PDA

View Full Version : Ethical Tactics ?



Franco
07-19-2009, 02:01 PM
If the Health Care Bill is so good, why don't the Democrats want anyone to read it first? Anyone remember the TRILLION dollar stimulus bill they didn't want us to read as well. The stimulus bill that isn't working!

Pelosi Censors Republicans
by Rep. John Carter 07/16/2009

Monday night Democrats voted to shut down the U.S. House Representatives rather than allow a handful of Republican Congressmen to speak on the floor. What could have been so offensive or frightening about our discourse that Speaker Pelosi felt she had to protect her party by gagging free speech in the House?

In fact, we had planned to speak on the lack of transparency of the House since Democrats took control. We had planned to criticize Speaker Pelosi for repeatedly denying Members, the media, and the public to right to read legislation before it was voted on. We were set to discuss House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s statement last week that if his Members were required to read the Democrats’ healthcare reform package before it was voted on, it would fail.

So the Speaker obviously feels that if the public is truly aware of her party’s agenda, they will reject it. She is now making sure the public is kept in the dark by trampling the centuries-old democratic traditions of the House.

What are those traditions? Every day that the House is in session, following the final vote of the day, representatives are allowed the privilege of free speech on the House floor in what is known as “Special Orders.” They may speak for one minute, five minutes, or one hour segments, and must request their time in advance. Time is allocated equally to both parties on a first-come basis.

Since the advent of live C-SPAN coverage of the House, this has provided a national televised outlet for both Republicans and Democrats to speak to the nation on topics they feel were not adequately addressed during regular order in the House, during which the Democrat majority has the parliamentary ability to limit debate and speeches.

Special Orders therefore frequently serves as a political safety valve if the party in the majority becomes too dictatorial during debate, using t heir majority status to truly oppress the minority’s ability to debate and offer amendments.

That is now the case in the House, with the Democrat majority under Pelosi repeatedly rejecting House rules to ram a far-left agenda through before the public has time to learn what is actually in the bills.

This is what we were committed to bring to public light.

House rules require a bill be publicly posted for three days before it can be voted on. That basic rule was written by none other than Thomas Jefferson as part of the original rules package of the House, as it is essential to the survival of representative democracy.

But Nancy Pelosi and her House Democrats have chosen to ignore the rule on every major issue taken up by the House this year, including:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - The Obama Stimulus: This one just had to pass that very day because time was a-wastin’ in getting those new jobs coming. We couldn’t wait for Members to read it. But then the President waited four days to sign it into law while he spent the weekend in Chicago, and months later none of the new jobs have come into existence.

The Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization (SCHIP): Speaker Pelosi couldn’t wait on this one either, although the deadline for reauthorization was still two months away.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: Lilly was peddled as covering decades-old wage discrimination cases, but after waiting 2 0 years, Congress couldn’t wait one more day to let Members actually read the thing. The bill is still stuck in the Senate Committee

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009: No excuses at all on this one. They just didn’t want the details known.

The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009: This one has been languishing since last October, but we suddenly had to pass it that day.

The AIG Bonus Tax Act: This had to get through right then, don’t mind the details, we just had to go after those bonuses. Only when we read what passed after the fact, the bill contained waivers for all of the same executives the bill was supposed to reign in, many with curiously close ties to Treasury Secretary and tax cheat Tim Geithner.

The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009: No rush whatever on this one time-wise, the Democrats just didn’t want people talking about the hundreds of billions given to foreign banks that should have gone to our troops.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act/National Cap-and-Trade Energy Tax:
No excuse was offered on this one, the Speaker just didn’t want anybody reading Henry Waxman’s 300 page amendment he sneaked in overnight before we were forced to vote. Three weeks later, the Senate shows no intention of taking up the bill before the opening day of dove season, if then.

There’s a reason all these bills are listed. The list constitutes every major policy bill undertaken by Congress this year. House Democrats are not just waiving the three-day rule -- they have destroyed it, and are intentionally pushing their agenda to the floor with blindfolds on the media and the public.

This constitutes an astonishing and chilling acceleration of the assault on representative democracy that began in earnest this January.

Representative democracy works when a U.S. Representative listens to the input of their constituents, and votes the way the majority of their district would vote. Only a Representative can’t listen if no one has ever seen the bill, or had time to provide input. They have to vote blind, which for too many, is voting the way their leadership tells them.

This is what Republican House Members were going to the floor to say Monday night. We were set to decry the loss of openness in the House.

Instead, we were met with a slammed door by Democrats, who are now committed to burying truth along with democracy.

The Democrats are the majority -- for now. They chose to silence debate on the floor by gagging House Republican Members from using their historical right to speak after the close of the day. But they cannot stop us from speaking outside the halls of Congress and letting the American public know the truth about their ongoing attack against the very foundations of a free Republic.

dnf777
07-19-2009, 02:38 PM
Frankly, I don't know what to think anymore.

The stimulus bill was originally conceived under Bush II. And since life begins at conception, I'm calling that one HIS baby. I clearly remember Hank Paulson holding up ONE PAGE describing how 700 billion would be used. It take me 8 pages of consent forms to lance a pimple on someone's a$$, so I doubted the integrity of the stimulus money.

Now, clearly obama has adopted this bastard child, and want to raise it, and watch it grow. I honestly don't know who to thank, or who to blame. All I know is that we are getting $crewed, and bankers and politicians, both republican and democrat, are getting rich!

I think I'm going to go work on "hold", as my dog is mouthing pretty bad. Then run some derby doubles....then....cold ones and a bonfire to wrap up a beautiful Sunday. (76 and sunny)

Later,
Dave

Franco
07-19-2009, 03:31 PM
The Stimulus/Pork bill that Obama signed in February09 is all his.

limiman12
07-19-2009, 04:23 PM
So if these bills were passed without following the Rules Of the House? Can't they be ruled invalid/unconstitutional? I was aware at the less then three days to read the 1000 page "stimulous" bill, but not the others. If a bill is not passed in occordance with the rules how is it legal, when if a cop arrasets a murderer without reading his Miranda rights the murderer walks? Seems like a double standard working the wrong way.

YardleyLabs
07-19-2009, 04:30 PM
So if these bills were passed without following the Rules Of the House? Can't they be ruled invalid/unconstitutional? I was aware at the less then three days to read the 1000 page "stimulous" bill, but not the others. If a bill is not passed in occordance with the rules how is it legal, when if a cop arrasets a murderer without reading his Miranda rights the murderer walks? Seems like a double standard working the wrong way.
What is being done is in accordance with the rules of the House and consistent with what Republicans did routinely when they controlled the House (for example, with the Bush tax cut bill). Democrats decried these tactics when they were used by the Republicans (who defended them as the only way to do the people's business) and Republicans afr now upset when the shoe has moved to the other foot. In addition, the rules of the House are solely the concern of the House and are not subject to Court review (U.S. Constitution, Section V.2).

subroc
07-19-2009, 04:43 PM
And who is it that sanctions congress?

You do with your vote.

Is this the issue, come election time, that will have you voting against the incumbent or speaking out against congress? Or, will you look at the d or r and vote accordingly.

BTW, I expect most lefty’s love the idea of government controlled health care and honestly believe this represents the change they voted for.

BTW2, I also expect that most lefty’s couldn’t give 2 $h!ts whether the congress is run fairly as long as the left wing socialist agenda they voted for comes to pass.

Franco
07-19-2009, 05:26 PM
consistent with what Republicans did routinely when they controlled the House (for example, with the Bush tax cut bill).



A huge difference; Bush was at least trying to give taxpayers thier money back while the Democrats are instituting their socialist agenda. Thus, if they stay in power long enough we will all be poor.

YardleyLabs
07-19-2009, 05:56 PM
A huge difference; Bush was at least trying to give taxpayers thier money back while the Democrats are instituting their socialist agenda. Thus, if they stay in power long enough we will all be poor.
So, if I understand you, the difference is that it's OK to follow these kinds of tactics if you agree with the objective and wrong if you disagree.

I always thought that one of the things we considered most important about our society is that we believed that the ends do not justify the means. That was one of the factors that we said differentiated us from the Communists during the Cold War. Today, the radical right have become the new Communists, believing that anything is justifiable if done for a "good cause." Unfortunately, the radical left is not far behind. Personally, I disagree and believe that how we make decisions as a society is infinitely more important that what decisions we make. If we make decisions in a respectfully inclusive way, I believe that this will ultimately be reflected in the quality of decisions made even if there are some nasty mistakes (e.g. the election of .... -- insert the villain of your choice) along the way.

road kill
07-19-2009, 06:26 PM
So, if I understand you, the difference is that it's OK to follow these kinds of tactics if you agree with the objective and wrong if you disagree.

.


That's exactly how you operate as well.

Anything Obama and the Progressives do is either OK or Bush's fault.

Franco
07-19-2009, 07:26 PM
So, if I understand you, the difference is that it's OK to follow these kinds of tactics if you agree with the objective and wrong if you disagree.



How can any American not agree with getting to keep more of thier money? As opposed to higher taxes on everything as the gooberment blunders it way though our money and all the money they are borrowing and printing and insuring a real financial catasropy. All the while destroying the best health Care System in the world. The Democrates are out of control!

YardleyLabs
07-19-2009, 08:02 PM
That's exactly how you operate as well.

Anything Obama and the Progressives do is either OK or Bush's fault.
I don't think you will find any evidence in my posts or my life to support either of these statements.

YardleyLabs
07-19-2009, 08:04 PM
How can any American not agree with getting to keep more of thier money? As opposed to higher taxes on everything as the gooberment blunders it way though our money and all the money they are borrowing and printing and insuring a real financial catasropy. All the while destroying the best health Care System in the world. The Democrates are out of control!
Our government has been totally out of control for more than eight years. The best way I can think of limiting how stupid the government gets is to force it to pay its bills as the costs are incurred.

Gerry Clinchy
07-19-2009, 09:19 PM
Our government has been totally out of control for more than eight years. The best way I can think of limiting how stupid the government gets is to force it to pay its bills as the costs are incurred.

If past record is any indication, I can't envision any of our Congresspeople being able to live within a budget, much less passing a law that would compel them to do so.

YardleyLabs
07-19-2009, 09:42 PM
If past record is any indication, I can't envision any of our Congresspeople being able to live within a budget, much less passing a law that would compel them to do so.
They actually adopted such a limit in the pay as you go (or PayGo) plan in the 1990 Budget Reconciliation Act. The rules remained in effect until 2002 when they were eliminated by Republicans to exempt tax cuts and anything else that Republicans defined as a priority. This was demanded and supported by the Bush Administration. The PayGo rules played a central role in the reduction of the deficit during the Clinton administration.

road kill
07-20-2009, 07:20 AM
They actually adopted such a limit in the pay as you go (or PayGo) plan in the 1990 Budget Reconciliation Act. The rules remained in effect until 2002 when they were eliminated by Republicans to exempt tax cuts and anything else that Republicans defined as a priority. This was demanded and supported by the Bush Administration. The PayGo rules played a central role in the reduction of the deficit during the Clinton administration.

"I don't think you will find any evidence in my posts or my life to support either of these statements. "

Yeah, I think I can.

Bob Gutermuth
07-20-2009, 07:47 AM
The Republic isn't safe when the legislature is in session.

YardleyLabs
07-20-2009, 08:02 AM
"I don't think you will find any evidence in my posts or my life to support either of these statements. "

Yeah, I think I can.

You accused me of believing that the ends justify the means even if the means themselves are unethical. You also said that I say that everything done by "progressives" or Obama is either OK or the fault of Bush. I never suggested that I liked Bush. I beleve he will be remembered far into our future as one of the worst presidents in our history.

If you take a factual statement that Bush was behind the elimination of PayGo rules as evidence of blaming everything on Bush then you must hate history that has not been written by apologists and polemicists. The bankrupting of our country over the last eight years was clearly promoted by the actions of the Bush administration which was quite explicit about its belief that the deficit was not very important. I believe that has a great deal to do with our current economic problems. I find it ironic that the same people who said nothing about Bush's deficits are now saying the world as we know it will end as a result of Obama's continuation of deficits similar to those incurred by Bush.

However, I believe Bush's policies do not excuse policies by the Obama administration that make the problem worse. Rather, it demands that the new administration work even harder to reverse the disaster that it inherited. It is both wrong and stupid to blame the current administration for what it inherited. It is entirely appropriate to blame the current administration for what it does to make things better or worse. As I have noted before, I reluctantly believe that the efforts to stimulate the economy through increased spending are risky but justified. I do not believe that the same is true of a budget that projects on-going large deficits after the economy begins to grow again. I believe that will perpetuate the types of problems we are now experiencing as a result of Bush's failures.

I believe that the PayGo approach developed in 1990 was a good strategy for managing the budget in times of growth. I hope it will be reinstated and that there will be no exceptions for tax cuts, war funding, health care funding, or any other cause regardless of merits. If the cause is worth the cost, we should pay it immediately rather than leaving it for our children. If it is not worth the cost, we should forget it.

road kill
07-20-2009, 08:09 AM
You accused me of believing that the ends justify the means even if the means themselves are unethical. You also said that I say that everything done by "progressives" or Obama is either OK or the fault of Bush. I never suggested that I liked Bush. I beleve he will be remembered far into our future as one of the worst presidents in our history.

If you take a factual statement that Bush was behind the elimination of PayGo rules as evidence of blaming everything on Bush then you must hate history that has not been written by apologists and polemicists. The bankrupting of our country over the last eight years was clearly promoted by the actions of the Bush administration which was quite explicit about its belief that the deficit was not very important. I believe that has a great deal to do with our current economic problems. I find it ironic that the same people who said nothing about Bush's deficits are now saying the world as we know it will end as a result of Obama's continuation of deficits similar to those incurred by Bush.

However, I believe Bush's policies do not excuse policies by the Obama administration that make the problem worse. Rather, it demands that the new administration work even harder to reverse the disaster that it inherited. It is both wrong and stupid to blame the current administration for what it inherited. It is entirely appropriate to blame the current administration for what it does to make things better or worse. As I have noted before, I reluctantly believe that the efforts to stimulate the economy through increased spending are risky but justified. I do not believe that the same is true of a budget that projects on-going large deficits after the economy begins to grow again. I believe that will perpetuate the types of problems we are now experiencing as a result of Bush's failures.

I believe that the PayGo approach developed in 1990 was a good strategy for managing the budget in times of growth. I hope it will be reinstated and that there will be no exceptions for tax cuts, war funding, health care funding, or any other cause regardless of merits. If the cause is worth the cost, we should pay it immediately rather than leaving it for our children. If it is not worth the cost, we should forget it.
You need to re-read my post;
"That's exactly how you operate as well.

Anything Obama and the Progressives do is either OK or Bush's fault."


Show me where I said you said "the ends justify the means."

You do however excuse everything the progressive liberals say & do, or blame it on Bush.
It took 3 posts for you to do exactly that.

HUMVEE regards!!

YardleyLabs
07-20-2009, 08:16 AM
You need to re-read my post;
"That's exactly how you operate as well.

Anything Obama and the Progressives do is either OK or Bush's fault."


Show me where I said you said "the ends justify the means."

You do however excuse everything the progressive liberals say & do, or blame it on Bush.
It took 3 posts for you to do exactly that.

HUMVEE regards!!
Your sentence (shown in bold) was a response to a quote from me about those believing that the ends justify the means.

I do not excuse everything done by progressives. I blame Bush for what I believe are the bad things he did. When "progressives" do the same things, I blame progressives for those actions in the same way. I believe that running deficits in a growing economy is a bad thing. I don't care who does it. That is very different from what you are implying in your statement.

Hew
07-20-2009, 08:23 AM
If you take a factual statement that Bush was behind the elimination of PayGo rules as evidence of blaming everything on Bush then you must hate history that has not been written by apologists and polemicists.
Speaking of hating history, you have declared jihad on it. Congress began end-arounding and by-passing PayGo requirements in 1998...well before Bush was sworn in. By 2002 PayGo was a shellgame and charade.

Just a hunch, but maybe that's the kind of stuff Road Kill is referring to. ;)

road kill
07-20-2009, 08:27 AM
Speaking of hating history, you have declared jihad on it. Congress began end-arounding and by-passing PayGo requirements in 1998...well before Bush was sworn in. By 2002 PayGo was a shellgame and charade.

Just a hunch, but maybe that's the kind of stuff Road Kill is referring to. ;)

Ya think??:cool:

dnf777
07-20-2009, 09:15 AM
Speaking of hating history, you have declared jihad on it. Congress began end-arounding and by-passing PayGo requirements in 1998...well before Bush was sworn in. By 2002 PayGo was a shellgame and charade.

Just a hunch, but maybe that's the kind of stuff Road Kill is referring to. ;)

Was that Newt's congress your ill-referring to in '98?

Franco
07-20-2009, 09:19 AM
Newt resigned in early 1998 so, I doubt he was responsible.

Hew
07-20-2009, 09:24 AM
Was that Newt's congress your ill-referring to in '98?
Why yes it would be. And that negates my point that it wasn't Bush who was responsible for PayGo swirling down the drain just how...?

Or were you just wanting to remind everybody that you're the Jiminy Cricket of hardcore conservatism?

road kill
07-20-2009, 09:25 AM
Newt resigned in early 1998 so, I doubt he was responsible.

You don't get it.....

when it comes to blame;

#1--George Bush
#2--Mr. Newt

Just tryin' to help!!:D

YardleyLabs
07-20-2009, 09:53 AM
Speaking of hating history, you have declared jihad on it. Congress began end-arounding and by-passing PayGo requirements in 1998...well before Bush was sworn in. By 2002 PayGo was a shellgame and charade.

Just a hunch, but maybe that's the kind of stuff Road Kill is referring to. ;)
You are absolutely right about Congress going around the PayGo rules beginning in 1998. That was when the US found itself in a position that had not been anticipated when PayGo was adopted: for the first time in recent history it was facing surpluses that grew to 2.4% of GDP. Wikipedia notes:


"In the initial PAYGO regimen, enacted in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1990) (OBRA '90), by statutory requirement, any increases in the deficit were to be offset by an across the board "sequestration" of programs. This means an automatic cut in non-exempt mandatory spending programs -- this was calculated by the Office of Management and Budget at the end of the year.
These rules were in effect from FY1991-FY2002 [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO#cite_note-1) and are widely seen as having assisted the US Congress in maintaining budget discipline. In FY 1991 the Federal deficit was 4.5% of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_Domestic_Product), by FY 2000 the Federal surplus was 2.4%. [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO#cite_note-autogenerated1-2) Total Federal spending as a percentage of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_Domestic_Product) decreased each and every year from FY1991 through FY 2000, falling from 22.3% to 18.4%. [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO#cite_note-autogenerated1-2)
In 1998, in response to the first federal budget surplus since 1969, Congress started increasing discretionary spending above the statutory limit using creative means such as advance appropriations, delays in making obligations and payments, emergency designations, and specific directives. [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO#cite_note-autogenerated2-3) While staying within the technical definition of the law, this allowed "emergency" spending that otherwise would not be allowed. The result was emergency spending of $34 billion in 1999 and $44 billion in 2000. In 2001 that amount jumped to $700 billion, most of which came from the 2001 tax cut (Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_ of_2001)). [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO#cite_note-autogenerated2-3) In 2001 Congress began removing discretionary spending by statute from the PAYGO scorecard. Those amounts were $90 billion in 2001, $65 billion in 2002, $127 billion in 2003, $150 billion in 2004, $142 billion in 2005, and $444 billion in 2006. [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO#cite_note-autogenerated2-3)

The appropriate change that should have been made to PayGo would have been to adopt a targeted surplus/deficit based on the state of the economy and to use that as the controlling limitation. With an economy growing in the 2-4% range, the target would be zero -- that is, no surplus or deficit. With a sluggish economy, a deficit would be appropriate with the size dependent on the condition of the economy. With an economy growing more than 4%/year, a surplus would be appropriate to prevent the economy from overheating. However, the reality was that when the PayGo program was first developed, no one believed that it would be possible to eliminate the deficit in any foreseeable future.

As noted in the Wiki quote, the "violation" pf PayGo rules was fairly minimal prior to 2001, with exemptions totalling around 30% of the actual surplus incurred in the budget. Under Bush, there was a much reduced surplus in the first year of the administration -- largely reflecting the final Clinton budget -- followed by massive and growing deficits thereafter in every budget proposed by the new administration.

The thinking that led to these deficits began at the top. Bush's first Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill opposed a second round of tax cuts in 2002 because he believed that further stimulus was unwarranted and the cuts would result in a massive ballooning of the deficit. Cheney reportedly replied that "deficits don't matter" and forced O'Neill to resign a few months later (see, for example, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26402-2004Jun8?language=printer). At the time of O'Neill's objections, it was clear that the inherited surpluses had been squandered and that the nation was headed yet again for massive deficits, obliterating the progress made during the prior ten years. O'Neill represented well the traditional Republican views of fiscal conservatism but found there was no room for him in a party which, on one hand believed that tax cuts would always generate growth offsetting revenue losses and, on the other hand, tended to believe that bankrupting government was the most efficient way to force a revolution against government spending. (See http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_52/b3914021_mz007.htm)

The Bush/Cheney policy was a sharp reversal of the policies advocated by Clinton, who was a fiscal conservative and often sought alliance with Republicans to counter Congressional Democrat efforts to spend more. People tend to forget that Clinton came to office as a member of the NDC, which was the equivalent of what are now called the Blue Dog Democrats, who are noted for being more fiscally conservative.

road kill
07-20-2009, 09:58 AM
You are absolutely right about Congress going around the PayGo rules beginning in 1998. That was when the US found itself in a position that had not been anticipated when PayGo was adopted: for the first time in recent history it was facing surpluses that grew to 2.4% of GDP. Wikipedia notes:


"In the initial PAYGO regimen, enacted in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1990) (OBRA '90), by statutory requirement, any increases in the deficit were to be offset by an across the board "sequestration" of programs. This means an automatic cut in non-exempt mandatory spending programs -- this was calculated by the Office of Management and Budget at the end of the year.
These rules were in effect from FY1991-FY2002 [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO#cite_note-1) and are widely seen as having assisted the US Congress in maintaining budget discipline. In FY 1991 the Federal deficit was 4.5% of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_Domestic_Product), by FY 2000 the Federal surplus was 2.4%. [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO#cite_note-autogenerated1-2) Total Federal spending as a percentage of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_Domestic_Product) decreased each and every year from FY1991 through FY 2000, falling from 22.3% to 18.4%. [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO#cite_note-autogenerated1-2)
In 1998, in response to the first federal budget surplus since 1969, Congress started increasing discretionary spending above the statutory limit using creative means such as advance appropriations, delays in making obligations and payments, emergency designations, and specific directives. [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO#cite_note-autogenerated2-3) While staying within the technical definition of the law, this allowed "emergency" spending that otherwise would not be allowed. The result was emergency spending of $34 billion in 1999 and $44 billion in 2000. In 2001 that amount jumped to $700 billion, most of which came from the 2001 tax cut (Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_ of_2001)). [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO#cite_note-autogenerated2-3) In 2001 Congress began removing discretionary spending by statute from the PAYGO scorecard. Those amounts were $90 billion in 2001, $65 billion in 2002, $127 billion in 2003, $150 billion in 2004, $142 billion in 2005, and $444 billion in 2006. [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO#cite_note-autogenerated2-3)

The appropriate change that should have been made to PayGo would have been to adopt a targeted surplus/deficit based on the state of the economy and to use that as the controlling limitation. With an economy growing in the 2-4% range, the target would be zero -- that is, no surplus or deficit. With a sluggish economy, a deficit would be appropriate with the size dependent on the condition of the economy. With an economy growing more than 4%/year, a surplus would be appropriate to prevent the economy from overheating. However, the reality was that when the PayGo program was first developed, no one believed that it would be possible to eliminate the deficit in any foreseeable future.

As noted in the Wiki quote, the "violation" pf PayGo rules was fairly minimal prior to 2001, with exemptions totalling around 30% of the actual surplus incurred in the budget. Under Bush, there was a much reduced surplus in the first year of the administration -- largely reflecting the final Clinton budget -- followed by massive and growing deficits thereafter in every budget proposed by the new administration.

The thinking that led to these deficits began at the top. Bush's first Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill opposed a second round of tax cuts in 2002 because he believed that further stimulus was unwarranted and the cuts would result in a massive ballooning of the deficit. Cheney reportedly replied that "deficits don't matter" and forced O'Neill to resign a few months later (see, for example, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26402-2004Jun8?language=printer). At the time of O'Neill's objections, it was clear that the inherited surpluses had been squandered and that the nation was headed yet again for massive deficits, obliterating the progress made during the prior ten years. O'Neill represented well the traditional Republican views of fiscal conservatism but found there was no room for him in a party which, on one hand believed that tax cuts would always generate growth offsetting revenue losses and, on the other hand, tended to believe that bankrupting government was the most efficient way to force a revolution against government spending. (See http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_52/b3914021_mz007.htm)

The Bush/Cheney policy was a sharp reversal of the policies advocated by Clinton, who was a fiscal conservative and often sought alliance with Republicans to counter Congressional Democrat efforts to spend more. People tend to forget that Clinton came to office as a member of the NDC, which was the equivalent of what are now called the Blue Dog Democrats, who are noted for being more fiscally conservative.



More blame for Bush.

What is being done to correct all of his errors??

Oh, yeah, spend TRILLIONS!!

YardleyLabs
07-20-2009, 10:06 AM
More blame for Bush.

What is being done to correct all of his errors??

Oh, yeah, spend TRILLIONS!!

As I already said, I am opposed to Obama's budget proposals that call for continuing deficits after the economy begins to grow again. That would do nothing but continue Bush's economic insanity. While I am concerned by the deficits being incurred now, I believe they are a necessary short-term evil in the face of the collapse of our economy last year.

dnf777
07-20-2009, 10:08 AM
You don't get it.....

when it comes to blame;

#1--George Bush
#2--Mr. Newt

Just tryin' to help!!:D

Hey, I didn't blame anybody. I was just asking who Hew was blaming. Ask him.

I do know Newt cut military retirement pay as part of his "contract with America" legislation.....not a very veteran-friendly stance there. But again, I'd rathe pay my fair share, than end up in the mess we're in today.

I'll be plenty happy to blame Obama if he continues the failed policies of the last administration, which so far, he seems to be doing. (and I don't include stem-cell research and gay marriage as existential crises facing our country)

road kill
07-20-2009, 10:11 AM
As I already said, I am opposed to Obama's budget proposals that call for continuing deficits after the economy begins to grow again. That would do nothing but continue Bush's economic insanity. While I am concerned by the deficits being incurred now, I believe they are a necessary short-term evil in the face of the collapse of our economy last year.

There was no "collapse."

There was a credit crunch, by design.
(small & medium business run on credit against accounts recievable)

See: GOLDMAN SACHS!!

They are essentially running the US finacial sector now....and yes, it started with BUSH!!

Franco
07-20-2009, 10:13 AM
I am opposed to Obama's budget proposals that call for continuing deficits after the economy begins to grow again.



With the Dems pushing for government run Health Care, Cap and Trade along with their wasteful spending of billions on pork, I doubt we will see a growing economy.

How does one get the economy to grow all the while they are destroying small businesses, making it too difficult for larger business to expand and destroying the value of the dollar?

The Dems' Social Agenda is going to destroy our economy.

dback
07-20-2009, 10:41 AM
Why yes it would be. And that negates my point that it wasn't Bush who was responsible for PayGo swirling down the drain just how...?

Or were you just wanting to remind everybody that you're the Jiminy Cricket of hardcore conservatism?

Damn-it HEW...knock it off. You've got my wife cutting 'Depends' coupons from the Walgreens flyers...I just shit myself I laughed so hard at that one.

road kill
07-20-2009, 10:46 AM
With the Dems pushing for government run Health Care, Cap and Trade along with their wasteful spending of billions on pork, I doubt we will see a growing economy.

How does one get the economy to grow all the while they are destroying small businesses, making it too difficult for larger business to expand and destroying the value of the dollar?

The Dems' Social Agenda is going to destroy our economy.


Cap & Trade is a scam based on the "Man Made Global Warming" SCAM!!

Who owns the companies geared toward trading carbon credits?

I guess now we know what the progressives mean by "GREEN" business'.:D


stan b