**Spoiler** 0 **Spoiler** http://www.naplesnews.org/guess-how-many-fiscally-responsible-republican-senators-voted-for-the-pay-as-you-go-budgeting-rules/
It's absurd that these people can call themselves "fiscally conservative" while voting against pay as you go especially considering it was Bush and the Republican congress that gave us the vast majority of the huge deficit we have today. Everyone needs to remember that it was President Clinton that gave us a surplus with pay as you go and it was Bush and the Republicans that rescinded that policy and started piling up the debt. The fact that the Republicans are harping on deficits now is absolutely insanely ridiculous. What's even more ridiculous is that there are people who actually buy into it. Seriously. How is it possible that people fall for Republican lies time after time after time? What's wrong with people?
It's all politics more than anything else, if the democrats do good, then the Republicans wont get a chance to get elected next election, it works both ways, instead on working for the common goods, they do the opposite ways, this is were the people come in on the next election, remember who and what and make an impact during the election, the thing is is that people have such a short memory and politicians know of this to be true.
The only way to stop that is if voters take every member of congress out in 2010 and 2012 to send a message, but that is just a fantasy.
Probably a bunch of rinos (republican in name only). Another thing that you need to remember is that most people "down south" were democrats until recently. The social issues are more important for the Southern Republicans and the California/North Republicans are more interested in fiscal matters. You can see from the 1976 Electoral Map that the South was solidly democrat in the 1976 elections.
Or it means they don't believe that it is truly a "paygo" plan. When the party in power is outspending the last fiscally irresponsible administration by multiples while talking "belt-tightening" it may give a hint that following their fiscal "plan" may not be "fiscally responsible".
By multiples? Where exactly are you getting your information from? Under Obama the spending has increased by about double the rate it typically has, but we are in a deep recession and the money was needed. Now is not the time to cut spending. That will come shortly, especially when we are out of Iraq and can slash defense spending. 2011 United States federal budget - $3.83 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama) 2010 United States federal budget - $3.55 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama) 2009 United States federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush) 2008 United States federal budget - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush) 2007 United States federal budget - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush) 2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush) 2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush) 2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush) 2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush) 2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush) 2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton) 2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton) 1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton) 1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton) 1997 United States federal budget - $1.63 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton) 1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)
Obama more than doubled the deficit of Bush and then called it "belt-tightening", pretending that "freezing" the spending with his increases in place was somehow fiscally responsible. You post the total spending and ignore the deficit, or the reality that Obama's prediction that his "freeze" would save us 250 Billion over 20 years shows that he has no plan ever to decrease the spending after his "stimulus" supposedly fixes the economy. Seriously, we have to actually be asleep to not see some of what is happening here. Keynesian economics are not working, mostly because neither party actually follows it. Spending like Bush's is called for in Keynesian economics, however it also calls for paying it down during the flush times. It's as if you believe I am supposed to cheer on even higher deficits when I was against the previous administrations deficits to begin with. The last Budget presented by Bush (for FY 2009) had a deficit of 485 Billion (about twice his 'normal' deficit which was already too high) which included the bail outs, the first Budget presented by Obama, according to the CBO, (for FY 2010) has a deficit of 1.35 TRILLION (Yes, trillion)... Obama increased the deficit by multiples, all while talking "belt-tightening" and "freezing" spending at this level in 2011 (next year as he said in the SOTU Address, 'because that's how budgets work')... Freezing in his massive increases is not "belt-tightening" by any measure. Yah... I don't trust Republicans to spend wisely, and I especially don't trust the Democrats to spend wisely.
@Ly2, DubDumbDubDot: In crucifying the Republicans for their fiscal irresponsibility on their vote, we must be very careful not to mention that the "pay-go" proposal was an amendment to the legislation that increased the statutory limit on the public debt. If anyone were to discover this link: They would become aware that the vote against "pay-go" was actually a Republican effort to block the federal government from increasing its own credit limit via H.J. Resolution 45. In that spirit, I propose the following: 1. When politicizing the "pay-go" bill, be sure to only include links from pundit blogs. I see you did that here, so bravo! 2. If anyone does discover that the pay-go bill was just a way to smear Republicans for voting against increased spending limits, fall back to the "Party of No" mantra. As you can see, the votes in the House and Senate were 100% voted for by Democrats, and 100% against by Republicans. Thank god we had a super majority, or we would never have got the federal debt(credit limit) increased! 3. Remind everyone that our current problems are all the creation of George W. Bush. If we stick to these tactics, we should have a wonderful Democrat dominated election year this year, as the American public is just too stupid to figure out the truth. P.S. Be sure to watch Olbermann and Maddow tonight for more talking points. We'll have these idiots on the run in no time!
Actually, about 50% of the budget was from programs grandfathered in from Bush. And it's difficult to cut spending in a recession. On the surface that makes no sense, but slashing government spending by the levels that people want to see would mean serious job losses. History has been pretty clear that countries in a recession who cut spending just prolong their recession. If Obama gets elected to a 2nd term, then we will have a clearer picture of what kind of a spender he is.
Paygo was originally removed due to the war in Iraq. We had no way to fund the war under Paygo besides raising Federal income taxes. Since Americans wouldn't have supported the war if we actually had to pay for it right now, Paygo had to go.
Another reason - "PAYGO" was removed to allow for the Bush / Republican tax cuts that would otherwise have forced them to include spending cuts they cowardly avoided. The tax reduction / paygo removal were passed with "reconciliation" not requiring the 60 vote s-majority and indeed allowed for blank checks for the Iraq war that otherwise again would have called for them to stand for their principles they ran away from. The conservatives again did not vote for paygo reinstatement so as to make it easier to continue the tax cuts due to expire they want but are still unwilling to legislate the spending cuts to balance the effect - and further they probably will remove paygo with reconciliation if voted back in power that simply reduces their commitments while continuing them for everyone else.....all hail the honesty of the Liberals.