Obama Praises “Pay-Go” Passage Within Debt Limit Increase Bill

So the President wants me to believe him when he talks about fiscal responsibility? Yea right and when does the cows fly around the moon and then fly back home for a double landing at the olympics? Lets see raise the debt limit up to what now and just keep saying this trash and expect my daughter one day to pay out at least 50% in taxes. Trust me i am raising my daughter to never trust politicans like the President or Congress who only care about being re-elected and screw everybody else. and trust me i am also telling her that one day she will probabaly have to look at moving over seas to get away from such jerks who don,t care how high taxes go as long as they are in power over everybody,s else,s lives.

Too bad the president didn’t mention how Republicans voted against the pay-go provision in addition to that highly publicized defection from the deficit reduction committee.

The Chinese responded to the worldwide economic recession by moving up their schedule for high-speed rail, and will have 42 new high speed rail lines up by 2012. While thousands are temporarily laid off due to lack of demand, they are employing thousands on these projects. At the end of the downturn, they will be able to move their goods and people with much greater efficiency.
The US will have completed one high-speed rail project by the year 2014.

Yawn.
Blah blah blah pay go, blah blah blah soaring deficits, blah blah blah Bush ate my homework, blah blah blah not my fault, blah blah blah ad nauseum- nay, ad vomitus.
Anybody see obama’s 3+ trillion dollar budget for this year? Who is exactly to “pay” while he “goes” all over us with this pile of excrement?
Example #15,354 of how obama’s talk-talk is diametrically opposed to his walk-walk.
This two bit medicine show is wearing real thin.

Too bad the president didn’t mention how Republicans voted against the pay-go provision in addition to that highly publicized defection from the deficit reduction committee.
Posted by: matt
—
Doing so would emphasize the heart of that bill- the 1.9 TRILLION debt ceiling increase that dems are praying will take them through November. THAT was the bill he signed.
Everytime the influence of special interest is rightly thrown around, the influence of constituents is never mentioned.

Ah yes the paygo tacked onto a DEFICIT CEILING INCREASE. That’s kinda like OK I’m going to add another new credit card with a huge credit max (in additional to all the ones I now have maxed) but I won’t spend anymore than that to add to additional balances. Please no wonder he signed it behind closed doors with no cameras he oughta be ashamed. Why not the paygo without the new ceiling and why increase the spending in your budgets. So much for making hard choices why not have sent this back and taken a stand.

Amazing how many have people suddenly discovered they care about deficits isn’t it? Most of these folks never said a word about it until this year? Surely that’s not politically motivated right?
“Lower Taxes, Smaller Gov’t, Less Spending” – the Republican mantra. But in practice, not a single Republican President in the last 60 years has EVER reduced spending or decreased the size of government. Not W, Bush Sr, Reagan, Ford, or Nixon.
Reagan, no the quintessential Republican, TRIPPLED the deficit. And under Reagan, taxes were 10% higher than they are now. Bush had record deficits, but for some reason I don’t recall hearing the Pubs complain about it. Wonder why?
The biggest spenders in American history have been W, Reagan, and Bush Sr – in that order. Where were all these “fiscally conscious” types as THEY were skyrocketing our debt?
While the debt SHOULD be a huge concern, the reality is, most people today are whining simply because it’s Obama doing the spending. It’s politically motivated.
If people REALLY cared about the debt, they’d realize you can’t pay off the debt by cutting taxes. The first half TRILLION of Obama’s budget goes to interest on the national debt. That’s before we can spend on anything productive.
We’ve been deficit spending since 1957. (Some argue Clinton had a balanced budget. But the Bush tax cuts, passed his 2nd week in office, killed the Clinton surplus budget. Though it was a “budget” surplus, the gov’t never got the projected revenues because of the tax cuts. Thus, no real surplus.)
We CANNOT tax cut our way out of debt. It’s time to face reality and realize there is no easy way out. Sorry folks, we ALL have to pay for the spending our gov’t has done. And I do agree 100% it was a bi-partisan effort that put our nation in this position.
But I think Pubs need to finally admit they were equal partners in creating the mess and start working with this administration to help fix America instead of pointing fingers at it.

But, what we see is that the Democrats are like crack addicts.
———————
That’s what I mean. Pubs refuse to admit their guys are no more fiscally responsible than Democrats. At least Clinton passed a blanced budget (though we never saw the surplus because of Bush cutting taxes the same fiscal year. NO REPUBLICAN HAS EVEN SUBMITTED A BALANCED BUDGET since Eisenhower.
W, Bush Sr, Regan, Ford, Nixon…none of these guys were handed a Depression, a collapsed housing Market, a collapsed banking system, a bankrupt auto industry, and a two front – TRILLION dollar a year war. But THEY endorsed MASSIVE spending and at the same time reduced revenues by giving tax cuts to the wealtiest Americans.
I also dislike the massive deficit Obama has proposed. But let’s get real. The largest portion of our national debt was created by Republican administrations. To think they’re now the answer to our fiscal problems ignores what Pubs have really done in practice.

There simply is not enough working people to pay for all the proposed programs. Something will have to give. The government will need to cut back.
Posted by: Jeff | Feb 13, 2010 10:10:45 AM
————————————–
During the past decade, health insurance has consumed all the growth in total compensation … and then some. If we do nothing over the next 30 years, health care will constitute fully half of total compensation, and workers’ income net of health care costs—i.e., the amount remaining for everything else—will barely budge.

Pay Go is just a plan to lock in profligate spending already enacted by both parties.
There is tidal wave of debt building which will crash down on the US Economy in the near future. No one will escape the consequences.
As leader of the Nation, Mr. Obama has the responsibility to act, and the Congress (both parties) have the responsibility to help. But nothing is done. In the near future, we will wonder how they could have been so blind.

After Clinton’s significant defense and intelligence cuts, the military was a mere shadow of the one that barreled into Kuwait and Southern Iraq under Bush I.
pha | Feb 13, 2010 11:06:26 AM
Meanwhile, outside of the right wing fantasy land, the ‘mere shadow’ of a military was the EXACT one that decimated Iraq in a matter of days, while still mopping up ousting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Bush II had no time to do any military building – he just grabbed the well trained and equipped force he was left by Clinton for his adventures.
Also in well documented reality, Rumsfeld (that would be GWB’s defense secretary) is on the record as being strongly for a SMALL military force.

Yes, Obama was a member of the senate during the “decade of profligacy”. Not the entire 10 years and that claim was not made. He may also be “on the record” somewhere (community organizing, maybe) as opposing Iraq spending. He is also ON THE RECORD in the US SENATE voting in support of every funding request made during his term in the senate. FACT.

Yes, Obama was a member of the senate during the “decade of profligacy”. Not the entire 10 years and that claim was not made. He may also be “on the record” somewhere (community organizing, maybe) as opposing Iraq spending. He is also ON THE RECORD in the US SENATE voting in support of every funding request made during his term in the senate. FACT.
What lie?

Obama voted nay on:
On the Conference Report (H. Con. Res. 95 Conference Report ) 2005
Or to take one that passed, Obama voted nay on:
On the Concurrent Resolution (S. Con. Res. 18 As Amended ) 2005
That would be, “Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2006, revising appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2005, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 through 2010.”
OBAMA VOTED NO. Look it up – it is documented and public record.
That’s what I found in just 10 minutes. So how long will it take liars to make up another fantasy slander? Why does anyone believe Republicans anymore when they “debate” by MAKING UP LIES?
“He is also ON THE RECORD in the US SENATE voting in support of every funding request made during his term in the senate. FACT.
What lie?”
smartlillena | Feb 13, 2010 2:08:52 PM
That lie.

How did Obama “vote” when he just signed the bill to raise the debt ceiling?
obieone40 | Feb 13, 2010 3:03:03 PM
Against shutting our nation down. How, SPECIFICALLY, would you have him vote?
The budget is Congress’s job, and this Congress is so busy playing partisan games that the *Republicans* were attacking the Democrats for daring to suggest trimming waste out of Medicare!

And sure as history repeats itself, here we go again….American skulls seem to be made out of a substance that’s impervious to lessons previously learned. It costs alot more to be surprised by a threat… Oh, I know that’s all fear and war mongering. So right-wing, and all. Nope. Just planning ahead for those unforeseen contingencies… All the former GOP presidents combined are no where near his league in spending.
—
pha, we’re actually in agreement if you shift your focus from pro-Republican, pro-military industrial complex to anti-Republican due to their lack of accomplishment on the small government, fiscal responsibility, deficit and economy fronts, and totally admit that last statement I copied from your post is in complete contrast/opposition to facts. The fault lies with Republican presidents– and during the past decade and Congress, but particularly the Republican Congress of the past decade.
Americans *are* stubborn and not particularly bright collectively; they don’t learn lessons well, and doom themselves to repeating the same mistakes over and over– and they don’t plan for contingencies, particularly for economic disaster. INdeed, the Right and many independents are poised to make all the same mistakes over again.
A couple of interesting articles include “America’s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making” and “The GOP’s misplaced rage” both from the summer.
In the first article, David Leonhardt writes, “The New York Times analyzed Congressional Budget Office reports going back almost a decade, with the aim of understanding how the federal government came to be far deeper in debt than it has been since the years just after World War II. This debt will constrain the country’s choices for years and could end up doing serious economic damage if foreign lenders become unwilling to finance it.”
We all get that, but what the folks who buy into lip service and don’t understand the deficit tend to assert misses these facts:
“You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.
The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing….
About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.
Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.
About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February.
About 7 percent comes from the stimulus And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.
If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.”
From Bruce Bartlett’s article, the latter of the two I mentioned:
“Conservative protesters should remember that the recession, which led to so many of the policies they oppose, is almost entirely the result of Bush’s policies.”

So who wrote the balanced budgets during the Clinton years that you lefties all brag about?
—
And whose agenda must have been pushing that given the same party– same crew– blew it big time when there was a Republican admin?
All lip service to conservatism, with no conservatism — bigger government, lotsa spending, ballooning deficit, economy near the brink of disaster…

The reimplementation of “Pay-Go” is a big thing. Creation of the Deficit Commission is also a major positive. I still can’t believe that Repubs. pushed for the Deficit Commission and co-sponsored it, but voted against it when it came up for a vote.

$3.8 trillion budget with deficits far beyond anything ever seen… and you are whining about Republicans.
Posted by: gk | Feb 13, 2010 5:52:17 PM
______________________________________
You don’t seem to have a clue what just happened over the past 8 years of the Bush Republican administration.
That administration doubled the national debt and exploded the deficits during ‘good’ economic times – leaving the country in a very vulnerable position for what then followed – an almost complete economic collapse on Bush’s watch. Do you have no idea how these things impacted on the deficit and our current situation? Do you have no idea?

Pass pay as you go..raise the federal debt limit to 14.3 TRILLION…kinda like shoveling your driveway in a blizzard…

“Do you find the concept of ‘pay as you go’ difficult to comprehend ”
.
Apparently the democrats don’t even have a clue about it… forget about comprehension. Here we have a democrat president and a majority democrat congress. They could be leaders and set the example with pay-as-you-go. Why do you even need to “pass a law” for pay-as-you-go. Just DO IT. But they can’t. They are too chicken and too addicted to out of control spending. Obviously its only for political cover and to make the liberal news corpse happy by keeping them yapping about it and using it to beat up the republicans.

Democrat, Republican, it doesn’t matter. We are all going down the same debt rabbit hole where things will get very curious indeed.
Keep an eye on Greece this coming week for a preview of our not too distant future.

Against shutting our nation down. How, SPECIFICALLY, would you have him vote?
The budget is Congress’s job, and this Congress is so busy playing partisan games that the *Republicans* were attacking the Democrats for daring to suggest trimming waste out of Medicare!
____________________________________
Oh so who has been in control of Congress and the budget since 2006?

Where are the billions Obama found last year? Didn’t he get a lot of media coverage about how they looked into areas of spending and found billions. Did they use it to pay down the deficit or just spend it somewhere else? (I think you know the answer.)

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.
Posted by: progressive mama | Feb 13, 2010 4:37:59 PM
Well my first comment was deleted so I’ll have to recap. Concerning Bush’s Prescription drug plan. Both he and Gore campaigned on them. Bush was following up on a campaign promise and at the time, everyone was concerned about seniors increasingly turning to Canada for their drugs.
DEMOCRATS ACTUALLY WANTED BROADER COVERAGE AND LOWER DEDUCTIBLES.
Democrats who were opposed to the legislation were opposed because it included privatizing Medicare and creating Health Savings Accounts – which Democrats perceived as the govt getting OUT of the HC business instead of getting deeper into it.
So even though Bush was following through on a campaign promise and did indeed sign the bill, it certainly was not like he rammed it down everyone’s throat behind closed doors in the dark of night. In fact, if the Democrats had their way, it would have been an even bigger drain on the budget than it already is.
Instead of whining about Bush, maybe the Democrats should concentrate on passing legislation that would prevent the Pharma companies from charging the govt 500 bucks for a 3 month supply of pills.

This is nothing but class warfare, and there is no reason why working people should support the ‘deficit reduction’ philosophy.
Posted by: Flash Override | Feb 13, 2010 8:55:49 PM
Except perhaps that they might want to keep working. Where do you think jobs come from – the job fairy?
Unless we get this debt thing under control everyone will suffer the consequences, no one will escape. And the poor and down-trodden will suffer the most.

Also keep in mind that the rich have driven us into debt.
Posted by: Flash Override | Feb 13, 2010 8:55:49 PM
Hear hear!
Unions and their fat cat union bosses have had nothing to do with driving us into debt!
Democratic trial lawyers are completely guilt free!
John Kerry is abolished of all guilt!
Leave Al Gore alone!
Goldman Sachs has nothing to do with the White House!
All lobbyists are registered Republicans!
Senate oversight committees have not berated an oil company executive since Obama became President. Apparently oil execs are no longer guilty of obscene profit-taking!

There are a lot of “conservative protestors” who were not pro-Bush and fully understand the degree to which his admin and the Congress are related to the fiscal crisis in 08.
Posted by: GO | Feb 13, 2010 9:15:44 PM
Yes. Congress holds the purse strings. Bush was complicit but as we can see Congress is still spending like drunken sailors and Obama is along for the ride.

tierra – it doesn’t matter.
_______________________________
Yes, it does.

The coming debt tidal wave that will crash over our economic system will carry all in its path. No one will escape, not one, and probably least of all you.
__________________________________
Nonsense. The ultra rich already have their escape hatches built in – in fact they play key roles in orchestrating.

I dispute that claim. Those dependent on government largesse = the defense contractors, the health insurers, Wall Street, et. al. have no plans to suffer from the ‘deficit reduction’.
Posted by: Flash Override | Feb 13, 2010 9:54:18 PM
————————————-
Then I hope you are employed with one of them, or have a useful skill to one of them…

The doo doo will eventually hit the fan here economically,and just whos doors do you think the government will be banging on? It will be those evil, disgusting, selfish, filthy rich people..and SURPRISE!… you may suddenly qualify!!

“From 1789 through 2008, the U.S. government borrowed $5.8 trillion. If the Obama budget were adopted in full, government borrowing would exceed $18 trillion by the end of the decade. Debt accumulation at such a pace would almost certainly precipitate an economic crisis.” -James Capretta.
Anyone who justifies Obama’s spending by saying Bush’s spending was just as bad isn’t playing with a full deck. You can harp on Bush’s spending til the cows come home. That’s not going to help the current governing party — the Democrats — get out of their responsibility and obligation to start fixing the problem
Democrats still have to figure out how to govern and deal with the situation as the majority party. Harping about the small, weak opposition, which has already been punished for it’s spending, will not help you.
So, because Bush’s spending went from here to the moon, that now means Obama is justified in spending from here to the next galaxy past Pluto? That’s liberal logic, not sane logic.

Skip, Forget the Republicans. They’re over, and what they did doesn’t hold a candle to the depths of debt Obama is leading us into today.
Bush’s spending was small potatoes compared to Diamond Jim Obama. The difference is almost unquantifiable, the two are so disproportionally asymmetrical.
You can rail against “Republican presidents” all you want. The GOP’s own voters punished them in 2006 and 2008. They’re out of power. There’s nothing more you can do to them. The Dems wanted the majority, and they got it, so they’re in the captain’s chair.
The Republicans being bad does not help the Democrats get us out of this crisis. When the Dems have the WH and both houses of Congress, to continue railing against a weak minority party shows a crisis of confidence on their part.
They really don’t think they can pull this off. And they don’t have the political courage to stand on their own and do the things it’ll take to fix the problem. If Dems really think a tax hike is necessary, they should go ahead and propose it.
Let’s see how that would work. BTW, Bush’s tax cuts brought in an unemployment rate of 4-5.5% in those years. Most economists consider that to be “full employment”. Sounds pretty good from where we sit today. Maybe we should try extending the Bush tax cuts?
Even Obama during a debate admitted tax cuts INCREASE government revenue, while tax hikes decrease economic activity and growth, thereby reducing revenue. At any rate, the Dems are perfectly free to continue proposing big government spending bills and tax increases, since they pretty much hold the levers of government right now. I really don’t know why they fuss so much. Just do it.

‘The president says he is “pleased” that Congress has now restored pay-go so that Congress will have to pay for what it spends now, “just like everybody else.”’
Hysterical.
Anyone want to take a bet on this?
Barack Obama lies so freely it’s scary.

“Forget the Republicans. They’re over”
Oh yeah? Then are all those right-wingers that claim the Republicans are coming back are dead wrong?
“Bush’s spending was small potatoes compared to Diamond Jim Obama. The difference is almost unquantifiable, the two are so disproportionally asymmetrical.”
Bush’s last budget was 3.1 trillion. Obama’s is 3.6–you’re exaggerating.
“to continue railing against a weak minority party shows a crisis of confidence on their part.”
They’re not just up against a party, they’re up against an extensive and luxuriously funded propaganda machine which the in the failures of the Kerry campaign it was demonstrated must battled aggressively or they seize control of the message in the debate over the issues.
“…they don’t have the political courage to stand on their own and do the things it’ll take to fix the problem”
They’ve been standing completely on their own. The Republicans haven’t voted if favor of anything.
“Bush’s tax cuts brought in an unemployment rate of 4-5.5% in those years. Most economists consider that to be “full employment”. Sounds pretty good”
-For awhile. So what brought the unemployment rate down to what it is now? It couldn’t have been the end result of Bush’s economic policies could it? I hope you’re not going to try and blame the financial crisis and accompanying job losses on Obama. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would return us to a tax structure that was more fair for the middle class who got absolutely hammered under the Bush tax structure.
“Obama during a debate admitted tax cuts INCREASE government revenue, while tax hikes decrease economic activity and growth, thereby reducing revenue”
I’d have to see the quote but I’d be willing to bet he didn’t say tax cuts ALWAYS increase government revenue, but that they CAN increase government revenue. If you cut taxes to zero obviously you don’t generate any revenue at all. The effect is non-linear.

Posted by: phalanx | Feb 14, 2010 12:19:10 PM
It would have been ‘fine’ for the Bush administration to double the national debt to over $10 Trillion dollars, and explode the deficit to historic overspending IF that administration had not also presided over the largest economic collapse since the Great Depression.
We might have survived the gross overspending and undertaxing by the Bush Republican administration – if they had AT LEAST LEFT US A HEALTHY ECONOMY.
Instead they left the country in economic free-fall collapse.
This is what HUGELY contained what the Obama administration could or couldn’t do in terms of deficits. The economic collapse, on top of the huge debt and deficits left behind by the previous administration – SEVERELY hampered what the President could do.
It is hilarious the Republicans are posturing as ‘fiscally responsible’.

It is hilarious the Republicans are posturing as ‘fiscally responsible’.
You’d think Barry would tell us he was!

Hmm so those dependent on the governemt largesse are going to croak when they finally figure it out that the Gov is going to say to them to drop dead as they don,t have any more money for them. Ha i could have told you that 20 years ago. the Big 3 , SS, Medicare and Medicaid are now sucking up at least half of the federal budget now. How many really think this can go on forever? And how many are ready to fork over more of your mony to the federal gov? As i don,t really care how much you make as the federal gov is desperate for money from you now matter how little you earn. Hey how many really think a kid only costs about a $1000 dollars to raise for the year. Yea right.

You’d think Barry would tell us he was!
—
He can’t even tell people to expect his health care fiasco to expect a minimum and a deductible. Or how much either will be.
There are still people in this country naieve enough to believe his health care will let them walk out of a hospital or doctor’s office owing nothing.

Evan Bayh will NOT run in 2010! Obama’s
crew on the sinking ship gets smaller.
Hope and change!

We are in big trouble. Europe has kicked the can down the road until March 16th on Greece. But that won’t work. Then what?
There is no way to pay back this massive debt that our leaders (both Dem and Repub) have run up. Only inflation or default are the choices left. Both are catastrophic of for the American people.
The tidal wave of debt that is about to crash on our country will carry all with it. No one will be unaffected, not one.
The time is now for the Government to act, but they will not. Soon the inevability of reality will compel action. It’s going to be rough.
Be prepared for interesting times…

As a Junior Senator, he voted “present” — then Obama spent his first year in office DEMANDING we do things his way. Now that he’s in trouble, he’s BEGGING to do things his way. Will he ever concentrate on doing what we want? We want jobs, less spending, lower taxes, etc. We do not want his government-run health care reform.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts—and the Facts
Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.
Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by “putting money in people’s pockets.”
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.