« Touché! | Main | "See! I can do it!" »

May 09, 2006

Comments

Hilzoy, in regards to your last statement, yesterday CB mentioned that PAYGO is merely a nice phrase that means raising taxes. Not that he had a problem with that, but he, I think, would call it subterfuge.

That being said, yes you were partisan, but not unfair.

During the Presidential debates, Bush described PAYGO as meaning "you pay, and we go spend."

The Republicans believe in "we'll spend and your children and grandchildren will pay."

PAYGO is a serious way to reduce the deficit. You can reduce the deficit either by raising taxes or by cutting spending. In practice, we now have to raise taxes: the deficit is too large for us to cut it by cutting spending alone, at least if we're unwilling to, say, eliminate DoD.

PAYGO just forces anyone who proposes new tax cuts or spending increases to propose corresponding spending cuts or tax increases that make it revenue neutral. If, as Charles says, this means, in practice, raising taxes, then the Democrats are proposing to be revenue-neutral without talking about taxes explicitly, while the Republicans are talking about reducing the deficits while actually proposing to cut taxes. I don't see how we win the disingenuousness prize here.

I agree with you here. Just pointing out one possible response.

There is no doubt that taxes will have to be raised. The question is which ones.

That is pretty easy to answer.

Part of the problem is that none of this really makes it into the consciousness of the general public. People may talk about the printed media, but that has less and less impact.

And this will seldom come out on the visual media in any sort of clearcut way.

they're spending money as fast as they can, hoping that the next Dem will try to fix the deficit it by raising taxes - which will make the Dems unpopular, leading to more Republican votes.

Another interesting part of the article:

"They would then turn Thursday to a $513 billion defense policy bill that would block President Bush's request to raise health-care fees and co-payments for service members and their families. (...)"

Another example about how our CinC cares about the men and women in unifrom who are paying the price for his vainglorious war.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. The Republicans in Congress have not been shy about cutting "real" funding for the VA so far. Let's see how many are ready to stand up to Bush on this.

Charles essentially made a proposal for unilateral disarmament. Republicans are allowed to flat-out lie and claim they can make the tax cuts permanent while simultaneously cutting the budget in half by 2009 - something that is simply impossible - but if Democrats even try to spin then gosh, isn't it sad they aren't honest enough to present their plan in the least flattering way possible.

Steve, the acronym you're looking for is IOKIARDI.

Seems a good time to start calling it how it is.

Republicans hate our government and are deliberately driving it into backruptcy, while simultaneously lining the pockets of their rich benefactors.

It seems pretty apparent at this point. It should not be difficult to convince the public of this now, and would make a magnificent campaign point.

Save America from the Republicans!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad