Why do people talk about "liberal bias" when the phrase is technically an oxymoron?

[Bfgrn]

Really?

Reagan didn't raise taxes?

Reagan didn't increase the size of "big government"?

Reagan didn't run up the National Debt into the Trillions?

None of those are facts according to the extreme right?

Who controlled both houses while Reagan was president?

Who signed those tax increases and massive spending bills?

Reagan did what he had to do, and didn't whine like Obama does. Clinton benefited from Reagan's policies big time.

Reagan whined for years blaming Carter. NO ONE benefited from the Reagan years, we are still paying the price for his failed 'revolution'...

Reagan never blamed Carter, you ignornat piece of Monkey shit. That's Obama who whines about his predecessors.

Ronald Reagan Presidential term began: January 20, 1981

Reagan Blamed Carter

The next time you hear a right winger complaining that one whole year! into Obama's Presidency he continues to blame George Bush for his our problems, remind them of the following quote from Reagan's 1983 State of the Union:

"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."



In Reagan's 1982 State of the Union, he went after his predecessor for blame plenty of times:

"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous."


...

"In the last six months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history 13 percent. Inflation remained in double digits and Government spending increased at an annual rate of 17 percent. Interest rates reached a s taggering 21 1/2 percent. There were eight million unemployed."

...

"First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend"

...

"Now the budget deficit this year will exceed our earlier expectations. The recession did that. It lowered revenues and increased costs."

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

Lefties aren't liberal and when does a man's child become the right of a woman? Arrogant and bigoted.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who controlled both houses while Reagan was president?

Who signed those tax increases and massive spending bills?

Reagan did what he had to do, and didn't whine like Obama does. Clinton benefited from Reagan's policies big time.

Reagan whined for years blaming Carter. NO ONE benefited from the Reagan years, we are still paying the price for his failed 'revolution'...

Reagan never blamed Carter, you ignornat piece of Monkey shit. That's Obama who whines about his predecessors.

Ronald Reagan Presidential term began: January 20, 1981

Reagan Blamed Carter

The next time you hear a right winger complaining that one whole year! into Obama's Presidency he continues to blame George Bush for his our problems, remind them of the following quote from Reagan's 1983 State of the Union:

"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."



In Reagan's 1982 State of the Union, he went after his predecessor for blame plenty of times:

"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous."


...

"In the last six months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history 13 percent. Inflation remained in double digits and Government spending increased at an annual rate of 17 percent. Interest rates reached a s taggering 21 1/2 percent. There were eight million unemployed."

...

"First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend"

...

"Now the budget deficit this year will exceed our earlier expectations. The recession did that. It lowered revenues and increased costs."

I dont see the name Carter anywhere there. Just a statement of historic fact.
You fail./

 

[peach174]

Which side is trying to get the tax code changed that would stop most of the big corporations in their lobbing for lower taxes?
It isn't the left.

Then why did the right just push through more deregulation for big corporations in the latest spending bill?

They didn't.
That's Senator Elizabeth Warren's opinion and she did not read the bill.

In which case the onus is on you to provide a credible proving her wrong.

Is was in another thread.
I guess you missed it.

Yeah right, and the check is in the mail!

Thank you for conceding that you cannot substantiate your opinion about Senator Warren's facts.

Both parties agreed that part of the Dodd Frank bill needed to be tweaked.
This was not just a Republican decision.
Republicans noted that 70 members of the Democratic rank and file supported easing the bank regulations on a stand-alone vote in October of last year.
57 Democrats supported the bill, including two of the top three party leaders and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who doubles as the chair of the Democratic National Committee.
Democrats Obama part on 1.1T spending bill

Even Pelosi was upset that the President was for the spending bill.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

You're an idiot.

Welcome to the board, the sort of response you're going to get by people who think they're intelligent, isn't an answer that you can reply to much, it's just insults.

So would you agree, then, that liberalism is neutral by definition?

If so, please explain.

.

No, I would not agree.

However someone who comes up with an idea and thinks about things is also probably not an idiot. An idiot is someone whose answer is going to be swearing and insulting.

 

[eagle1462010]

We live with politicians who when asked to cut 1% of Federal Spending can't do it. They can't even freeze spending at current levels.

It a bounch of shop a haulics with an unlimited credit card. They refuse to cut anything unless it's something they don't like the military.

Your side yells and screams like the spoiled brats you are anytime ANYONE wants to cut up the credit cards. Exploding the debt and saying the rich need to give all their money to you so you can pay for your bloated spending.

Conservatives are always pushing for cutting the spending of Gov't, To live within our means, and please don't sample the current crop of Rhino's in the GOP party. As they are freaking spoiled brats as well.

The current crop of borrow and spend Republicans are the problem, not the tax and spend Democrats. NONE of the Republicans voted for PAYGO.

The Budget Process: What is PAYGO?
PAYGO, which stands for “pay-as-you-go,” is a budget rule requiring that, relative to current law, any tax cuts or entitlement and other mandatory spending increases must be paid for by a tax increase or a cut in mandatory spending. The legislation must be paid for over two time periods: 1) the period of the current year, the budget year and the ensuing four fiscal years, and 2) the period of the current year, the budget year and the ensuing nine fiscal years.

January 28, 2010
Senate passes pay-go rule on party-line vote

The Senate voted along party lines on Thursday to adopt statutory pay-go rules in a party-lines vote.

60 Democratic senators voted to adopt the pay-go measure (short for "pay-as-you-go"), which would require that new spending measures be offset in the budget by other funds, typically raised through tax increases or cuts to spending.

Republicans have said that by installing the rule, pay-go would become an excuse for tax hikes, since spending cuts are frequently unpopular.

All Democrats voted for the measure, and all 40 Republicans voted against it. The House adopted such a rule in a 265-166 vote last July.

President Barack Obama urged senators to move forward with the new rule in his State of the Union address on Wednesday night.

"When the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s," he said.

Obama's remarks came within the context of a broader effort toward deficit reduction, in addition to a three-year freeze on non-defense discretionary spending, and a commission on deficit reduction established by executive order.

Update, 1:37 p.m.: The Democratic National Committee (DNC) points to no fewer than five instances in which some of the GOP senators who opposed PAYGO today had voted in favor of its restoration in the past. Check out the following votes:

Senate Vote #38, 3/14/06
Senate Vote #340, 11/13/05
Senate Vote #283, 11/3/05
Senate Vote #53, 3/16/05
Senate Vote #38, 3/10/04

The problem with pay go isn't the policy itself. It is that the Dems only want to raise taxes or cut the military. They raise hell when other cuts are proposed. You can't negotiate with the Dems. As it has been a my way or highway deal. Reid's graveyard is utter rejection of pretty much anything the Reps propose.

In the shutdown........Obama promised as did the Dems in the old budget cut battles to offer NO NEW TAXES to replace the cuts to the military with other negotiated cuts. HE AND THE DEMS LIED. Which is what they are good at. They never had the intention of anything other than cuts to the military and/or raised taxes. They LIED TO GET WHAT THEY WANTED. Reps agreed only to get pissed on by the Dems.

You don't negotiate with habitual liars. You fire them at the polls. PAYGO is a Great Idea if we weren't dealing with a bunch of LYING SACKS.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Then why did the right just push through more deregulation for big corporations in the latest spending bill?

They didn't.
That's Senator Elizabeth Warren's opinion and she did not read the bill.

In which case the onus is on you to provide a credible proving her wrong.

Is was in another thread.
I guess you missed it.

Yeah right, and the check is in the mail!

Thank you for conceding that you cannot substantiate your opinion about Senator Warren's facts.

Both parties agreed that part of the Dodd Frank bill needed to be tweaked.
This was not just a Republican decision.
Republicans noted that 70 members of the Democratic rank and file supported easing the bank regulations on a stand-alone vote in October of last year.
57 Democrats supported the bill, including two of the top three party leaders and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who doubles as the chair of the Democratic National Committee.
Democrats Obama part on 1.1T spending bill

Even Pelosi was upset that the President was for the spending bill.

From your own linkl

The White House did raise objections to a provision that would roll back one of the regulations imposed on the financial industry after the economic near-collapse of 2008,

You falsely alleged that Warren never read the bill. She did and she was objecting specifically to the roll back of the Dodd-Frank provisions because they were deregulations on financial corporations that will cause another 2008 economic collapse.

 

[eagle1462010]

Obama lies on sequester

 

[peach174]

They didn't.
That's Senator Elizabeth Warren's opinion and she did not read the bill.

In which case the onus is on you to provide a credible proving her wrong.

Is was in another thread.
I guess you missed it.

Yeah right, and the check is in the mail!

Thank you for conceding that you cannot substantiate your opinion about Senator Warren's facts.

Both parties agreed that part of the Dodd Frank bill needed to be tweaked.
This was not just a Republican decision.
Republicans noted that 70 members of the Democratic rank and file supported easing the bank regulations on a stand-alone vote in October of last year.
57 Democrats supported the bill, including two of the top three party leaders and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who doubles as the chair of the Democratic National Committee.
Democrats Obama part on 1.1T spending bill

Even Pelosi was upset that the President was for the spending bill.

From your own linkl

The White House did raise objections to a provision that would roll back one of the regulations imposed on the financial industry after the economic near-collapse of 2008,

You falsely alleged that Warren never read the bill. She did and she was objecting specifically to the roll back of the Dodd-Frank provisions because they were deregulations on financial corporations that will cause another 2008 economic collapse.

That's what she claims but that is not what was done.
This is why I say her and Pelosi did not read the bill

It made the rules more consistent, so that there was not three different collateral segregation regimes.
The proposed margin rules from the CFTC and the prudential regulators, when considered alongside the existing CFTC collateral segregation rules, present the potential for three different collateral segregation regimes applying to initial margin posted to a swap dealer
The CFTC Margin Rules also propose to exclude margin required to be posted by the counterparty under the CFTC Margin Rules from the counterparty’s ability to elect segregation under the CFTC Collateral Segregation Rules. There is no such exclusion for initial margin required by the Bank Margin Rules. More importantly, the CFTC Margin Rules propose to reduce the segregation protections available to counterparties for collateral required to be posted to non-prudentially regulated swap dealers, but without indicating how these rules can be rationalized with the CFTC Collateral Segregation Rules.
It may not be necessary for all three rules to use the same collateral segregation regime, but the rules really should work together, or non-swap dealer counterparties will be unclear as which protections that the law intends them to have. The CFTC Collateral Segregation Rules apply at the election of the counterparty. The Margin Rules could provide for the a basic level of segregation and the CFTC Collateral Segregation Rules would then provide the counterparty the option to elect a more protective regime. As proposed, however, the segregation regimes are inconsistent, and the CFTC Collateral Segregation Rules apply differently depending on whether the collateral is required by the CFTC Margin Rules.
Dodd Frank Reforms The Swap Report

 

[peach174]

Section 716 of Dodd Frank requires financial institutions to push out almost all of their derivatives business into separate entities.
This not only increases transaction costs, which are paid by the consumers, it also makes our financial system less secure by forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.
This was changed by both parties so that they can't do swap trading to unregulated institutions.
It does not put taxpayers on the hook for bail outs.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Section 716 of Dodd Frank requires financial institutions to push out almost all of their derivatives business into separate entities.
This not only increases transaction costs, which are paid by the consumers, it also makes our financial system less secure by forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.
This was changed by both parties so that they can't do swap trading to unregulated institutions.
It does not put taxpayers on the hook for bail outs.

BZZZT Wrong!

By forcing swaps outside of financial institutions it means that they cannot be put at risk by defaults. Deregulating this requirement reintroduces the "too big to fail" risk again. Repeating the same mistake expecting a different outcome is the height of stupidity. But that is exactly what the Wall Street Casino bosses ordered and paid for using Citizens United to buy up Congress.

Just don't come whining when the economy collapses again and you are on the hook for another couple of trillion.

 

[peach174]

Section 716 of Dodd Frank requires financial institutions to push out almost all of their derivatives business into separate entities.
This not only increases transaction costs, which are paid by the consumers, it also makes our financial system less secure by forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.
This was changed by both parties so that they can't do swap trading to unregulated institutions.
It does not put taxpayers on the hook for bail outs.

BZZZT Wrong!

By forcing swaps outside of financial institutions it means that they cannot be put at risk by defaults. Deregulating this requirement reintroduces the "too big to fail" risk again. Repeating the same mistake expecting a different outcome is the height of stupidity. But that is exactly what the Wall Street Casino bosses ordered and paid for using Citizens United to buy up Congress.

Just don't come whining when the economy collapses again and you are on the hook for another couple of trillion.

It is not forcing swaps outside of financial institutions.

Dodd Frank Bill was forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Section 716 of Dodd Frank requires financial institutions to push out almost all of their derivatives business into separate entities.
This not only increases transaction costs, which are paid by the consumers, it also makes our financial system less secure by forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.
This was changed by both parties so that they can't do swap trading to unregulated institutions.
It does not put taxpayers on the hook for bail outs.

BZZZT Wrong!

By forcing swaps outside of financial institutions it means that they cannot be put at risk by defaults. Deregulating this requirement reintroduces the "too big to fail" risk again. Repeating the same mistake expecting a different outcome is the height of stupidity. But that is exactly what the Wall Street Casino bosses ordered and paid for using Citizens United to buy up Congress.

Just don't come whining when the economy collapses again and you are on the hook for another couple of trillion.

It is not forcing swaps outside of financial institutions.

Dodd Frank Bill was forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.

Obviously I didn't make myself clear.

Financial institutions were at risk of failing because of they took massive risk with swaps.

Dodd-Frank imposed a sensible rule requiring Financial institutions to make all swaps outside of their corporate entity so as not to jeopardize the rest of their financial holdings since that is what caused the economic collapse and the TARP bailout.

Removing that Dodd-Frank rule means that the Wall Street Casino bosses can once again gamble trillions of taxpayer dollars and if they win they keep their money and if they lose taxpayers are forced to repay their losses.

That is what Senator Warren said and she was 100% correct. When the economy crashes again you have only yourself to blame for not backing her when you had the chance.

 

[zeke]

I dont see the name Carter anywhere there. Just a statement of historic fact.
You fail./

Rabbit, you are stupid. You think he (Reagan) was talking about Nixon and Gerald Ford? Stupid rabbit.
I never heard Obama SPECIFICALLY mention Bush as the cause for all his trouble. But I have heard Obama talk about the dire situation he faced when he became President. Was Obama talking about Clinton and the situation that Clinton left him? Or was it Bush and the situation Bush left him that he was mentioning?

Silly rabbit. Let me help. Reagan was talking about Carter and Obama was talking about Bush. The fact you didn't see their names (Carter or Bush) mentioned shows the classiness of current Presidents when speaking of their immediate predecessor. Even Reagan had some class. Bush not so much. Beside, what was Bush going to blame Clinton for? And Clinton didn't have to blame the Bush Sr for much cause Bush Sr had enough sense to not bankrupt the country. Remember those tax increases that Bush signed and Clinton benefited from?

So yes rabbit. Regardless of your eternal contrary position, your God Reagan was speaking of Carter when he assigned the blame for the situation Reagan had to deal with.

 

[zeke]

. She did and she was objecting specifically to the roll back of the Dodd-Frank provisions because they were deregulations on financial corporations that will cause another 2008 economic collapse.

Well the general economy might collapse. But not those too big to fail banks.

But what the big banks can now do is continue to play in the derivative markets and if they lose their asses again, we the taxpayer will be on the hook to bail them out again. Wasn't that nice that the Republicans made sure this provision was in the recent budget?

That's what Warren was so pissed about.

 

[peach174]

Section 716 of Dodd Frank requires financial institutions to push out almost all of their derivatives business into separate entities.
This not only increases transaction costs, which are paid by the consumers, it also makes our financial system less secure by forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.
This was changed by both parties so that they can't do swap trading to unregulated institutions.
It does not put taxpayers on the hook for bail outs.

BZZZT Wrong!

By forcing swaps outside of financial institutions it means that they cannot be put at risk by defaults. Deregulating this requirement reintroduces the "too big to fail" risk again. Repeating the same mistake expecting a different outcome is the height of stupidity. But that is exactly what the Wall Street Casino bosses ordered and paid for using Citizens United to buy up Congress.

Just don't come whining when the economy collapses again and you are on the hook for another couple of trillion.

It is not forcing swaps outside of financial institutions.

Dodd Frank Bill was forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.

Obviously I didn't make myself clear.

Financial institutions were at risk of failing because of they took massive risk with swaps.

Dodd-Frank imposed a sensible rule requiring Financial institutions to make all swaps outside of their corporate entity so as not to jeopardize the rest of their financial holdings since that is what caused the economic collapse and the TARP bailout.

Removing that Dodd-Frank rule means that the Wall Street Casino bosses can once again gamble trillions of taxpayer dollars and if they win they keep their money and if they lose taxpayers are forced to repay their losses.

That is what Senator Warren said and she was 100% correct. When the economy crashes again you have only yourself to blame for not backing her when you had the chance.

They did not remove it. They changed Sec. 176
Spending bill funds SEC and CFTC amends Dodd-Frank swaps push-o

Dodd-Frank swaps push-out provision. Currently, Section 716 of Dodd-Frank prevents federally insured financial institutions from conducting certain swaps trading, including trading of commodity, equity, and credit derivatives. This prohibition compels financial institutions to push out swaps trading into separately capitalized affiliates. The measure would amend Section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act to protect farmers and other commodity producers from having to put down excessive collateral to get a loan, expand their businesses, and hedge production.

It would allow financial institutions to continue to conduct risk-mitigation efforts for clients, such as farmers and manufacturers, who use swaps to insure against price fluctuations. It would also modify Section 716 to allow commodity and equity derivatives in financial institutions with federal deposit insurance. However, derivatives involving structured finance transactions would still need to be pushed out of a federally insured financial institution.

Under the legislation, the only swaps that covered depository institutions must spin out to separately capitalized entities are structured finance swaps unless they are undertaken for hedging or risk management purposes or expressly permitted by prudential regulators to take place in a covered depository institution. The bill also ensures that uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks are treated the same as insured depository institutions by defining both groups as covered depository institutions.

Office of Financial Research. The measure contains additional reporting requirements to increase transparency of the activities of agencies whose funding jurisdiction fall outside annual congressional review. Specifically, the Office of Financial Research must provide quarterly reports on its activities to Congress. The reports must include, among other things, the obligations made during the previous quarter by object class, office, and activity and the estimated obligations for the remainder of the fiscal year by object class, office, and activity.

What President Obama objects to is that he said, the swaps push-out rider would weaken a critical component of financial system reform aimed at reducing taxpayer risk.

I think that the additional reporting requirements would stop that from happening..
Changing the bill to protect farmers and other commodity producers from having to put down excessive collateral to get a loan, in order to expand their businesses, and hedge production to me is a good thing.

 

[orogenicman]

Whether or not one agrees with the OP, I think the school yard bully routines are:

1) Unnecessary;

2) Boring;

3) Intentionally degrading;

4) A sad commentary on the state of the conservative mind these days.

Liberal bias.

Prove me wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont see the name Carter anywhere there. Just a statement of historic fact.
You fail./

Rabbit, you are stupid. You think he (Reagan) was talking about Nixon and Gerald Ford? Stupid rabbit.
I never heard Obama SPECIFICALLY mention Bush as the cause for all his trouble. But I have heard Obama talk about the dire situation he faced when he became President. Was Obama talking about Clinton and the situation that Clinton left him? Or was it Bush and the situation Bush left him that he was mentioning?

Silly rabbit. Let me help. Reagan was talking about Carter and Obama was talking about Bush. The fact you didn't see their names (Carter or Bush) mentioned shows the classiness of current Presidents when speaking of their immediate predecessor. Even Reagan had some class. Bush not so much. Beside, what was Bush going to blame Clinton for? And Clinton didn't have to blame the Bush Sr for much cause Bush Sr had enough sense to not bankrupt the country. Remember those tax increases that Bush signed and Clinton benefited from?

So yes rabbit. Regardless of your eternal contrary position, your God Reagan was speaking of Carter when he assigned the blame for the situation Reagan had to deal with.

It's because you're stupd, Zeke.
Try this:

 

[Bfgrn]

We live with politicians who when asked to cut 1% of Federal Spending can't do it. They can't even freeze spending at current levels.

It a bounch of shop a haulics with an unlimited credit card. They refuse to cut anything unless it's something they don't like the military.

Your side yells and screams like the spoiled brats you are anytime ANYONE wants to cut up the credit cards. Exploding the debt and saying the rich need to give all their money to you so you can pay for your bloated spending.

Conservatives are always pushing for cutting the spending of Gov't, To live within our means, and please don't sample the current crop of Rhino's in the GOP party. As they are freaking spoiled brats as well.

The current crop of borrow and spend Republicans are the problem, not the tax and spend Democrats. NONE of the Republicans voted for PAYGO.

The Budget Process: What is PAYGO?
PAYGO, which stands for “pay-as-you-go,” is a budget rule requiring that, relative to current law, any tax cuts or entitlement and other mandatory spending increases must be paid for by a tax increase or a cut in mandatory spending. The legislation must be paid for over two time periods: 1) the period of the current year, the budget year and the ensuing four fiscal years, and 2) the period of the current year, the budget year and the ensuing nine fiscal years.

January 28, 2010
Senate passes pay-go rule on party-line vote

The Senate voted along party lines on Thursday to adopt statutory pay-go rules in a party-lines vote.

60 Democratic senators voted to adopt the pay-go measure (short for "pay-as-you-go"), which would require that new spending measures be offset in the budget by other funds, typically raised through tax increases or cuts to spending.

Republicans have said that by installing the rule, pay-go would become an excuse for tax hikes, since spending cuts are frequently unpopular.

All Democrats voted for the measure, and all 40 Republicans voted against it. The House adopted such a rule in a 265-166 vote last July.

President Barack Obama urged senators to move forward with the new rule in his State of the Union address on Wednesday night.

"When the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s," he said.

Obama's remarks came within the context of a broader effort toward deficit reduction, in addition to a three-year freeze on non-defense discretionary spending, and a commission on deficit reduction established by executive order.

Update, 1:37 p.m.: The Democratic National Committee (DNC) points to no fewer than five instances in which some of the GOP senators who opposed PAYGO today had voted in favor of its restoration in the past. Check out the following votes:

Senate Vote #38, 3/14/06
Senate Vote #340, 11/13/05
Senate Vote #283, 11/3/05
Senate Vote #53, 3/16/05
Senate Vote #38, 3/10/04

The problem with pay go isn't the policy itself. It is that the Dems only want to raise taxes or cut the military. They raise hell when other cuts are proposed. You can't negotiate with the Dems. As it has been a my way or highway deal. Reid's graveyard is utter rejection of pretty much anything the Reps propose.

In the shutdown........Obama promised as did the Dems in the old budget cut battles to offer NO NEW TAXES to replace the cuts to the military with other negotiated cuts. HE AND THE DEMS LIED. Which is what they are good at. They never had the intention of anything other than cuts to the military and/or raised taxes. They LIED TO GET WHAT THEY WANTED. Reps agreed only to get pissed on by the Dems.

You don't negotiate with habitual liars. You fire them at the polls. PAYGO is a Great Idea if we weren't dealing with a bunch of LYING SACKS.

Translation. No links, YOU lie.

Seriously? You have the nerve to accuse the Democrats of not negotiating? Since Obama became President we have seen the most filibusters in history. Republicans refuse to govern

Why don't you educate yourself? Here is an article by a 28 year GOP operative...

Mike Lofgren is an American who is a former Republican U.S. Congressional aide. He retired in May 2011 after 28 years as a Congressional staff member.

Goodbye to All That

To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics. To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.

It was this cast of characters and the pernicious ideas they represent that impelled me to end a nearly 30-year career as a professional staff member on Capitol Hill. A couple of months ago, I retired; but I could see as early as last November that the Republican Party would use the debt limit vote, an otherwise routine legislative procedure that has been used 87 times since the end of World War II, in order to concoct an entirely artificial fiscal crisis. Then, they would use that fiscal crisis to get what they wanted, by literally holding the US and global economies as hostages.

The debt ceiling extension is not the only example of this sort of political terrorism. Republicans were willing to lay off 4,000 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees, 70,000 private construction workers and let FAA safety inspectors work without pay, in fact, forcing them to pay for their own work-related travel – how prudent is that? – in order to strong arm some union-busting provisions into the FAA reauthorization.

It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe. This trend has several implications, none of them pleasant.

Everyone knows that in a hostage situation, the reckless and amoral actor has the negotiating upper hand over the cautious and responsible actor because the latter is actually concerned about the life of the hostage, while the former does not care. This fact, which ought to be obvious, has nevertheless caused confusion among the professional pundit class, which is mostly still stuck in the Bob Dole era in terms of its orientation. For instance, Ezra Klein wrote of his puzzlement over the fact that while House Republicans essentially won the debt ceiling fight, enough of them were sufficiently dissatisfied that they might still scuttle the deal. Of course they might – the attitude of many freshman Republicans to national default was “bring it on!”

“Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999. If there is an earlier American precedent for today’s Republican Party, it is the antebellum Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard, federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from the union over slavery.”

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress’s generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters’ confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that “they are all crooks,” and that “government is no good,” further leading them to think, “a plague on both your houses” and “the parties are like two kids in a school yard.” This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s – a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn (“Government is the problem,” declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).

 

[Bfgrn]

Who signed those tax increases and massive spending bills?

Reagan did what he had to do, and didn't whine like Obama does. Clinton benefited from Reagan's policies big time.

Reagan whined for years blaming Carter. NO ONE benefited from the Reagan years, we are still paying the price for his failed 'revolution'...

Reagan never blamed Carter, you ignornat piece of Monkey shit. That's Obama who whines about his predecessors.

Ronald Reagan Presidential term began: January 20, 1981

Reagan Blamed Carter

The next time you hear a right winger complaining that one whole year! into Obama's Presidency he continues to blame George Bush for his our problems, remind them of the following quote from Reagan's 1983 State of the Union:

"The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted."



In Reagan's 1982 State of the Union, he went after his predecessor for blame plenty of times:

"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous."


...

"In the last six months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history 13 percent. Inflation remained in double digits and Government spending increased at an annual rate of 17 percent. Interest rates reached a s taggering 21 1/2 percent. There were eight million unemployed."

...

"First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend"

...

"Now the budget deficit this year will exceed our earlier expectations. The recession did that. It lowered revenues and increased costs."

I dont see the name Carter anywhere there. Just a statement of historic fact.
You fail./

Why am I not surprised that a pea brain like you would make a pea brain reply?