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

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

It's because cutting taxes increases tax revenues, which means fewer programs have to be cut or eliminated to balance the budget. The more you increase taxes, the more you stifle growth and cause less tax revenue to be produced.

I know pinheads don't get this, they think of our collective income as being a static number that never changes much, and tax rate is just the portion allotted to the government. If we taxed profits at 100%, how much profit would people generate? You think, record profits? What would be the purpose of working for record profits, when the government is going to take it? The point is, lower tax rates, encourage growth and an expansion of the pie, therefore, government's slice of pie is bigger.

 

[Damocles]

Yes, you are indeed ignoring the FACT that the bill RAISED the debt ceiling by 1.9 TRILLION DOLLARS. You pretend the Republicans were simply voting against 'paygo'.

You are completely full of shit. This is what was in the 'stand alone amendment' you fucking hack...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ne...mits_gov_t_to_borrow_an_additional__1_9t.html

Stop giving him facts or he'll say, "I won't bother arguing it with you." and go cry in a corner.

 

[Damocles]

The vote on the paygo amendment was not the vote on the debt ceiling bill. If Republicans supported paygo they could vote for the paygo amendment and vote against the bill raising the debt ceiling. Just like the Republicans voted in favor of the abortion amendment to the healthcare bill while voting against the healthcare bill itself. The two votes are mutually exclusive.

Right.... That is one bad idea. We already know what "for it before I was against it" brings.

 

[Bonestorm]

Right.... That is one bad idea. We already know what "for it before I was against it" brings.

Again, you are referring to two votes on the same thing. This is two votes on different things. It is no different from the Republican Senators voting in favor of the abortion restriction amendment to the Senate healthcare bill while voting against the overall Senate healthcare bill.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Again, you are referring to two votes on the same thing. This is two votes on different things. It is no different from the Republican Senators voting in favor of the abortion restriction amendment to the Senate healthcare bill while voting against the overall Senate healthcare bill.

Again, you are refusing to see the fact that "PAYGO" is nothing more than yet another bullshit scheme by politicians to hide what they are really doing. It is no better than their lame ass attempt to pretend the "employee free choice act" is really about giving employees a choice on union representation. Employees ALREADY have that choice. The bullshit act is simply meant to help the Dems buddies in the unions force their way into more places.

The Paygo is nothing more than an attempt to control more of the monetary base by the government. They refuse to cut blatant waste from spending and instead want to jack up tax rates to pay for their ever increasing pet projects and social programs.

 

[Good Luck]

You jackasses can explain away why republicans "hate paygo" all day long. Some points may even have some validity to them.

However, that does not explain why republicans voted against this amendment. They voted it down because the amendment had absolutely nothing to do with paygo and everything to do with creating as many loopholes and backdoor policies to maneuver around any coming spending freezes.

You can label a wild skunk with the name "Flower", but that will not prevent you from getting really stinky when you try to pet it. The dems can call their amendment pay-as-you-go. It is really "spend as much as we want regardless of any spending freezes we plan to fool the public with."

 

[Damocles]

Again, you are referring to two votes on the same thing. This is two votes on different things. It is no different from the Republican Senators voting in favor of the abortion restriction amendment to the Senate healthcare bill while voting against the overall Senate healthcare bill.

No, I am not. Kerry explained this to us all. He was "for" it before the amendments...

The reality is, even voting on amendments to a bad bill is bad for your political future, especially if you are going to face a primary challenge. It is best to reject it all until the meat of the bill is palatable, then work on amendments. Even something as innocuous-sounding as pay-go can make you pay in an election year if it is attached to the wrong bill. Mostly because people are uneducated as to the process.

For many of us here it would not matter we educate ourselves on the process itself constantly, to many of the constituencies (both R and D) you must be careful that you are not voting "for" anything attached to a crap bill....

Another thing you must look at is what the amendment actually says rather than what it is titled, they are often very different.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, I am not. Kerry explained this to us all. He was "for" it before the amendments...

The reality is, even voting on amendments to a bad bill is bad for your political future, especially if you are going to face a primary challenge. It is best to reject it all until the meat of the bill is palatable, then work on amendments. Even something as innocuous-sounding as pay-go can make you pay in an election year if it is attached to the wrong bill. Mostly because people are uneducated as to the process.

For many of us here it would not matter we educate ourselves on the process itself constantly, to many of the constituencies (both R and D) you must be careful that you are not voting "for" anything attached to a crap bill....

Another thing you must look at is what the amendment actually says rather than what it is titled, they are often very different.

First, Kerry was talking about two separate bills, not one bill before it was amended.

Second, if Republicans didn't want to vote for any amendments to bills they disliked they would not have supported any of the amendments to the healthcare bill. But they did.

Third, this is a paygo amendment, it isn't just titled that.

 

[Damocles]

First, Kerry was talking about two separate bills, not one bill before it was amended.

Second, if Republicans didn't want to vote for any amendments to bills they disliked they would not have supported any of the amendments to the healthcare bill. But they did.

Third, this is a paygo amendment, it isn't just titled that.

First... No, he wasn't talking about two separate bills. You absolutely are just making stuff up now.

He said, "I voted for that bill before I voted against it."

Second, this is the election year, not last year.

Third, no, it is an amendment to a crap bill added to that bill because the Ds are playing politics. Adding such amendments to crap bills is a way that is age-old and used in politics all the time to get people to vote against something so you can try to use it in the main elections. They know that first these people need to win their primaries and they have a window where they can create some ammunition for the main elections.

Seriously, what I find weak is that after years of hanging around and talking politics with y'all you still pretend as if these games aren't played and that they are somehow impossible for you to spot.

 

[Bonestorm]

First... No, he wasn't talking about two separate bills. You absolutely are just making stuff up now.

He said, "I voted for that bill before I voted against it."

Second, this is the election year, not last year.

Third, no, it is an amendment to a crap bill added to that bill because the Ds are playing politics. Adding such amendments to crap bills is a way that is age-old and used in politics all the time to get people to vote against something so you can try to use it in the main elections. They know that first these people need to win their primaries and they have a window where they can create some ammunition for the main elections.

Seriously, what I find weak is that after years of hanging around and talking politics with y'all you still pretend as if these games aren't played and that they are somehow impossible for you to spot.

First, Kerry voted for HR 3289 before he voted against S 1689. They were two different bills. And he said "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it," not what you claim he said.

Second, who cares if it is an election year. Votes in December are somehow magically different from votes in January? It is extremely common practice for members of Congress to vote in favor of amendments to bills when they know they will not end up voting for the bill. It's a make it the best/worst bill you can and vote against it strategy and one that the republicans have employed quite often since becoming the minority.

Third, the bill doesn't matter. The amendment does. Republicans don't like PAYGO so they voted against the PAYGO amendment. If they liked PAYGO they would have voted for the amendment and against the bill, as they commonly do such as with heathcare reform.

Fourth, what I find seriously weak is that you pretend that Republicans really like PAYGO when you can't point to a single instance since 1997 that they voted in favor of it. Game or no games, Republicans hate PAYGO and don't support it.

 

[Good Luck]

Third, this is a paygo amendment, it isn't just titled that.

So you keep saying, either out of complete ignorance, or out of desperate lying.

So, since you think this is paygo, point out exactly which section, and the wording that makes any kind of actual paygo statement. Point out the language from the bill that describes which programs are required under this amendment to receive funding first before expanding the program, and how that funding is to be determined. Point out where it says a program may not be expanded if funding is not secured for the expansion. Those are the factors that make a law "paygo". So point it out.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Republicans hate pay as you go because they're committed to reducing that federal government to a mere police force to enforce the multinational corporate agenda on the public.

 

[Bonestorm]

So you keep saying, either out of complete ignorance, or out of desperate lying.

So, since you think this is paygo, point out exactly which section, and the wording that makes any kind of actual paygo statement. Point out the language from the bill that describes which programs are required under this amendment to receive funding first before expanding the program, and how that funding is to be determined. Point out where it says a program may not be expanded if funding is not secured for the expansion. Those are the factors that make a law "paygo". So point it out.

The bill says quite explicitly that all bills are required to be scored by the OMB or CBO to determine their cost and that at the end of the year a PAYGO scorecard will be prepared detailing the cost of all legislation passed. If the total costs result in a budget deficit, the OMB shall reduce outlays by a uniform percentage across the board (subject to a variety of exceptions) to offset the budget year deficit.

It's all right in there.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

"I'll be for PayGo, just as soon as it's all gone"......SillyLiberalMonkies......

 

[Damocles]

First, Kerry voted for HR 3289 before he voted against S 1689. They were two different bills. And he said "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it," not what you claim he said.

Second, who cares if it is an election year. Votes in December are somehow magically different from votes in January? It is extremely common practice for members of Congress to vote in favor of amendments to bills when they know they will not end up voting for the bill. It's a make it the best/worst bill you can and vote against it strategy and one that the republicans have employed quite often since becoming the minority.

Third, the bill doesn't matter. The amendment does. Republicans don't like PAYGO so they voted against the PAYGO amendment. If they liked PAYGO they would have voted for the amendment and against the bill, as they commonly do such as with heathcare reform.

Fourth, what I find seriously weak is that you pretend that Republicans really like PAYGO when you can't point to a single instance since 1997 that they voted in favor of it. Game or no games, Republicans hate PAYGO and don't support it.

1. That is the same bill, different Congressional version. Again, you pretend as if people here do not know the process, we're supposed to bow down to this as if that made it somehow different, it wasn't.

Thanks for proving my point on this and giving the quote, it is helpful to my argument. My point stands stronger now that you understand how voting "for" something before voting "against" it can be problematic for somebody during an election year, and that the bill it is attached to is IMPORTANT.

2. The constituency cares, time is important in election years, how people voted recently finds its way far more often into gotcha ads.

3. The bill does matter, and it is this type of pretense that will be used later in the regular elections that would be used in primaries now... That and the fact that this paygo amendment doesn't do as you say it does. Just as saying "freeze" doesn't actually end the massive record deficit spending that will be included into the "frozen" level.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

So paygo doesn't exist? is that it?

 

[Damocles]

So paygo doesn't exist? is that it?

Not yet, at least not with this. Levels set as they are, they just push around deficit spending to "pay" for something... the idea is a reasonable idea and I am sure it will get the support it needs.

 

[Bonestorm]

I'll just note for the record that all of the Republican defenders that claim that Republicans really do like PAYGO, you still haven't pointed to one instance since 1997 of the Republicans actually voting in favor of PAYGO.

Why is that if Republicans really truly do like PAYGO?

1. That is the same bill, different Congressional version. Again, you pretend as if people here do not know the process, we're supposed to bow down to this as if that made it somehow different, it wasn't.

Thanks for proving my point on this and giving the quote, it is helpful to my argument. My point stands stronger now that you understand how voting "for" something before voting "against" it can be problematic for somebody during an election year, and that the bill it is attached to is IMPORTANT.

No, they were two different bills on the same subject with different provisions. Those bills were reconciled in the conference committee process. Kerry's votes were two different votes on two different bills.

And again, voting for an amendment to a bill is not voting for a bill. It isn't problematic to vote for an amendment and to vote against the overall bill. Members of congress do it all the time as these same Republicans did for amendments to the heathcare bill.

2. The constituency cares, time is important in election years, how people voted recently finds its way far more often into gotcha ads.

So the passage of 30 days explains why it was fine for Republicans to vote in favor of amendments to the heatlhcare reform bill but not OK for them to vote in favor of PAYGO. That's pretty ridiculous, Damo.

3. The bill does matter, and it is this pretense. That and the fact that this paygo amendment doesn't do as you say it does. Just as saying "freeze" doesn't actually end the massive record deficit spending that will be included into the "frozen" level.

The PAYGO does precisely what I say it does.

And I'm not going to argue your nonsensical point about stimulus funds being included in the "freeze" levels. Just move on. I have.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Not yet, at least not with this. Levels set as they are, they just push around deficit spending to "pay" for something... the idea is a reasonable idea and I am sure it will get the support it needs.

That's how all of our government "paying" is damo.

 

[Damocles]

I'll just note for the record that all of the Republican defenders that claim that Republicans really do like PAYGO, you still haven't pointed to one instance since 1997 of the Republicans actually voting in favor of PAYGO.

Why is that if Republicans really truly do like PAYGO?




No, they were two different bills on the same subject with different provisions. Those bills were reconciled in the conference committee process. Kerry's votes were two different votes on two different bills.

And again, voting for an amendment to a bill is not voting for a bill. It isn't problematic to vote for an amendment and to vote against the overall bill. Members of congress do it all the time as these same Republicans did for amendments to the heathcare bill.

LOL>>

Seriously. That is how the process works, different version of the same bill have provisions that are different and they are reconciled between the two houses of congress. And again it only underlines my point, the bill it is attached to is IMPORTANT. And again I thank you for helping me make that point. Even slight differences in the same bill made Kerry choose differently.

So the passage of 30 days explains why it was fine for Republicans to vote in favor of amendments to the heatlhcare reform bill but not OK for them to vote in favor of PAYGO. That's pretty ridiculous, Damo.

No, the BILL makes the difference and the proximity of time to the election. Both things together make it so that the Ds chose this bill knowing that Rs facing primary challenges would ask their party to vote against anything at all attached to the bill.... I keep having to repeat myself, then you keep pretending I only said a portion of what I have then saying the same inane dodge, I then repeat it again. Stuff like this happens every election year, and I have explained why it does. Both parties participate in the game, it is yours that offered this amendment to a crap bill and I pointed out why.

You keep pretending as if such games are never played and that you are somehow incapable of ever catching them.... It's just plain inane to pretend that while paying this much attention to politics.

The PAYGO does precisely what I say it does.

And I'm not going to argue your nonsensical point about stimulus funds being included in the "freeze" levels. Just move on. I have.

I won't "move on" because I am right and you know it, the only reason you did on that one was because you know I am right. Obama never even slightly suggested he'd give up on stimulus spending because of his "freeze", that's because he never planned on doing any such thing. The reality is stimulus is a portion of discretionary spending, included in this record spending budget and that levels that it will "freeze" at will be placed at that line.

More reality: Obama himself said that this "freeze" will save us only 250 Billion in deficits by 2020... If stimulus isn't included it would "save" us that much the first year of implementation, but it is included in that spending level, that's why it saves us so little over such a long period of time...