Finally, the President actually does something fiscally that makes sense.
PAYGO, a simple stragety for bringing down the deficits in the budget, is being pushed by President Obama.
"The 'pay as you go' rule is very simple. Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere," Obama said, as he announced that he was submitting to Congress a proposal to make PAYGO law.
This is part of the same system used in the 1990s to bring down the Federal Deficit, under President Clinton and the Republican Congress.
Obama repeated his vow to halve the deficit by the end of his first term, and he said PAYGO is an important step toward making that happen.
"Paying for what you spend is basic common sense. Perhaps that's why, here in Washington, it has been so elusive," the president said Tuesday.
It would be nice if the Feds could do what the average citizen's household must do: Not spend more than we make, and pay back what is borrowed.
But Republicans were quick to question the administration's sincerity.
Republican Whip Eric Cantor charged that the administration's focus on PAYGO "seems more driven by polling and PR strategy than a serious commitment to fiscal discipline."
"It seems a tad disingenuous for the President and Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi to talk about PAYGO rules after ramming trillions in spending through Congress proposing policies that create more debt in the first six months of this year than in the previous 220 years combined," Cantor, R-Virginia, said in a statement Tuesday.
Republicans point to the $787 billion stimulus package as evidence that Obama is not following
his own advice.
Cantor and the Republicans have a great point here.
However, a group of fiscally conservative Democratic representatives known as the Blue Dogs say Obama's proposal is responsible and necessary.
"President Obama inherited an economy in free fall and a $10.6 trillion national debt," said Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee, vice chairman of the Blue Dog Budget and Financial Services Task Force. "While short-term spending was necessary to get the economy moving again, our long-term fiscal problems became that much more urgent."
I know this seems very partisan. The Republicans against it no matter what Obama proposes, and the Dems supporting it. But I think it goes further than that. The Republicans, while it is true that they come off as whiny, have a great point. Obama, so far, has done the opposite of what he is proposing.
And the flip side, the Blue Dog Democrats, are supporting it. But I think it goes beyond blind support: they believe PAYGO is a good step, but even they doubt the President's promise to halve the deficit:
But when it comes to reducing the deficit, even the Senate Budget Committee's Democratic chairman doubts the president can deliver on his promise.
Asked if Obama could halve the deficit -- given the recent government spending --- Sen. Kent Conrad said, "I don't believe so. I don't believe anybody could."
So, to summarize, the President is finally doing something fiscally responsible. PAYGO is a great and much needed step. But it isn't enough. Let's see some more of THAT, please.
I say Jamás to Hamas!
11 months ago
34 comments:
The reason you got SO many comment on your other post and so few on all the rest is because the people were NOT commenting on YOUR post, they were commenting about how much they dislike Shaw.
Everybody loves to hate.. Everyone has their own opinions. And in everybody's opinion they dislike Shaw.
Personally, I don't hate her, I just hate her ideology... big time and I hate the way she defends the dumb people and ideas she believes in. And i hate the racist things she has to say.
The real question is : Why do people like Michelle Obama and Hilary Clinton? I FIND THEM ALL TO BE REPULSIVE.
Oh well, I guess everybody has their baggage. Some just have more than most of the others.
The reason that Shaw got what she got was the way she trolls other blogs and makes absurd comments and never, never, ever, ever backs them up.
I get tired of hearing the quasi-intellectual writer/artist types that sneer derisively at people and look at conservatives with ill-hidden contempt. Shaw constantly lies and uses terminological obfuscations to back up her arguments. So, I had to stop her dishonest assessment of Susannah who is an accomplished person that doesn't run around trolling blogs and attacking people.
It's My Choice, just saw your blog and joined and added you to my blogroll. Join mine and join the fight!!
James, it is a shame that most of your commentators have decided to talk about each other talking about each other, rather than responding to your posts.
This tendency was really what was happening on the speech post.
And it is on display here in these first few posts.
It is as if people are talking past each other and using your living room to do so.
So... as for Paygo, yes it is a good idea. But the Feds can't do it.
And Obama is not for it either, as even after his announcement yesterday, he said we need to deficit spend for health care.
Now lest people get the impression this is all on Obama, the GOP did have six years to submit a balanced budget after GW was elected, and they were unable, or unwilling to do so.
It is a good idea, but it can never happen, and it did not happen under Clinton either, despite peoples impression that it did.
The fact is, no government program, much like any other business, is content on a no growth balance sheet.
It is against their nature.
Paygo is a bad idea, and it's a bad post. obama hasn't had an original idea since he's taken office. He just dictated today who the CEO of GM would be. Paygo is a lie which will, inevitably, be used as a tool to collect even more money in the long run.
Dave, it's a shame you have to talk around people. If you don't like the way I'm conducting myself, tell me.
Blue, how was this a bad post? I gave my opinion, as well as both the Dems and Repubs' opinions on it. Both sides think its a good idea, but not enough, and the Repubs' biggest complaint is that they don't see Obama following his own advice.
Also: How is PAYGO a bad idea? If the Feds could actually do it (which they could but won't) then it would help. No more spending more than you have. It's basic household economics 101.
My biggest comment on that is that it implies that we need more spending. He doesn't actually say that, but we know what he means.
Actually Blue, I was just responding to what I saw the last couple of days in the commenting threads.
And it is not just on this site, but many others, including Shaw's and Susannah's.
It is as if people have figured out their talking points, and truly believe there is nothing sensible to be found in the utterances of the other side.
I think you would agree that on James' Cairo thread, there were not a lot of people who even mentioned the crux of his post, the speech itself.
One poster even went so far as to say he would never listen to any commentary on, or any words from President Obama.
I have never sensed that from you, but like most of us, myself included, you too get hooked into responding to what people are saying even if it has nothing to do with the original post.
As for Paygo, what don't you like about it? I have some ideas, but I'll wait to see what you bring up.
Blue, oh yeah, if it seemed as if I was talking around you, I apologize.
That was not my intent.
James: PAYGO would be good, but isn’t it too late? It should’ve been implemented eons ago. I think Obama knows the public is fed up with all the spending and now he wants it to appear like he’s trying to fix it. This is just an appeasement and it sure sounds good. But just like everything else they’ll find some lame excuse as to why it didn’t work or why they couldn’t use it.
Dave Miller said...
"James, it is a shame that most of your commentators have decided to talk about each other talking about each other, rather than responding to your posts"
James. I'm sorry but it's you that has wishy washy opinions. You don't take a stank on anything.
I can't even tell if you are a Lib or not.
Get with it man and take a stand one way or another. I would hope it's on the conservative side. But do it.
You always side with Shaw who is a trashy internet whore. So what do you expect to get in return?
It's my choice:
Wow. You're exactly the reason our country is in such disarray: the whole "pick a side and stay there!"...there aren't supposed to be "sides" as in a war; we are supposed to be a country with differing viewpoints to balance each other out.
As for "not taking a [stand] on anything..." if you have read my posts you'd see how far off you are. I've taken a stand on many things, including why I think certain individuals within the GOP have hijacked it.
As for your last comment about Shaw, 2 things:
1. (this is the least important part):
Where have I "always" taken her side? In fact, I stayed out of the last debate and let her and the others debate.
2. (This is the more important part):
Don't EVER come to my blog and call someone a whore. Especially a fellow blogger. You are an ignorant dittohead with no opinions of your own. I read your one and only post and you simply reguritate other people's opinons: i.e. Rush, Cheney, and other far-right bloggers. If those are your opinions, fine, but don't come here calling my readers insulting things like that. Do it again and you will be banned.
I don't mind heated debates, but you crossed the line.
It's my Choice, if I wasn't married, just kidding.
Dave, I'm not really really angry, I'm just helping James' site get more hits.
This is about the only self proclaimed moderate site I frequent.
Pitt:
I do appreciate the hits. The trolls, well, sometimes they bring itchy stuff. Oh well.
You and I had a rocky start, and we disagree often (sometimes loudly) but in the end, I think we'd get along in person.
Probably, I'm not too hard to get along with outside here.
Good post James. Pay-Go sounds good. I think the hesitation comes from the looming health care reform. Obama has made it clear that he wants it passed before the mid-term elections. The question is whether the moderates will trust Obama and consider pay-go a sincere effort of fiscal restraint or whether they will view it as pure politics designed to enable the ram through of another enormous spending program. It looks like some Congress members of both parties are waiting to see constituent response before they commit one way or the other. They too are probably thinking about the mid-term elections.
Sandy, you made an excellent point. The politicos are waiting to hear how their voters will react.
How is that leadership?
I always thought the system was to work like this:
We elect our leaders to make decisions for us. As our representatives. Then, if we do not like those decisions, we do not reelect them.
But somehow, they have understood it another way and have taken to following our lead.
If that is to be our system, maybe they could pay us, instead of themselves.
We could call it paygo. They pay us, and then go home!
Dave is right. It is not in their nature. There will always be some altruistic rationale given for why they are deficit spending. Paygo sounds fine but if it's like anything else the Obama administration has done, it's only for show. I'd like to see something like Paygo, although cutting spending would be even better.
Like I said, I view it as an important first step in the right direction. We need (many) more like it.
It's getting kind of heated in here isn't it.
OK, my 2 cents..
First of all I must agree with what Erics said...
"Calling someone a "internet whore"
Is not the same as calling them a "whore"
And he certainly is entitled to his opinion.
Second:
I also agree with what bluepitbull said...
"The reason that Shaw got what she got was the way she trolls other blogs and makes absurd comments and never, never, ever, ever backs them up."
She always accuses everyone of being wrong and attaches a snotty remark along with it.
So friends, what comes around goes around.
Good luck with your banning people, that's going to get you real far.
Good luck with that.
Also James, you yourself have been guilty of name calling..
Remember this?
James' Muse said...
"Bob, I apologize for calling you names. But you did come to my blog and post the same thing you posted here. Let's move on from this, please."
But coming here, ignoring my post and calling someone an internet whore is a bit over the line, isn't it Bob?
It's My Choice trolled here simply to ignore my post and call Shaw names. That's a bit beyond the normal heatedness; its just plain trolling.
And while I may not ban her, I may start deleting trolling comments.
James' Muse said...
"But coming here, ignoring my post and calling someone an internet whore is a bit over the line, isn't it Bob? "
But James, lets call it as it is!
She IS a "Internet whore"
I just read what "It's My Choice" said and she is right. So why get so up tight?
okay, so first of all, internet whore doesn't even make sense.
Second, you're still trolling, ignoring my post to insult someone from the other side of the aisle from you. Good job guys. Starting with "It's My Choice" who completely ignored my post and went on her own tangent, which is called trolling, then I get Bob, Eric's Eyes, and the Saint all doing the same thing. All coming here to defend It's My Choice when she came here, insulted Shaw and then myself while ignoring my post. Thanks Trolls!
James' Muse said...
okay, so first of all, internet whore doesn't even make sense.
Second, you're still trolling, ignoring my post to insult someone from the other side of the aisle from you. Good job guys. Starting with "It's My Choice"
OK then...I suggest that everyone that has agreed with me and posted here..STOP POSTING HERE.
PERIOD.
HAVE FUN WITH THAT JAMES.
Like I said, if you want to talk about the post, fine.
If not, then good riddance chica.
It's My Choice, brought up an interesting issue in her words to James that he needs to take a stand on one side, or the other.
I think most people like to believe they are consistently doing that, but in reality, most, if not all are somewhere in the middle.
Take the issue of states rights, for example.
Conservatives like to trumpet this as one of their issues. They argue that Washington has no right, or jurisdiction over what a state does within it's own borders.
This was a major defense point of theirs during the civil rights movement, used to deny blacks, and others, access to basic services, like education and health care.
More recently it has been championed by conservatives to argue that Washington D.C. has no right to impose EPA restrictions on the states.
Now the left, typically the big government party, has argued that we need uniform standards and that only way we can get those is to have them imposed from D.C.
We can argue the effectiveness of either of these points, but the broad strokes I have outlined here are pretty standard stuff.
But here is where this all gets mixed up.
Let's take Gay Marriage. On this issue, the conservatives are out there arguing that we cannot have individual states setting policy because, in reality, they do not like the policy that the states are enacting.
But... the libs are saying now, that in this instance, states rights are AOK.
I think, It's My Choice, and others, that people have a bent, or a tilt, one way or the other. And they generally lean that way on most issues.
But they reserve the right to look for another way if their first inclination does not seem to fit them.
Admittedly, for those of us on the left, that seems far easier to do.
But for those on the right, It's and Blue, for example, isn't this the same for you too?
I saw what It's My Choice said...before you deleted her comment.
And I'm going to follow her wishes.
You will get NO comments here from me either.
Have a very pleasant and lonely day.
Um, I haven't deleted anyone's comment here. It says "deleted by the author" meaning that the person who wrote it deleted their own comment. I told her that if she continued to troll, I would start deleting comments. American girl, you don't even comment here regularly, so why did you come here to threaten me with leaving?
Doesn't make sense.
James' Muse said...
" American girl, you don't even comment here regularly, so why did you come here to threaten me with leaving?"
I have in the past.. If you have read my blog, I go long periods of time between posting and/commenting. I go out of town on my job for weeks or months.
I read what It's My Choice said...and I was put out by the content of it.
Why call people trolls only because they disagree with a issue or even if they bring out another view point not related to the post's subject? I don't get it. What is so terrible about it?
She came here simply to insult another fellow blogger. Disagreement is fine, but she came here ONLY to do that. That is trolling.
I don't care about disagreement. Bluepitbull comes here often, and pretty much always disagrees with me. Doesn't bother me one bit. He and Shaw are both regulars, and they duked it out awhile back. Fine.
But It's My Choice came here to hijack my post with her opinion on something COMPLETELY unrelated. It's trolling.
From wikipedia:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
All American, what if someone came to your blog regularly, yet never dealt with any of your postings and simply talked about the weather?
Would you be okay with that?
By definition, that would be trolling.
By the way, you folks are off topic right now.. Are you trolls?
Internet Whore
A person that uses common abbreviations or acronyms to describe feelings on the internet. They also use internet punctuation and grammar usually used in chat rooms and on blogs and can contain such phrases as; lol, omg, lmao, rotflmao, xoxo,
Internet whores are firm believers in internet philosophy, and frequenting sites.
Dave Miller said...
"All American, what if someone came to your blog regularly, yet never dealt with any of your postings and simply talked about the weather?
Would you be okay with that?
By definition, that would be trolling."
Trust me, I wouldn't get this upset about it.
This is a blog people, it's not the 10 Commandments we are talking about.
Post a Comment