The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: Ethical Tactics ?

  1. #21
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    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??
    Stan b & Elvis

  2. #22
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    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?
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  3. #23
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,932

    Default

    Newt resigned in early 1998 so, I doubt he was responsible.
    Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Calvin Coolidge



  4. #24
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    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?
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  5. #25
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Franco View Post
    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!!
    Stan b & Elvis

  6. #26
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    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 (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] 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, by FY 2000 the Federal surplus was 2.4%. [3] Total Federal spending as a percentage of GDP decreased each and every year from FY1991 through FY 2000, falling from 22.3% to 18.4%. [3]
    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] 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). [4] 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]

    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...nguage=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...4021_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.

  7. #27
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    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 (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] 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, by FY 2000 the Federal surplus was 2.4%. [3] Total Federal spending as a percentage of GDP decreased each and every year from FY1991 through FY 2000, falling from 22.3% to 18.4%. [3]
    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] 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). [4] 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]

    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...nguage=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...4021_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!!
    Stan b & Elvis

  8. #28
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    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.

  9. #29
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    You don't get it.....

    when it comes to blame;

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

    Just tryin' to help!!
    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)
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  10. #30
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    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!!
    Stan b & Elvis

Similar Threads

  1. HSUS using bully tactics?
    By Ken Archer in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-24-2009, 10:19 AM
  2. Ethical Question
    By Starky in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-02-2009, 11:05 AM
  3. Ethical Question
    By Bruce MacPherson in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 03-13-2008, 01:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •