• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama proposes making 'pay-as-you-go' the law

T

TheNextEra

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
16,575
Reaction score
6,767
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama on Tuesday proposed making "pay-as-you-go" rules for federal spending into law.

The so-called PAYGO proposal requires Congress to balance any increased spending by equal savings elsewhere, Obama said in announcing the measure that now goes to Congress.

A previous PAYGO mandate helped erase federal budget deficits in the 1990s, and subsequent ineffective rules contributed to the current budget deficits, Obama said. Now the PAYGO rules should be the law, he said.

"Paying for what you spend is basic common sense," Obama said. "Perhaps that's why, here in Washington, it's been so elusive."

Republican leaders said the proposal comes after record spending initiatives by the Obama administration, such as the $787 billion economic
Click to expand...

Obama proposes making 'pay-as-you-go' the law - CNN.com

Now, as much as I agree with this plan, It is hypocritical for a President like Obama who oked the spending of TRILLIONS of dollars to suggest such a plan NOW.

I agree with it, and actually hope it passes, but it is hypocritical at this point.
 
This is analogous to having the Roman Empress Messalina announcing that she was a proponent of chastity and marital fidelity.
 
If Obama actually got it passed, I would be willing to overlook the massive hypocrisy. I would invite Dan Quayle to be president if he could actually get a balanced budget. If a it take a slimy weasel to do thing right thing, I will take what I can get.
 
rathi said:
If Obama actually got it passed, I would be willing to overlook the massive hypocrisy. I would invite Dan Quayle to be president if he could actually get a balanced budget. If a it take a slimy weasel to do thing right thing, I will take what I can get.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I hope it passes and I support it, but if it passes it scores no points with me for Obama.

He should have done this from the start.
 
TheNextEra said:
Like I said, I hope it passes and I support it, but if it passes it scores no points with me for Obama.

He should have done this from the start.
Click to expand...
yea, really. Why didn't he do this BEFORE the $Trillion bailouts? I don't see this as hypocritical, but fishy.....I'd like to see what the actual bill says.
 
Paygo = We pay and they go on spending like drunkin sailors.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
yea, really. Why didn't he do this BEFORE the $Trillion bailouts? I don't see this as hypocritical, but fishy.....I'd like to see what the actual bill says.
Click to expand...

I see this as hypocritical, because of the way he OKed the spendature of HIS money that he agreed with, but now asks for a pay as you go.

I think that is a fair analysis.
 
TheNextEra said:
I see this as hypocritical, because of the way he OKed the spendature of HIS money that he agreed with, but now asks for a pay as you go.

I think that is a fair analysis.
Click to expand...

While there's an inkling of truth to that, I don't think it's completely fair. Short term spending was required to try and get the economy kick started (That is, if you accept that it did and aren't of the opinion that spending wasn't needed) and considering the nature and amount of spending, pay-as-you-go would have been impossible to implement in practice in that case. I do agree it that smells of hypocrisy, if you don't take the view point that the spending was a short-term solution and pay-as-you-go is intended as a long-term one.
 
TheNextEra said:
Obama proposes making 'pay-as-you-go' the law - CNN.com

Now, as much as I agree with this plan, It is hypocritical for a President like Obama who oked the spending of TRILLIONS of dollars to suggest such a plan NOW.

I agree with it, and actually hope it passes, but it is hypocritical at this point.
Click to expand...

While the decision might appear contradictory on the surface, it is still a constructive step for the future, and I believe that's far more important than perceptions. Fiscal discipline needs to begin to be restored sooner rather than later. The Bush Administration should never have allowed the Budget Enforcement Act (with its pay-as-you-go rules) to expire.

With respect to the stimulus spending, pay-as-you-go rules would not have precluded it. In the past, the rules contained three exceptions: (1) national emergency; (2) war; (3) recession.

Of course, should the pay-as-you-go rules be restored, that is only part of the solution. Much more, particularly mandatory spending reform, will need to be done in order to eliminate the nation's structural deficits and to begin reducing its overall debt in the future.
 
I think this is a great idea to get back to. We had pay as you go years ago. Maybe now the bills coming out of congress won't be filled with so much pork! Remember our President is letting congress be "responsible", he is not writing the bills to be passed. I agree with this process, if we don't like what our congressmen are doing we should fire them. If we are not willing to be responsible, why should they...there is no consequence.
I think we need to get back to being responsible, I teach my kids; the more you blame, the more excuses you have and the less responsibility you take. We need to stop fighting and start fixing. We as Americans did this, we allowed this to continue for too long, now it is time to pony up and pay the consequences. How did we come so far as to believe we are all deserving no matter what our behavior? Wouldn't a child be reprimanded for this.... (maybe not, it might hurt their feelings)
 
LoriB said:
I think this is a great idea to get back to. We had pay as you go years ago. Maybe now the bills coming out of congress won't be filled with so much pork! Remember our President is letting congress be "responsible", he is not writing the bills to be passed. I agree with this process, if we don't like what our congressmen are doing we should fire them. If we are not willing to be responsible, why should they...there is no consequence.
I think we need to get back to being responsible, I teach my kids; the more you blame, the more excuses you have and the less responsibility you take. We need to stop fighting and start fixing. We as Americans did this, we allowed this to continue for too long, now it is time to pony up and pay the consequences. How did we come so far as to believe we are all deserving no matter what our behavior? Wouldn't a child be reprimanded for this.... (maybe not, it might hurt their feelings)
Click to expand...

Don'cha think it's a little late for this? Where was "paygo" during the first $1 trillion?
 
Erod said:
Don'cha think it's a little late for this? Where was "paygo" during the first $1 trillion?
Click to expand...

For those who are interested, New York Times economics columnist David Leonhardt has a column on how the U.S. moved into its present position with enormous deficits. He argues that a large part of what is happening now was largely the consequence of past policies and the business cycle.

His piece can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html
 
Erod said:
Don'cha think it's a little late for this? Where was "paygo" during the first $1 trillion?
Click to expand...

No I don't. It is never too late to accept responsibility and fix a problem. I think spouting "it is too late" is an excuse to an old problem. We created this mess by not doing our jobs as Americans. It is time to fix it, not throw another excuse at it.
 
7thKeeper said:
While there's an inkling of truth to that, I don't think it's completely fair. Short term spending was required to try and get the economy kick started (That is, if you accept that it did and aren't of the opinion that spending wasn't needed) and considering the nature and amount of spending, pay-as-you-go would have been impossible to implement in practice in that case. I do agree it that smells of hypocrisy, if you don't take the view point that the spending was a short-term solution and pay-as-you-go is intended as a long-term one.
Click to expand...

I would say that if Obama didn't "kick start" the economy, GM may have gone bankrupt. Oh it did?
 
LoriB said:
No I don't. It is never too late to accept responsibility and fix a problem. I think spouting "it is too late" is an excuse to an old problem. We created this mess by not doing our jobs as Americans. It is time to fix it, not throw another excuse at it.
Click to expand...

This seems so self evident, and yet so many canot see past their blind partisanship to realize it.

Oh, and hi and welcome to the boards :)
 
I think a pay as you go law is an excellent thing. However I do not see those in office making necessary cuts to make it work unless they want to charge a huge tax percentage to make it work with all the current spending they got now.
 
LoriB said:
No I don't. It is never too late to accept responsibility and fix a problem. I think spouting "it is too late" is an excuse to an old problem. We created this mess by not doing our jobs as Americans. It is time to fix it, not throw another excuse at it.
Click to expand...

So he came to this realization in the last...oh...45 days or so?
 
The stimulus package was written by congress not the President, we needed help and this was the best that our government (collectively) could come up with. I don't see a better plan floating around, do you ? In a time of recession, stimulus is a normal reaction (did we not see this with Bush?), economists are on both sides of the table here, there has never been anything so big nor bad happening in the economy to set a precedence or a pattern that we could apply to this time in our lives.
I don't agree with all that is happening but since I don't have a better plan, I think I should at least support what is out there that makes sense to the majority of people. What I don't like, I vote against. What I don't know, I defer to the majority and live with the consequences.
As for when the President came to "realization" I couldn't fathom, you would have to ask him (which you can do at Welcome to the White House).
I am not an expert here, just a concerned citizen (that does her own facts checking) and realizes the problem with our government is not the government, but the people that refuse to take part in it.
Again, an excuse or slam will not fix this problem. If you don't like the policy; come up with a new one, vote the people you don't like out, get involved.
 
LoriB said:
The stimulus package was written by congress not the President, we needed help and this was the best that our government (collectively) could come up with. I don't see a better plan floating around, do you ? In a time of recession, stimulus is a normal reaction (did we not see this with Bush?), economists are on both sides of the table here, there has never been anything so big nor bad happening in the economy to set a precedence or a pattern that we could apply to this time in our lives.
I don't agree with all that is happening but since I don't have a better plan, I think I should at least support what is out there that makes sense to the majority of people. What I don't like, I vote against. What I don't know, I defer to the majority and live with the consequences.
As for when the President came to "realization" I couldn't fathom, you would have to ask him (which you can do at Welcome to the White House).
I am not an expert here, just a concerned citizen (that does her own facts checking) and realizes the problem with our government is not the government, but the people that refuse to take part in it.
Again, an excuse or slam will not fix this problem. If you don't like the policy; come up with a new one, vote the people you don't like out, get involved.
Click to expand...

What you're not taking into account is that there is no money. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

This was all charged on our Chinese mastercard, printed on fresh paper. There isn't an "account" to withdraw this money from.

Which means your gallon of milk will be $6 in a couple of years, and your utility bills will double.
 
Erod said:
What you're not taking into account is that there is no money. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

This was all charged on our Chinese mastercard, printed on fresh paper. There isn't an "account" to withdraw this money from.

Which means your gallon of milk will be $6 in a couple of years, and your utility bills will double.
Click to expand...

Says who? The Chinese have no incentive to stop lending us money unless we piss them off. Seeing as how Obama is actually making an attempt to improve foreign relations, this might not be as bad as it could have been.

And let's not try to pretend that this is all Obama's fault. I mean, it may just be me, but I don't think Obama taking office led to nobody wanting to buy GM or Chrysler cars anymore.
 
sounds to me like the rest of the world is saying, we are not really interested in buying any more debt from you.

America is bankrupt, you need to start spending what you have, not what you borrow

day late and $1,000,000,000,000 short
 
I guess you mean spend the money while it's still worth something.
 
Oftencold said:
This is analogous to having the Roman Empress Messalina announcing that she was a proponent of chastity and marital fidelity.
Click to expand...

Or, Al Gore telling people he is planting trees to offset his very large carbon footprint.
 
TheHat said:
Or, Al Gore telling people he is planting trees to offset his very large carbon footprint.
Click to expand...

...or Bill Clinton reaffirming his wedding vows with Hillary.
 
It's completely hypocritical, and embarrasingly absurd. It's funny, when I first heard about the economic crisis that was brewing last October or so I recall thinking that there would be a ridiculous flurry of activity to try and correct it, as we're a culture of "now" not "wait and see".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom