Every Republican member of the US Senate voted against the so called pay-as-you-go statute today. The measure passed on a party line vote 60-40. Pay-as-you-go requires ...
... that all spending increase proposals be offset by increased revenue or reduced spending in a different program. Any tax cuts must be accompanied by equal reductions in spending.
The party of unfunded $500 billion liabilities for Medicare part D and $2 trillion foreign wars doesn't want to impose fiscal discipline.
Is that a surprise?
All you Republicans join in when we say, NO.
Our system is broken. This is ridiculous.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Bipartisan fiscal responsibility
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
42 comments:
Bill, is this pay as you go plan similar to the one put forth by Obama for health care? You know the one where you start paying taxes now but the benefots only start three years hence? If that was the definition of this plan I can see why people would vote against it.
No, this is a pay-as-you-go that was enacted by Democrats when Clinton was President, resulted in a budget surplus, and was repealed in 2002 by a Republican Congress.
Bill, enough about Clinton's alleged surplus, it never existed although has has come closer than most.
It was projected....even Republicans admit, your just in denial....If Gore was elected and the Bush tax cuts never implemented it would have come to fruition
Bill, republicans think it is ONLY them that can balance a budget....but with a 1.3 trillion deficit at the beginning of 2009...I gues we can say...oops
This is ALL republicans...thank you
1.3 trillion deficit beginning 2009
2 bush tax cuts were never paid for
prescription drug plan...under bush never paid for
2 wars
3 trillion in lost revenue due to recession.
now Obama's deficit?
1 trillion for stimulus
taxes increased under obama? ZERO
tax cuts...95% of working families and small businesses
If Gore was elected and the Bush tax cuts never implemented it would have come to fruition
NOT true, perhaps if the 9-11 hijackers were stopped and we didn't get involved in 2 wars it might have been.
Projections are easy to make but never seem to appear. Projecting a surplus and having one are two completely different things.
It has nothing to do with either party. They are both spending more than we are taking in and that is the problem.
I honestly think tax cuts work, Reagan proved it. I also think the Dems have plans that work. The problem is that neither party has long enough to get their plan to work before someone else moves in and starts a completely new direction.
The last budget Clinton signed had a deficit of 133 billion dollars. How is that balanced?
I honestly think tax cuts work, Reagan proved it
Tax cuts work?...well where are the jobs?
Under Reagan the tax rate was 50% ..it is 35% now. If your theory worked we should be flourishing with jobs.
Under Clinton the tax rate was 39%...I think you missed the point..
what was the first budget he signed?
in regards to Obama's meeting at the GOP's retreat today...."On the whole, we felt that it was a worthwhile exercise," said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). "But clearly, each of us left with twice as many a**holes as we went in with."
Thank you Mr. President
SO! for those woh think the surplus didnt exist...where did Bush get the money for the 2001 and 2002 tsx cuts..that he said it's your MONEY you should have it...if there was a deficit...that just means he gave you China's money...WOW you cant make this up ...really?
All sour grapes. It is amazing to see how the Dems are spinning this. The people have spoken and it is the left who is nervous. I say all votes on hold until the election in Nov. and then we will start real reform. Obama blew it, next!
SO! for those woh think the surplus didnt exist...
I don't THINK it didn't exist, I have seen the numbers to prove it
All sour grapes. It is amazing to see how the Dems are spinning this. The people have spoken and it is the left who is nervous. I say all votes on hold until the election in Nov. and then we will start real reform. Obama blew it, next!
No rebuttal...its hard to fight facts with rhetoric, I know? Sorry but thats just the facts Jack
I can see a coorelation here...
Warren G harding(R)corporatist
Calvin Coolidge(R)corporatist
Herbert Hoover(R)corporatist
DEPRESSION
Franklin Roosevelt(D)
Harry Truman(D)
Dwight Eisenhower(R) America First
John Kennedy(D)
Lyndon Johnson(D)
Unemployment was the lowest in our history ABOVE!!
Richard M NIXON(R) corporatist
Gerald Ford (R) Corporatist
Unemployment escalating from ABOVE
Jimmy Carter(D)
Ronald Reagan(R) corporatist
George HW Bush(R) corporatist
William Clinton(D) corporatist
George W Bush(R) corporatist
Barack Obama(D)
Notice the Democrats ALWAYS get stuck with cleaning up the MESS of Republicans
I like reading the posts from the sheep following their respective parties to slaughter. It is the Independant voters who will shape politics going forward. I voted for Obama because I wanted to see what the dems would do to improve our health care system with control of Congress and the Executive Branch. The only thing they agreed upon was that everyone should be required to buy insurance thereby securing more revenue for insurance companies. What progress! After witnessing this, I voted Brown for Senate. Election results show that I certainly wasn't alone in voting Obama then Brown. I think there are going to be some more big upsets forthcoming. The number of independants like myself is growing by leaps and bounds. The reason is that people are fed up with both major parties not acting in the best interest of the people.
educate yourself. Vote the candidate not the party, but also learn from history so that we do not repeat our mistakes.
Not true, perhaps if the 9-11 hijackers were stopped.
President Bush was the culprit there.
Condi Rice was forced at a Senate hearing to say the name of the report they received from the Clinton's intelligence daily reports.
the report was Called "AlQuaida determined to strike within the United States."
yup Bush's fault..............I knew it.
Bush laid the tracks...Obama and the democrats need to clean it up....history repeats iteself AGAIN
Who's going to clean up after Obama?
what mess has Obama made?
"what mess has Obama made"?
ask your grand kids.
President Bush was the culprit there.
These attacks were barely 7 months into Bush's Presidency and he alone is somehow responsible.
Over a year into Obama's Presidency he is still blaming Bush and his policies for screwing things up.
I think I see a double standard.
What are my grand children paying for?.....Obama increased the deficit to combat the recession...BOTH parties would have had to do something to increase demand...other than that he hasn't spent a dime...BUSH on the other hand gave tax breaks and didn't pay for it...it WAS BORROWED from the chinese.
As for Obama blamimg Bush...why not...he made the mess!! what mess has Obama made? NONE he is still cleaning up the Republican mess
barely 7 months, you might want to check your calendar...Jan 20th, 2001 -Sept 11,2001 looks like almost NINE months not 7....
Nine months into Obama's term...the republicans were passing the recession onto him...even though it was their lack of policy that created it
Jan 20th, 2001 -Sept 11,2001 looks like almost NINE months not 7....
7 and a half. Not 8 definitely not 9. If you are going to correct someone please be right.
So Clinton is to blame for 9 /11?
Even though he warned Bush. How did Bush spend 40 percent of his time in office, before 9/11? ON VACATION! So 7 1/2 months was really just 4 months?
And how is reading "My pet goat" during an attack on the US the actions of a "strong on defense" leader?
And while we are on it - how do you justify your administration's use of a prime time tv show, "24" as the basis for your interegation techniques that break the Geneva Convention?
the previous poster (Anonymouse) is the guy who quotes other posts and then refutes them (poorly).
He thought
Bush's speech was called the "Access of Evil" speech. Now, I mis spell some times but that is just a basic misunderstanding of reality.
I know, I know, don't worry, i blew milk through my nose when I read his stupidity too.
So Clinton is to blame for 9 /11?
Among others yes. I never said Clinton was to blame, the fact is there is plenty of blame to go around.
You point out Bush delayed responding to the attacks for several MINUTES while reading to children, yet completely forget that OBAMA never ended his VACATION when the underware bomber was trying to blow up a plane.
You can put "james" on some of your posts, but you cannot hide your partisanship nor your hatred of Bush. I suggest counciling.
Since when do the Geneva conventionS (yes there are 4 and 3 protocols) cover terrorists?
The Geneva conventions don't even cover spys much less terrorists.
NEXT.
Even though he warned Bush. How did Bush spend 40 percent of his time in office, before 9/11? ON VACATION! So 7 1/2 months was really just 4 months?
You must be a Micheal Moore clone, counting weekends and working days at camp david.
Of his 98 full and partial "vacation days" there were 38 days at Camp David. They were working days including visits from foreign nationals.
That leaves 60 days away from the White House, but as President you do no stop working simply because you are not in the Office, it is still a 24/7 job, so where he does his work is not really an issue.
Out of 233 days he was "vacationing" 60 days is between 25 and 26 percent of the time NOT 40.
Without any trial or even a hearing, who is to say they are terrorists? what about saddam's driver? did he participate in terror training or weapons handling or plotting bombings? who knows? You idiots would just throw people in jail over their headwear. THE GUY PROBABLY JUST WANTED A JOB TO FEED HIS FAMILY.
You R's are guilty of treason, when Clinton got actionable intelligence on Saddam's whereabouts during your impeachment fiasco Clinton had to call in the joint chiefs and members of congress to send missiles after him. The delay may have caused a miss. you r's screamed "wag the dog". Not the last time you got your information from tv or movies (ie 24). I think they should have all been jailed for national security issues.
I don't mind the repuglican lies and greed. As long as they aren't in positions of power because they are unable to lead.
which one of your repuglican lwayers called the rules of Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "antiquated". I agree w John McCain about the dangerous path the Bushies put us on.
All the ridiculous bravado the R's display. It plays well to the "getter done" and "take em out" crowd but is just laughable to the rest of the world. Bush - what an embarassment.
I suggest counseling too! It will take years for millions of people to get over the damage that that half-wit Bush did.
fund managers, Katrina victims, war vets, the unemployed, the underemployed, ptsd sufferers, and e.d. sufferers like yourself.
taxes increased under obama? ZERO
Only because healthcare hasn't passed yet. Everyone will take a hit under that plan, up to 40%.
How about the largest tabacco tax increase in history? That taxes more than 5 percent of the population.
fund managers, Katrina victims, war vets, the unemployed, the underemployed, ptsd sufferers, and e.d. sufferers like yourself.
I love it when you get so flustered you resort to personal attacks. It goes to show your arguments have no merit.
Bush wasn't my President, he was OURS. Exactly the same as Obama is OUR President. You cannot change history and ranting about me certainly isn't helping.
I cannot help it if I feel compelled to contradict your lies with facts.
Time to get your mommie to get you out of the sandbox, you are in over your head.
Under Bush in 2005 according to the CBO...the top 1% paid 19%, top tenth of 1% paid 17% and the top 100th of 1% paid 15%...this is supply side economics at it's BEST...thank you republicans
The more you make the less you pay...sounds kind of backasswards to me...but to republicans its called charity and helping out a friend
The numbers up top are the EFFECTIVE tax rate...(the tax rate AFTER deductions...actual tax bill)
Since when is being successful or wealthy a crime? I thought that was what the American Dream is all abot? Doing well and providing a better standard of living for your family. Where is the crime in that? to read some of the blogs here you would think it a criminal act to succeed! I don't buy it but it appears many here do.
it's not a war on success, it's the fact that middle class citizen are paying a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the richest.
Where is the fairness in that?
the more money you make the less you pay?...sounds like aristocracy to me.
The king never paid taxes, but the serfs did.
Post a Comment