“a tax-hiking, spending-exploding, job-killing, deficit-hiking wonder”
Rules and fiscal sanity are for suckers.
On February 4, 2010, pushing for passage of her pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on the House floor: “When I became Speaker of the House, the very first day we passed legislation that made PAYGO the rule of the House. Today we will make it the law of the land. … So the time is long overdue for this to be taken for granted. The federal government will pay as it goes.” That was the promise. But here is the reality: in the three years that Speaker Pelosi has enforced her PAYGO rule, the House has violated it by nearly $1 trillion.
And now with the U.S. Debt Clock officially passing the $13 trillion milestone Wednesday, the House is set to violate their own PAYGO law yet again, this time to the tune of around $150 billion. The legislation clocks-in at almost one-fifth the size of President Barack Obama’s original $862 billion failed economic stimulus, and the leftist majority in Congress has titled it “The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act.” And it is a tax-hiking, spending-exploding, job-killing, deficit-hiking wonder.
Correction. Believing anything a bunch of politicians say is for suckers.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on May 27, 2010 at 1218 hrs
OMG! Pelosi lied?!?!? Color me shocked!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2010 at 1239 hrs
I love the “failed economic stimulus” line.
Posted by scott on May 27, 2010 at 1324 hrs
Yes, no doubt that Obama’s federal government claims his program an enormous success. You quote the CBO as if you it is the do all and end all of factual perfection. They use the numbers they are given by Nancy, and Harry, and Barack… hardly three people I’d trust with my wallet.
Failed is correct, though wasted works just as well.
Obama administration stimulus predictions. 9% unemployment without 8% unemployment with, , and down to 7% by this spring. We are still hovering around 10% (17% using all unemployed workers), the market is teetering, the cash is gone… the Great Recession continues on.
...and Nancy tosses PAYGO into the fire as liberals line up to defend her and talk up the grand recovery…. well, recovery to the new norm at least.
Like John Kerry says, his party and President Obama are doing a ship-shape job. ““We’ve come back,” he says of the nation, Wall Street, and the economy. “This is an amazing resurgence.”“
Yeah… amazing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2010 at 1342 hrs
You quote the CBO as if
As if it’s a reliable and non-partisan source for government budgeting numbers.
Obama administration stimulus predictions. 9% unemployment without 8% unemployment with
A boneheaded prediction to be sure. (How’d they come up with that, I wonder?) But it does not change the fact that reputable sources such as the CBO say that things would have been worse without the stimulus spending.
and Nancy tosses PAYGO into the fire
Because we were faced with the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression. Duh.
Posted by scott on May 27, 2010 at 1351 hrs
As if it’s a reliable and non-partisan source for government budgeting numbers.
Which it unfortunately isn’t. The CBO is constantly revising it’s predictions as it is given new facts by the very partisan legislative and executive branches.
Besides, I’ve noted that the CBO numbers are only factual when they support your own findings and not so much when they don’t.
How can their numbers be accurate when you have the census reporting the same jobs multiple times a month, and a single employee with several functions being reported as multiple workers. Even with the chicanery and fake statistics, Stimulus has not come anywhere close to what was promised.
A boneheaded prediction to be sure.
The 9% without number might have been accurate. We’ll never know. We do know that recovery in 2010 is out of the question, and the dark clouds are gathering for a possible second dip. Stimulus flunked.
and Nancy tosses PAYGO into the fire
Because we were faced with the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression. Duh.Exactly Owens point I think. Rules are for suckers. Pass em, crow about em, ignore em.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2010 at 1410 hrs
Ah the cry of the free spending, kick the can down the road liberal….
But, But we passed a law!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2010 at 1420 hrs
I’ve noted that the CBO numbers are only factual when they support your own findings
You’ve noted no such thing.
Exactly Owens point I think.
And it’s a pretty dumb point! PAYGO makes sense—until the entire economy tanks and you’re in a huge crisis. The insinuation that it was Democrats plan all along to forget all about fiscal responsibility and spend like crazy is dumb. The stimulus spending was in response to a very large and very real economic crisis—the likes of which hasn’t been seen by any of us before.
And, yeah, I get that you think Keynes is a totally discredited communist devil or something. But many other people think he was onto something with regard to situations like these.Posted by scott on May 27, 2010 at 1429 hrs
Scott,
How do you explain Pelosi pushing PAYGO legislation three months ago only to violate it this month? Did I miss another financial collapse? Perhaps the recessions was an excuse to violate PAYGO in 2009, but I thought the stimulus worked and we’re on the mend? Why violate PAYGO now?
Posted by Owen on May 27, 2010 at 1442 hrs
I don’t know, Owen. Perhaps she was “pushing” for PAYGO as something to take effect in a couple of years when we’re more out of the woods? It’s a good question and I don’t know the answer. Do you?
I thought the stimulus worked
Glad to see you’ve joined the reality-based community! Can I show you around?
Posted by scott on May 27, 2010 at 1450 hrs
No, Scott. The House passed PAYGO in February.
http://democraticleader.house.gov/blog/blog.cfm?pressReleaseID=3818
So Pelosi pushed for and passed it three months ago and intends to ignore it now. Is there any excuse for that?
Posted by Owen on May 27, 2010 at 1500 hrs
You got me, man. I don’t know. What do you think?
Posted by scott on May 27, 2010 at 1502 hrs
That rules and fiscal sanity are for suckers
Posted by Owen on May 27, 2010 at 1502 hrs
For real, though. Why do you suppose?
Posted by scott on May 27, 2010 at 1507 hrs
I think that Pelosi is an arrogant politician who believes that rules should simply be discarded when they are inconvenient to her. It’s not really that complicated. There are a lot of people like that in the world.
Posted by Owen on May 27, 2010 at 1509 hrs
I’ll tell you why I suppose. Nancy Pelosi made a big deal out of paygo, and the American public liked it. Now that she is violating her own rule, the media is not reporting it, and the American public goes on thinking it is in effect.
Pelosi is a liar. Plain and simple. She shouted from the rooftops about the “most transparent, and ethical congress in history” just two years ago, only to pass several pieces of legislation full of back room deals, and without reading them. The number of earmarks are astounding, the amount of “hand is quicker than the eye”-politics that has been practiced by this “transparent and ethical” congress is horrifying. Unfortunately bitter partisans cannot see past the (D), and refuse to criticize.
Now, Scott, why do you suppose? Why would she pass a paygo rule during the “most incredible financial calamity since the great depression” (as you sit on your couch with an Ipad) only to violate it within months?
The wheels are coming off the “transparent and ethical” mantra, as more and more political favors and disgusting deals are exposed, it becomes pretty clear that this administration is not in fact “change”.... It just takes the “same old Washington politics” to a new level.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2010 at 1908 hrs
Which it unfortunately isn’t. The CBO is constantly revising it’s predictions as it is given new facts by the very partisan legislative and executive branches
scott will never admit this, but my link absolutely and undeniably proves that point. scott the troll strikes again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 27, 2010 at 2148 hrs
There are a lot of people like that in the world.
Democrats, you mean? Or people you vote for and support?
The number of earmarks are astounding
Which congress set the record for the most earmarks?
as you sit on your couch with an Ipad
You guys make me laugh sometimes.
Posted by scott on May 27, 2010 at 2337 hrs
Democrats, you mean?
Did I say that? No, I didn’t. Why don’t you try arguing with what I actually said instead of what you perceive I mean through your liberal lens? Given that you have yet to state your thoughts on Pelosi’s actions, does that mean you support them? If not, why not? Are you capable of criticizing a Democrat?
Posted by Owen on May 28, 2010 at 0635 hrs
Sorry, Owen. i’m being needlessly provocative. And I haven’t expressed my own opinion, no. To the extent that I have one, it’s simply: I don’t even understand this issue. Perhaps she had a strategic reason for the flip-flop. Maybe something did change. Maybe it’s all kind of an underhanded way to get the sausage made in the House. (Even if it’s good sausage.) Maybe I don’t have all the facts. The explanation I reject is that Nancy is a sociopath, that she just takes glee out of deceiving the American people—which seems to be the position you’ve arrived at pretty solidly.
I’m a pretty left-leaning guy. I mostly like Democratic ideas on governing—except when they don’t go far enough. This leads me to believe that elected Democrats and I share some of the same values and priorities. I’m disinclined, therefore, to assume that they’re just flat up to no good. Call it a bias. I’m fine with that. But we all have them, I guess.
Speaking of which, what is the explanation given by the speaker? The idea that we’re getting the other side of the story from Heritage is .. well, unlikely. Do we know what it is, even? I don’t—but I suspect there is one.
Keeping it about issues, I generally am in favor of paying as we go in the federal government—except during times like these when we’re in such a shitty economic spot. While I generally don’t like the idea, deficit spending is exactly what I want out of the feds right now. When will it be time to stop? Not sure, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t it. Which is why it surprises me that this kind of thing is being brought up by Democrats right now in the first place.
All of which is to say that I don’t really have a bead on the issue. But I do have biases and so do you. One of the ways in which your own bias shows is the fact that this kind of inside-baseball hypocrisy displayed by the speaker is really only being discussed here because she’s a Democrat and you don’t like Democratic ideas on governance and anything they do that looks bad is read meat around here. Honest commenters here (which by no means includes everyone) will have to admit that things like this—seeming contradictions, ugly sausage-making in the legislature, etc.—happen all the time on the other side of the aisle, too. But they don’t merit the same kind of scrutiny, don’t get the same instant condemnation—probably don’t even get mentioned at all—in these hallowed pages.
Sorry for the weak-wristed response, but that’s about as honest and nuanced as I can muster. And I thought after needlessly poking the bear I should at least say something.
Posted by scott on May 28, 2010 at 0812 hrs
Scott,
I admit that it constantly amuses me how what I say gets interpreted in your mind. I said of Pelosi:
15.I think that Pelosi is an arrogant politician who believes that rules should simply be discarded when they are inconvenient to her.
Which you read as:
...Nancy is a sociopath, that she just takes glee out of deceiving the American people—which seems to be the position you’ve arrived at pretty solidly.
This is why people tend to dismiss you. You just take what other people say and twist it in your own mind to fit whatever preconceived stereotype you have created for that person - and then argue with the fictional stereotype instead of the actual person. What’s the point of even debating with you when it just becomes a circle-jerk of trying to correct your ridiculous characterizations of something I didn’t say?
Posted by Owen on May 28, 2010 at 0827 hrs
What I’m really guilty of, Owen, is conflating your stated opinion with the vitriolic comments of others. Still, my remarks about what gets discussed here and what doesn’t still stand.
And really? This is why people (people here, I guess you mean) dismiss me? Because I just do this all the time? Well maybe I do it occasionally, but I really do try to contribute thoughtful and honest commentary here. I try to play fair, even though I have opinions as strong as anyone else’s. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that I just habitually don’t play fair.
Posted by scott on May 28, 2010 at 0835 hrs
The number of earmarks are astounding
Which congress set the record for the most earmarks?
Which speaker of the house said “I’d like to do away with the practice”? Which president campaigned on it? Which party ran on the mantra of transparency and openness?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-earmark-1.html
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/13/115739.shtml
Where was the transparency on stimulus, on healthcare, on the budget? Where was it Scott?as you sit on your couch with an Ipad
You guys make me laugh sometimes.
You are the one who is constantly going on about how horrifying this recession is. About how the stimulus wasn’t big enough… It can’t be that bad, you weren’t motivated to forgo a new $600.00 toy to help out your fellow man. Why is it okay to demand that the government steal money from our children and grandchildren to make sure you have enough cash in hand (or credit cards in your wallet) to be able to have such luxuries?
I don’t begrudge you success, and I certainly don’t begrudge you an Ipad (I am drooling over them myself), but I do have a hard time with the hypocrisy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2010 at 0926 hrs
Which speaker of the house said “I’d like to do away with the practice”? Which president campaigned on it? Which party ran on the mantra of transparency and openness?
Probably all of them over the course of my entire lifetime.
Where was the transparency on stimulus, on healthcare, on the budget? Where was it Scott?
I hate to be reduced to a “you guys do it too” argument, but damn. This is political rhetoric, man. And yes, there was some transparency and in some cases there wasn’t. Absolutely nothing has changed as far as I can tell. Obama does it the same way everyone else does it. Suddenly you’re outraged? It just makes me slightly cynical. I find that a response more proportionate to the crime.
It can’t be that bad, you weren’t motivated to forgo a new $600.00 toy to help out your fellow man.
The $600 did help out my fellow man. I spent it in a time of deep recession and unemployment. What would have been more helpful? I contributed to someone’s employment. Relax. Besides, the primary reason I bought the iPad was for business reasons. Believe it or not, I’m a small business owner and I have to invest in equipment to make money.
Posted by scott on May 28, 2010 at 0936 hrs
Oddly enough, Owens assessment was quite similar to that of several of the former conservative commentators on your old blog, Scott (not including me… though I made similar comment). All of us left your blog because of similar behavior to that noted here by Owen.
Not trying to pile on Scott…. just saying and reminding you of things that have gone before
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2010 at 0953 hrs
Criticisms about my behavior in the blogosphere mean very little to me coming from you.
Anyway, I do have fans here. And now and then I even have right-wingers chime in to support me.
Posted by scott on May 28, 2010 at 1011 hrs
I hate to be reduced to a “you guys do it too” argument, but damn. This is political rhetoric, man. And yes, there was some transparency and in some cases there wasn’t. Absolutely nothing has changed as far as I can tell. Obama does it the same way everyone else does it. Suddenly you’re outraged? It just makes me slightly cynical. I find that a response more proportionate to the crime.
I know it is just political rhetoric, I was saying that in July of 2008, but I was lambasted for it by my “progressive” friends because Barack Obama was different. Change you can believe in! By your own admission, there is nothing different about this guy. Hell, I’ll add that it’s likely he is doing the same old, same old, only worse than it’s been done before. My response is proportionate to the crime, this guy sold the American Public a bill of goods…
Starting to look like the honeymoon is over.
Furthermore, I have consistently hammered on Bush for his spending. He took a swing at SS reform (the ONLY reason I voted for him in 2004), but was knocked down by his party’s congress. I hate what the Republican party has become, that is why I don’t associate with them. I have friends that want me to get involved in the party, and the notion makes me want to puke.
Anyway, I do have fans here. And now and then I even have right-wingers chime in to support me.
The place wouldn’t be the same without you
, and I have chimed in to support you.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2010 at 1030 hrs
Which speaker of the house said “I’d like to do away with the practice”? Which president campaigned on it? Which party ran on the mantra of transparency and openness?
Probably all of them over the course of my entire lifetime.
Now I certainly can’t be sure about the level of your revulsion and disdain for the Bush administration’s spending practices (though I recall some definite heated commentary), but I am amazed at how quickly the very vocal Democrat consternation with Republican spending practices has turned into tepid acceptance and denial of the problem… and sometimes even support for that spending.
Why is irresponsible spending only bad when Republicans do it? Even better question… what if Newt Gingrich were Speaker now? Would you still feel a bit cynical and call it a more appropriate response?
Before you ask, I thought President Bush ignored his veto pen too much. He requested and approved far too much spending without making cuts to pay for it, though I expected that… he was quite socially liberal.
I contributed to someone’s employment.
Well, someone in China at least. Does apple manufacture anything in the US anymore? At least you made the rich shareholders of Apple more wealthy… though I’d think that wouldn’t make most liberals too happy.
I like it overall, though (that’ll make you even less happy). More trade is good. Jobs in China is good. Designing and importing products that create added value is beneficial to our economy as a whole. Obama might not like it, buy I think you did economic yeoman’s work on the ipad deal. Well done. Maybe when they become obsolete, I’ll be able to afford one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2010 at 1033 hrs
but I was lambasted for it by my “progressive” friends
I’ll take you at your word. But I don’t think I was among them at least.
there is nothing different about this guy.
only worse than it’s been done before.
Kind of contradictory, but we’re mostly on the same page I guess.
I am amazed at how quickly the very
vocal Democrat consternation with Republican spending practices has turned
into tepid acceptance and denial of the problem… and sometimes even
support for that spending.You’re amazed because you don’t understand that some folks think Keynes had some pretty good ideas on what to do in this kind of economic crisis.
<i>Well,
someone in China at least. <>Dude, give me a frickin’ break already. There are lots of people employed by Apple in this country and you know that. And it’s hardly possible to buy any manufactured thing here without some of that money going to outsourced labor.
Posted by scott on May 28, 2010 at 1054 hrs
Dude, give me a frickin’ break already. There are lots of people employed by Apple in this country and you know that. And it’s hardly possible to buy any manufactured thing here without some of that money going to outsourced labor.
I said I commend you on it… though the more “progressive” elements in our government might not agree. Seems that big business and outsourcing is bad… very very bad. I’m all for it though. I have no issues with rich guys earning money by doing business… even if that means they have to produce things overseas to avoid a difficult manufacturing climate in the US.
Nice job on your purchase… though wouldn’t you think that donating the full $600 to the government to have it distributed in a Keynesian way might have been more helpful?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2010 at 1159 hrs
h wouldn’t you think that donating the full $600 to the government to have it distributed in a Keynesian way might have been more helpful?
I’m no expert on Keynes himself, but clearly there’s some stuff you’re not understanding about our approach to government stimulus. It does not involve me and you giving money to the government so that they can “distribute” it. Right now it involves the government borrowing money and giving it to us so that we can distribute it. Some of it is more targeted, as when the government funds projects which employ contractors which pay wages. A lot of it, though, was direct tax breaks, allowing us to “distribute” the money as we see fit.
Posted by scott on May 28, 2010 at 1246 hrs
I’m no expert on Keynes himself, but clearly there’s some stuff you’re not understanding about our approach to government stimulus. It does not involve me and you giving money to the government so that they can “distribute” it. Right now it involves the government borrowing money and giving it to us so that we can distribute it. Some of it is more targeted, as when the government funds projects which employ contractors which pay wages. A lot of it, though, was direct tax breaks, allowing us to “distribute” the money as we see fit.
You’ll note that the only “us” who got even a remotely sizable portion of that “stimulus” were well connected, wealthy contractors…. I’d be happy to give back the extra $656.00 I got due to reduced witholdings last year… If it’d be applied to the deficit.
I understand Keynes, but the problem is the level of debt that we were already burdened with when we went on the buying spree. If we’d been at a zero balance, or even just a trillion or so in debt I’d be able to understand the idea of using Keynesian tactics, but we are quickly arriving at a point where debt service alone is going to consume a majority stake of the federal budget…. How is that sustainable?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2010 at 1339 hrs
You’ll note that the only “us” who got even a remotely sizable portion of that “stimulus” were well connected, wealthy contractors
I haven’t noted any such thing.
I’d be happy to give back the extra $656.00 I got due to reduced witholdings last year… If it’d be applied to the deficit.
You’re in luck!
http://www.infowars.com/treasury-wants-donations-to-pay-off-national-debt/
The U.S. Treasury Department accepts gifts, payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt. Just mail them to the attention of Department G, Post Office Box 2188, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-2188. Make a note in the memo section that it is a gift to reduce the debt held by the public.
Yes, really.
It’s all on the Treasury’s website, at the end of the list of frequently asked questions. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htmI understand Keynes, but the problem is the level of debt that we were already burdened with
Okay, I understand your position. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it.
Posted by scott on May 28, 2010 at 1349 hrs
Okay, I understand your position. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it.
But you didn’t answer the question… We are racing headlong towards a situation where the majority of our federal budged is consumed by debt service. How is that sustainable?
I understand that you think we shouldn’t worry about that right now, and instead focus on getting the economy back on track, but what if this recession lasts for five years? What if our economy stagnates for 10 years? The risk is astoundingly high… Is the utter economic destruction of this country something that a trustee (the President of the United States of America) should be willing to risk?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 28, 2010 at 1711 hrs
But you didn’t answer the question
Well I guess you’d first have to convince me that this
We are racing headlong towards a situation where the majority of our federal budged is consumed by debt service
isn’t just hyperventilating.
What if our economy stagnates for 10 years? The risk is astoundingly high
The real risk of that happening was in doing nothing. Which is why Bush and Obama both quickly got into action.
Posted by scott on May 28, 2010 at 1726 hrs
Total Entries: 19997
Total Comments: 134019
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 06:25 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 10:54 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 123
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 11:32 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).