursuant to the sunset provision in the 2004 Budget Resolution. Go ahead and check.

And that version of PAYGO is much weaker than that which the Democrats passed because it allowed the Republicans to pass tax cuts without passing corresponding spending decreases and to pretend that this would have no impact on the deficit.
Click to expand...
I disagree, I think it incentivized cutting in the right direction rather than simply taxing higher and pretending that you "had to" because of a poorly incentivized version of paygo.

And it did expire and I'll give you that one. However, the Rs support a different version of Paygo than you do, and since the only version proposed to vote on is one they didn't support they voted against it. At least you fully understand that there are different versions proposed and supported by the different sides now and aren't just parroting nonsense.
 
Damocles said:
I disagree, I think it incentivized cutting in the right direction rather than simply taxing higher and pretending that you "had to" because of a poorly incentivized version of paygo.

And it did expire and I'll give you that one. However, the Rs support a different version of Paygo than you do, and since the only version proposed to vote on is one they didn't support they voted against it. At least you fully understand that there are different versions proposed and supported by the different sides now and aren't just parroting nonsense.
Click to expand...


One is PAYGO and one isn't. The Democratic version is what was in place during the 1990s and which resulted substantial deficit reductions. It is PAYGO. The Republican version is what was in place from 2003 forward and resulted in substantial deficit increases. It isn't PAYGO.

As I said, Republicans hate PAYGO.
 
NigelTufnel said:
One is PAYGO and one isn't. The Democratic version is what was in place during the 1990s and which resulted substantial deficit reductions. It is PAYGO. The Republican version is what was in place from 2003 forward and resulted in substantial deficit increases. It isn't PAYGO.

As I said, Republicans hate PAYGO.
Click to expand...
They are both PAYGO. One causes the cuts to be made beforehand, the other requires supposed cuts to happen afterward, but they never do.

And I'll end with the equal and opposite talking point, so you'll feel more comfortable as it is within your range of political discourse.

Democrats love Taxgo!
 
Damocles said:
They are both PAYGO. One causes the cuts to be made beforehand, the other requires supposed cuts to happen afterward, but they never do.

And I'll end with the equal and opposite talking point, so you'll feel more comfortable as it is within your range of political discourse.

Democrats love Taxgo!
Click to expand...


Like I said, one is PAYGO - spending cuts or tax increases as necessary are to be made as you go, as in pay-as-you-go. The other isn't PAYGO - "supposed" spending cuts to offset tax cuts are to be made "afterward," as in pay-for-it-later. One results in deficit reduction and one results in deficit expansion.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Like I said, one is PAYGO - spending cuts or tax increases as necessary are to be made as you go, as in pay-as-you-go. The other isn't PAYGO - "supposed" spending cuts to offset tax cuts are to be made "afterward," as in pay-for-it-later. One results in deficit reduction and one results in deficit expansion.
Click to expand...
Both result in expansion because neither include "mandatory" spending (which increases on a schedule), and both have exclusions that can be directly added to the bills. The past has already shown that "paygo" in the form the Ds passed is simply ignored, any time sequestration is threatened they, or the President, will intervene. Just as was done in the past.

The Rs version, except in the form of "emergency" legislation, actually curbed some of the spending urges of the Congress. While government was still expansionary, it was limited to what could get past the supermajority.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Like I said, one is PAYGO - spending cuts or tax increases as necessary are to be made as you go, as in pay-as-you-go. The other isn't PAYGO - "supposed" spending cuts to offset tax cuts are to be made "afterward," as in pay-for-it-later. One results in deficit reduction and one results in deficit expansion.
Click to expand...

Post #77 & #86 are beautiful.....essentially calls out for facts, and you get in response supposition and conjecture based on repetition of talking points you already pointed out are in error.

That's the basic convoluted logic of the Party of No......they only utilize the parts of history that they like...then they want to redefine the facts/information that they don't like.
Nice work, Nigel. :good4u:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top