|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:26 pm Post subject: Republicans Try To Obstruct Deficit Reduction Policy |
 |
|
It's gotten ridiculous, but it's also now totally undeniable: Republicans will obstruct pretty much anything Democrats try to do, even if they themselves claim to support the policy in question. Consider this, if you will.
| Quote: |
In his State of the Union address last night, President Obama urged the Senate to adopt pay-as-you-go rules (PAYGO), which essentially stipulate that all spending increases will be offset by either cuts elsewhere or tax increases. �When the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s,� Obama said. |
Sounds like something those anti-deficit Republicans would want to get behind, right? After all, this policy ensures that the only possible way to increase net spending is to increase taxes, which not only controls deficit spending, but also gives Republicans an excellent platform from which to attack any actual net spending increases, because they can scream about the taxes associated with them. And indeed, Republicans have voiced support for this policy in the past:
| Quote: |
For instance, in 2004, three current Senate Republicans � Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) � joined 47 Democrats in adopting PAYGO, against the majority Republicans� wishes (although the rule was ultimately scuttled when Congress failed to pass a budget). The next year, the same three senators were joined by Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) in a failed attempt to implement the rule.
Yet all four of them opposed the rule today. Here�s what they�ve had to say in favor of PAYGO in the past:
VOINOVICH: I just don�t understand how we can continue to go this way. We�re living in a dream world. This deficit continues to grow.
COLLINS: [PAYGO is] much-needed restraint for members of Congress as we wrestle with fiscal decisions.
SNOWE: I believe now is the time for both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to commit to pay-as-you-go rules for both revenues and spending.
Just last year, Snowe approved of Obama�s advocating for PAYGO. And in the last few weeks, all of these Republicans have voiced concerns about the deficit and spending. |
And yet, all of them voted against the implementation of this very sound rule, which is fairly obviously outright necessary for a sound fiscal policy.
There's been a term in circulation recently, I believe Ya-ta Boy mentioned it: deficit peacock. Individuals who like to talk about how important the deficit is, but don't support policies to reduce it. Well, it's now official: any Republican complaining about the deficit is a deficit peacock. They had their chance to get behind a solid anti-deficit bill, and they passed on it in favor of their "Obstruct the Democrats in any way possible" policy.
Republicans like to talk about how they want to cooperate. While that's an obvious lie, this was a chance for them to lend some credence to that lie, make it a bit more believable. I can't believe they passed on it. The bill was going to pass with or without them; why not have your entire caucus vote for it, talk about how it was passed with bipartisan support, talk about how it will reduce the deficit, and try to claim credit for it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If the media mavens were worth even 10% of the salaries they are paid, this would lead the evening news. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Senate sucks donkey dick. Both Dems and Republicans. The more time goes by, the more I agree with Bacasper: there is no difference between the political parties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, good way to help the economy and generate jobs. Raise taxes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Yeah, good way to help the economy and generate jobs. Raise taxes. |
Nothing in the policy mandates tax increases. Rather, the policy simply prohibits any increase in spending without either an equal reduction in spending elsewhere to compensate, or an increase in taxes to pay for it.
Opposing this law means you approve of increases in spending without paying for them. Only an extreme opponent of fiscal responsibility would oppose such a policy.
Try some independent thinking for once. Do you really oppose fiscal responsibility? Are you pro-budget deficit? Is that really the position you're taking? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's an idea, how about just reduce spending. Don't increase it. Don't take from the left and give to the right. Just reduce it. And while you are at it, lower taxes.
I guess that is just too much of a foreign concept to many of you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Here's an idea, how about just reduce spending. Don't increase it. |
A fine idea, but totally irrelevent to this policy. All this policy does is mandate that any increase in spending not increase the deficit. That's it. It doesn't mandate additional spending. In fact, by forcing either a tax raise or a reduction in spending elsewhere, it discourages additional spending.
If you're against government spending, you should be happy about this bill, not angry. It takes a person totally blinded by partisan politics to oppose this bill.
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| I guess that is just too much of a foreign concept to many of you. |
No, most of us just understand that this bill will encourage a reduction of spending along with forcing fiscal responsibility on the government. It's win/win. The only possible justification for opposing this bill (besides just hating anything the Democrats do no matter what) is being opposed to fiscal responsibility.
Democrats pass a fiscal responsibility law that will discourage spending increases, and Republicans bitch about it. Thank you for the lesson in hypocrisy. Don't worry, I'm sure soon enough the Republican will get back in power, repeal this policy, and start raising the deficit again through massive, irresponsible spending, just like they did last time they were in power. And you can nod sagely and say, "This is how government should be done." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But you see, they leave that little provision in there. And that little provision, although noble and filled with good intent, unlocks a door. And suddenly you have all sorts of bills, tax increases, etc... that exploit that little part of the bill.
Sorry, I'd prefer to keep that door shut. Take out the line that says "Tax increases" and I'll support it. As long as its there, its just waiting to be exploited.
And don't give me some nonsense like, "There's no way the government will do something like that." HA! Legislators, Republican AND Democrat, are truely gifted in finding ways to bend the law, or make apples and oranges the same thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| But you see, they leave that little provision in there. And that little provision, although noble and filled with good intent, unlocks a door. And suddenly you have all sorts of bills, tax increases, etc... that exploit that little part of the bill. |
You're being silly. Congress can all ready increase spending as much as it wants. This bill just forces them to be fiscally responsible if they choose to do it, which in turns discourages them from doing it.
You are opposing fiscal responsibility. You're literally saying, "If the choice is between this bill and the status quo, I want the status quo," with the status quo being unlimited spending without any responsibility requirement.
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Sorry, I'd prefer to keep that door shut. |
The door isn't shut now. This bill doesn't open any doors. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Why do you oppose fiscal responsibility? You don't, of course, you just hate Democrats. Had Republicans passed this bill, you'd be praising it, because that's what the people who do your thinking for you would tell you to do. Opposing this bill means you're saying, "I support spending increases without those spending increases being funded, resulting in an ever-expanding budget deficit." Then again, Republicans did it for years under Bush, so I guess the people who hand you your opinions have all ready rubber stamped that policy as a-okay, eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_16026/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=886YhXWl
| Quote: |
| Senate permits gov't to borrow an additional $1.9T |
YEAH!!! Money grows on trees in Washington!
You know what they are doing? Its like a guy saying, "Ok, next month no more credit cards, no more new loans, nothing. I'm not going to spend any more money than I have. But that's next month. This month I'll take out a few more credit cards, max those out, and take out a few more loans."
Oh yeah
| Quote: |
The new budget rules are designed to curb the spiraling deficit by requiring spending increases or tax cuts to be "paid for" with cuts to other programs or tax increases. If the rules are broken, the White House budget office would force automatic cuts to programs like Medicare, farm subsidies and veterans' pensions.
The idea is that the threat of cuts to such popular programs would be enough to block Congress' free-spending ways, but skeptics say lawmakers can find ways around them fairly easily. Weaker pay-as-you-go rules are in place already, but have been routinely waived. |
Don't listen to me though. Great Obama and the honest Democrats would NEVER let something like that happen, Right Fox?
Last edited by pkang0202 on Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Why do you oppose fiscal responsibility? |
OMG, Obama has been spending money left and right, and NOW you are talking about Fiscal responsibility?
Where the hell were you last year? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Why do you oppose fiscal responsibility? |
OMG, Obama has been spending money left and right, and NOW you are talking about Fiscal responsibility?
Where the hell were you last year? |
So you oppose the introduction of laws regarding fiscal responsibility because there has been fiscal irresponsibility in the past? An interesting position, and no doubt very representative of the Republican voting base. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bingo! I think we've got ourselves a DEFICIT PEACOCK
From the original Deficit Peacock post:
And then there is another species of deficit bird all together: the deficit peacock. Deficit peacocks like to preen and call attention to themselves, but are not sincerely interested in taking the difficult but necessary steps toward a balanced budget. Peacocks prefer scoring political points to solving problems.
Here are four easy ways to tell when someone isn�t taking our budget problems seriously.
1. They never mention revenues.
2. They offer easy answers.
3. They support policies that make the long-term deficit problem worse.
4. They think our budget woes appeared suddenly in January 2009.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/deficit_peacock.html
#1. check
#2. check
#3. check
#4. check |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
pkang, so you're saying you'd rather have spending continue to spiral out of control, as long as taxes aren't raised? That seems to be what you're arguing. It is your position that is exactly why this gov't is so messed up right now. Both sides pointing fingers and not acknowledging:
1. Both screwed things up.
2. Both need to make accommodations to make things work.
Taxes WILL have to be raised at some point. While I agree that raising them right now would be a bad idea, they will have to rise sometime in the next few years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
