Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   Democrats last year: "We will restore pay-as-you-go budgeting." Last week: "Paygo? Never mind." Bonus: Hillary and Obama both skipped the Senate vote to dump paygo   (opinionjournal.com) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

436 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Dec 2007 at 4:09 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



59 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2007-12-10 1:37:39 PM  
Ironically, I was listening to a Who concert on Wolfgang's Vault as I read this story.

...In comes the new boss, same as the old boss...
...we won't be fooled again...


and yet...
 
2007-12-10 1:58:16 PM  
Isn't that the root beer that the Insane Clown Posse sprays on their fans?
 
2007-12-10 2:07:44 PM  
Vote Republican in 2008 and restore things to the way they were before the Democrats failed to change them... wait.
 
2007-12-10 2:10:51 PM  
FTA: Senate Democrats gave up on "paygo," as it's called, when they realized they lacked the votes to offset the $50.6 billion cost of protecting more than 20 million middle-class taxpayers from getting whacked by the Alternative Minimum Tax this year. They've spent the year floating all kinds of tax increases to make up the difference. But in the end they passed an AMT relief bill without a penny to pay for it. Paygo is now pay gone.

And when he says "lacked the votes" what he means is, "unable to overcome Republican stonewalling". Everybody agrees that the Alternative Minimum Tax needs to be fixed, but for some reason the Republicans are celebrating because their stonewalling will sink the country further into debt. Do these Republicans not understand that our nation's debt is quickly turning into a national security issue? Do these Republicans not realize that our adversaries in the world possess a large chuck of our debt? Driving us further and further into debt for the cause of political brinkmanship is monumentally irresponsible.
 
2007-12-10 2:33:20 PM  
I've so far not been a fan of Ron Paul. But I think it would be awesome to see him run as the Libertarian candidate and for the first time in history have a 3rd party candidate win it. My grandparents are some of the biggest Republicans I know, and both of them say they'd vote for a 3rd party candidate this year of a viable one comes up.
 
2007-12-10 3:21:55 PM  
Code_Archeologist: And when he says "lacked the votes" what he means is, "unable to overcome Republican stonewalling". Everybody agrees that the Alternative Minimum Tax needs to be fixed, but for some reason the Republicans are celebrating because their stonewalling will sink the country further into debt. Do these Republicans not understand that our nation's debt is quickly turning into a national security issue? Do these Republicans not realize that our adversaries in the world possess a large chuck of our debt? Driving us further and further into debt for the cause of political brinkmanship is monumentally irresponsible.

Screw that. Clinton was able to spin the Repuglikkkan stonewalling a decade ago. The Democrats here need to publicize the Repuglikkkan stonewalling, not just sit around and take it or use it as a bargaining chip to get stuff they want. When 70% of the country is against the Repuglikkkan's main issue (the war), it is not like everyone is going to blame them.
 
2007-12-10 3:35:57 PM  
The larger relevance of this episode concerns the 2008 campaign. Hillary Clinton in particular has made paygo a major campaign theme because it makes her sound like a fiscal conservative while helping to justify tax increases. But, lo, guess who was missing on Thursday when the Senate voted 88-5 to ignore paygo on the AMT? None other than the candidate herself, along with Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and Barack Obama. To quote another Saturday Night Live character, "How convenient."

I, for one, am shocked that the Senators who are campaigning for president would miss more votes than others. Add to that list John McCain, and note that the only Senators to vote against the bill were Democrats.
 
2007-12-10 3:49:46 PM  
Paedophile_Deluxe: The larger relevance of this episode concerns the 2008 campaign. Hillary Clinton in particular has made paygo a major campaign theme because it makes her sound like a fiscal conservative while helping to justify tax increases. But, lo, guess who was missing on Thursday when the Senate voted 88-5 to ignore paygo on the AMT? None other than the candidate herself, along with Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and Barack Obama. To quote another Saturday Night Live character, "How convenient."

I, for one, am shocked that the Senators who are campaigning for president would miss more votes than others. Add to that list John McCain, and note that the only Senators to vote against the bill were Democrats.


If I wanted to be president and went campaigning, nobody would pay me to not show up at work.
 
2007-12-10 4:14:30 PM  
anyone have a tally of who voted what on this one?
 
2007-12-10 4:17:02 PM  
I can look past Hillary and Obama skipping the vote. Whould they have been there? Yes...FARK YES, actually.

However, they have a campaign to run. Reality is sometimes not what we would like it to be.

As for the rest of the Democrats...what the fark, guys? I think we need to see a vote count on this, but if it turns out that a sizeable chunk of the D's voted against it, I'm going to be mighty pissed. I expect better from them.
 
2007-12-10 4:17:34 PM  
Mordant: Vote Republican in 2008 and restore things to the way they were before the Democrats failed to change them... wait.

I laughed, I cried, and then I swore I'd move to Canada.
 
2007-12-10 4:17:48 PM  
Poopspasm: WShould

FTFM.
 
2007-12-10 4:20:24 PM  
Raiden333: If I wanted to be president and went campaigning, nobody would pay me to not show up at work.

I know, but they don't have "regular" jobs with a boss breathing down their necks. It's an unfortunate necessity for them to be on the campaign trail so much. I'm sure it would be a nice stand for principle for a candidate to make every vote, but no one would know who the hell they were.
 
2007-12-10 4:21:08 PM  
shiatty
 
2007-12-10 4:25:37 PM  
Way to stick to your guns, Dems. Bravo.
 
2007-12-10 4:26:45 PM  
Are you kidding? I love Paygo

Fricken awesome, if you're like 11.
 
2007-12-10 4:32:45 PM  
SilentStrider: anyone have a tally of who voted what on this one?
From Paedophile_Deluxe:Link (new window)
 
2007-12-10 4:32:52 PM  
It was obvious before last November that this was not going to work for them.
 
2007-12-10 4:38:30 PM  
What suckass Repubs don't block, Bush vetoes.
 
2007-12-10 4:38:39 PM  
Any elected official who cannot fulfil their duties due to campaigning should be removed from office.
 
2007-12-10 4:39:43 PM  
The solution to our nations problems: The GOP, kill it with fire.
 
2007-12-10 4:49:16 PM  
Corvus: If you want PAYGO back then elect a Democrat president and a handful more senators so the Republicans can't hold bill hostages and then blame the Democrats for it.

If you want anything, elect a Democratic president and more senators. Until they do, I'm blaming everything on the Repuglikkkans.

Look at the state of California. We have Democratic control of both houses and yet our Repuglikkkan president refuses to allow the programs to increase government revenue that we want. I mean, why does our state continue to forbid race-based preferences when it is obvious that the majority of the representatives support it?
 
2007-12-10 4:49:22 PM  
Code_Archeologist: And when he says "lacked the votes" what he means is, "unable to overcome Republican stonewalling". Everybody agrees that the Alternative Minimum Tax needs to be fixed, but for some reason the Republicans are celebrating because their stonewalling will sink the country further into debt. Do these Republicans not understand that our nation's debt is quickly turning into a national security issue? Do these Republicans not realize that our adversaries in the world possess a large chuck of our debt? Driving us further and further into debt for the cause of political brinkmanship is monumentally irresponsible.

Instead of shifting the burned up the econimic scale, why isn't cutting spending an option? We could start with the war.
 
2007-12-10 4:51:02 PM  
PirateKing: Any elected official who cannot fulfil their duties due to campaigning should be removed from office.

It'd be a very lonely Congress sometimes, what with everyone facing serious opposition being removed from office every two years. This is the dilemma you face when you are in office:

Option 1: Show up to all the votes, but as a result do little to no campaigning, and proceed to lose the election regardless of how you voted.
Option 2: Campaign so you can keep your job, but in the process get told to go back to work and do your farking job.

If you're running for President, and are waging any sort of a serious campaign, you must accept the fact that you are going to miss a whole lot of critical votes. If every time votes came up, you dropped everything to fly back and forth between Des Moines and Washington, you will lose the Presidency. And probably be ridiculed for wasting gas.
 
2007-12-10 4:52:34 PM  
Code_Archeologist: And when he says "lacked the votes" what he means is, "unable to overcome Republican stonewalling". Everybody agrees that the Alternative Minimum Tax needs to be fixed, but for some reason the Republicans are celebrating because their stonewalling will sink the country further into debt. Do these Republicans not understand that our nation's debt is quickly turning into a national security issue? Do these Republicans not realize that our adversaries in the world possess a large chuck of our debt? Driving us further and further into debt for the cause of political brinkmanship is monumentally irresponsible.


Well, I don't think the issue is quite the way you're framing it. I think the difference is in how the two sides want to pay for it.

The Dems want to pay for that tax cut it with other tax increases, and the Republicans don't...

The thing is... For many years now Congress has been cutting taxes a little here and there and revenues are going UP - not down - indicating that our taxes were too high and were restraining production (we seem to be a lot closer to an optimal point now, though erring on the lower side of tax rates *should* be SOP for Congress). Raising taxes will then lead to lower production and lower tax revenue....... which we'll be told then needs to be made up with - guess what - more taxes.
 
2007-12-10 4:55:21 PM  
Corvus: "The effort to pay for the AMT is highly offensive to members of my side of the aisle" - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) (new window)


Oh yeah, and not cutting that quote off in the middle would have been more honest:

"The effort to pay for the AMT [fix] is highly offensive to those on my side of the aisle," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) intoned on the Senate floor on Wednesday. "Why should we raise taxes on some other Americans in order to patch the AMT and pass the extenders?"


In other words: Why should we pay for this tax cut by raising taxes on other people?
 
2007-12-10 5:06:20 PM  
Ah yes, the laffer curve. Don't you just love these things that keep getting promoted through repetition without any actual evidence backing them.

So, lets assume for a minute the laffer curve does work simply like it says. What tax rate is T*? Are we currently on the left or the right of T*?
 
2007-12-10 5:17:11 PM  
mongbiohazard: The thing is... For many years now Congress has been cutting taxes a little here and there and revenues are going UP - not down - indicating that our taxes were too high and were restraining production

Productivity has been steadily increasing and thereby increasing tax revenue because of technological innovation, not because of some magical tax cutting voodoo. As technology has increased productivity, profits have increased; and they would have increased regardless of the level of taxes being paid by the richest consumers.

You can argue all you like that increased disposable income among the investment class allowed for this technologically driven increase in productivity, but you would still be wrong. Competition is the engine that has driven technological innovation, and taxes would not have changed the drive of competition in the marketplace to produce goods cheaper than the other guy.

Our flirtation with tax cuts has had many costs that people like yourself refuse to acknowledge. Our infrastructure has been decaying because there is not enough money to go around. Our currency has been on a rapid decline because for some farked up reason we have been spending more after cutting taxes. Finally the lure of specialized tax cuts has created a corporate welfare system within our nation, and has transformed lobbying from a hobby carried out by special interests into a multi Billion dollar graft scheme.

Its time it ends, we need to shift the AMT up to the $200,000 and above range, and place provisions in it to increase it based on inflation.
 
2007-12-10 5:21:13 PM  
Thrag: Ah yes, the laffer curve. Don't you just love these things that keep getting promoted through repetition without any actual evidence backing them.

So, lets assume for a minute the laffer curve does work simply like it says. What tax rate is T*? Are we currently on the left or the right of T*?


The laffer curve is common sense. You won't make any revenue at all at a 0% tax rate. You won't make any revenue at all at a 100% tax rate.
It's obvious that there's some maximum point in between.

No, it may not be parabolic; there may in fact be multiple peaks, maybe at different heights, it may be skewed, whatever.

If anything I'd guess our taxes are too low and the "optimum" point is upwards of 50% at the higher rates... hell, the "optimum" is probably upwards of 50% at EVERY rate, but there's a small problem with that.
Not everyone can afford to be taxed at the optimum rate.
 
2007-12-10 5:24:02 PM  
Recall all Repuglikkkans: Corvus: If you want PAYGO back then elect a Democrat president and a handful more senators so the Republicans can't hold bill hostages and then blame the Democrats for it.

If you want anything, elect a Democratic president and more senators. Until they do, I'm blaming everything on the Repuglikkkans.

Look at the state of California. We have Democratic control of both houses and yet our Repuglikkkan president refuses to allow the programs to increase government revenue that we want. I mean, why does our state continue to forbid race-based preferences when it is obvious that the majority of the representatives support it?


I know that your spelling of "Republican" is meant to attention whore yourself and to rile up conservatives, but do you realize that you make it tougher to read and also makes you look, quite frankly, retarded? If its your attempt at humor, then you failed. Its neither original nor accurate. You seem like a smart person, and I'd be interested in what you say. But you just make yourself look too ridiculous to be taken seriously.
 
2007-12-10 5:33:06 PM  
Actually, Frank, I have a theory that Repuglikkkans was registered for the specific purpose of combatting Afternoon_Delight. I tend to not bother with him.
 
2007-12-10 5:33:37 PM  
Fark needs an opinion tag.
 
2007-12-10 5:40:01 PM  
Gosling: Actually, Frank, I have a theory that Repuglikkkans was registered for the specific purpose of combatting Afternoon_Delight. I tend to not bother with him.

Interesting theory. I just ingore AD
 
2007-12-10 5:41:14 PM  
Gosling: Actually, Frank, I have a theory that Repuglikkkans was registered for the specific purpose of combatting Afternoon_Delight. I tend to not bother with him.

You notice that we don't seem to post at the exact same times either? You think that is a coincidence?
 
2007-12-10 5:46:07 PM  
Paedophile_Deluxe
note that the only Senators to vote against the bill were Democrats.

Let us also note that over eight times as many Democrats voted FOR the bill, or didn't bother to show up to vote either way...
 
2007-12-10 5:47:20 PM  
mongbiohazard: Raising taxes will then lead to lower production and lower tax revenue....... which we'll be told then needs to be made up with - guess what - more taxes.

Yet throughout US history raising taxes has always resulted in rising tax revenues.
 
2007-12-10 5:47:31 PM  
Wraithbane: Paedophile_Deluxe
note that the only Senators to vote against the bill were Democrats.

Let us also note that over eight times as many Democrats voted FOR the bill, or didn't bother to show up to vote either way...


Why do you count the Democrats as a single entity? There is a wide variety in differing perspectives among the Democratic party. It is truly the party of inclusion.
 
2007-12-10 5:57:20 PM  
Recall all Repuglikkkans Why do you count the Democrats as a single entity? There is a wide variety in differing perspectives among the Democratic party. It is truly the party of inclusion.

Oh bullshiat. I count the Democrats as a single entity, because they refer to themselves as a single entity. Last I knew it wasn't "the Democratic Party and A Bunch of Other Guys". Why didn't you ask Paedophile the same question when he made his comment? What, when it's something you like, then it's "the Democrats" but when you don't, well, then it's "those other guys who we include"?

Damn you're getting transparent with your partisan bullshiat.
 
2007-12-10 6:14:26 PM  
Corvus: There is no "money fairy" the money has to come somewhere and when you don't pay for it now it just cost MORE in taxes later.

No way; just print more money to take care of it. Sure, inflation goes up, but the national debt and deficit are worth less and less in real terms with each passing day!
 
2007-12-10 6:14:44 PM  
Code_Archeologist

And when he says "lacked the votes" what he means is, "unable to overcome Republican stonewalling".


THIS!
 
2007-12-10 6:16:51 PM  
Obama always sits out on controversial votes anymore. He is as big of coward as Hillary.
 
2007-12-10 6:18:16 PM  
Wraithbane: Let us also note that over eight times as many Democrats voted FOR the bill, or didn't bother to show up to vote either way...

Of course. But his insinuation that this was just about not allowing the GOP to cut taxes is BS. Sure, most of the Democrats were more concerned about scoring the political points that repealing the AMT gets them, but at least a few stuck to the fiscal responsibility creed. And it's not as if any of the candidates who missed the vote would have made a difference anyway.
 
2007-12-10 6:18:54 PM  
Nemo's Brother: Obama always sits out on controversial votes anymore. He is as big of coward as Hillary.

Care to give an example?
 
2007-12-10 6:20:47 PM  
Obama and Hillary no doubt missed the vote because they were out campaigning which is why we should extend the length of a term in office and limit one person to one term served. That way they don't waste the last year of their term trying to get another term.

However this idea makes far too much sense and would gut the amount of money these crooks can gather for themselves while in office so it will never catch on.

/conservative non-Republican
 
2007-12-10 6:30:34 PM  
Paedophile_Deluxe
Of course. But his insinuation that this was just about not allowing the GOP to cut taxes is BS. Sure, most of the Democrats were more concerned about scoring the political points that repealing the AMT gets them, but at least a few stuck to the fiscal responsibility creed. And it's not as if any of the candidates who missed the vote would have made a difference anyway.

It was very few, and almost eight times as many voting for it. If you're going to give those few credit, they deserve the credit in and of themselves, it's very obvious by the actions of the overwhelming majority of the Democrats that they didn't have a problem voting for it. If anything, it is easily supported the the democrats, by an overwhelming majority, supported this bill. Something like 88% of them.
 
2007-12-10 6:32:37 PM  
Code_Archeologist: Productivity has been steadily increasing and thereby increasing tax revenue because of technological innovation, not because of some magical tax cutting voodoo.

What an astounding coincidence that this happened under Reagan's tax cuts and Bush's tax cuts.
 
2007-12-10 6:34:19 PM  
Wraithbane: It was very few, and almost eight times as many voting for it. If you're going to give those few credit, they deserve the credit in and of themselves, it's very obvious by the actions of the overwhelming majority of the Democrats that they didn't have a problem voting for it. If anything, it is easily supported the the democrats, by an overwhelming majority, supported this bill. Something like 88% of them.

You're right. I was just put off by the writer's retarded claim that the whole "paygo" thing was just intended to prevent tax cuts.
 
2007-12-10 6:38:59 PM  
Paedophile_Deluxe
You're right. I was just put off by the writer's retarded claim that the whole "paygo" thing was just intended to prevent tax cuts.

Well, then we both agree on the writer's retardation. Millions of families in the US understand that you can't spend money you don't have, yet Congress can't figure it out. If we don't have enough money, we figure out where we can cut expenses, when they don't have enough, they figure out where they can steal more. I'm in the wrong damn job.
 
2007-12-10 6:40:00 PM  
Asteroth: SilentStrider: anyone have a tally of who voted what on this one?
From Paedophile_Deluxe:Link (new window)


my bad, thanks.

of the 7 who no-voted, only two (Ensign (R-NV), Voinovich (R-OH), aren't running for president.

Feingold voted against, but both Casey and Spector voted for it. I should seriously consider moving to Wisconsin.
 
2007-12-10 6:59:06 PM  
I am insulted every time anyone on Washington talks about paying for Tax Cuts.

You don't "pay for" tax cuts. Tax cuts are a reduction in income. Like any normal person, if you take a hit in your income, you are supposed to reduce your lifestyle to match your income.

Somehow Washington can't figure it out. There is way to much bloat and bureaucracy in the Federal Government. Everyone has their hand out. Everyone's need it greater than everyone else's.

Honestly, the AMT hasn't ever hit everyone. Every year Congress would pass some sort of work around so it wouldn't hit people, they weren't collecting most of that money anyway. When the Republicans were in charge, the Dem's stonewalled calling it a tax cut for the wealthy. Now the Dems are in charge and the Republicans stonewall for cost cutting.

Its a stupid game. Neither Democrats or Republicans want to fix anything. If they actually fixed problems, they wouldn't have anything to do or talk about.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.