Paygo is a joke

[Matt J]

So not borrowing the $10 billion dollars and making sure that families have health care and food is a good thing?

I'm glad we are finally able to see the actual price on peoples heads through Republican eyes.

I also understand that Margarita's definition of "Greater Good" means letting people die or starve so she isn't inconvenienced with a possible tax increase. That's some compassion for you.

 

[Lynnie]

SWGB, I think it's more of 'where can we cut another program to provide this 30 day $10B benefit to people hard hit by this recession?' This appears to be the inception of our nation becoming fiscally responsible.
They can work together (which is my desire) or they can choose to continue to bashing, name-calling and stone-walling one another. The quicker they agree to trim another program (even if temporarily), the quicker these people (recipients) will be secure for another 30 days.

 

[scooterbug44]

But that's not what we're getting - what we are hearing is that "he showed those Democrats", not "let's find a different and better solution."

 

[Lynnie]

But that's not what we're getting - what we are hearing is that "he showed those Democrats", not "let's find a different and better solution."

Look deeper. Change the channel. The other side to this is in the news. Dems need to cross the aisle as much as reps. This is a great time to start.

 

[Linda]

So not borrowing the $10 billion dollars and making sure that families have health care and food is a good thing?

I'm glad we are finally able to see the actual price on peoples heads through Republican eyes.

I also understand that Margarita's definition of "Greater Good" means letting people die or starve so she isn't inconvenienced with a possible tax increase. That's some compassion for you.

Really - that is what you have concluded from my discussion on this thread??

This thread is not about a possible tax increase that would keep people from starving. It is about about making sure that our politicians live up to the Paygo law that they just passed. If they want unemployment benefits to continue (and I have no problem with that) and they don't have the money, then cut it from some other wasteful program or pork. :angry:

 

[scooterbug44]

Where should we cut it from?

Serious question - the crux of the current fiscal cluster is that we all agree it SHOULD be cut, but then can never agree on WHERE.

What are good places that have some leeway in their budget that we can get this money from?

 

[Linda]

Where should we cut it from?

Serious question - the crux of the current fiscal cluster is that we all agree it SHOULD be cut, but then can never agree on WHERE.

What are good places that have some leeway in their budget that we can get this money from?

Not all of the stimulus money has been spent - why not take it from there??

 

[scooterbug44]

I wondered about that too - and there was the money that got "paid back" for the bailouts.

 

[Linda]

I wondered about that too - and there was the money that got "paid back" for the bailouts.

By law the repaid Tarp funds can only be used to pay down the debt.

By the way I just read that this spending bill is not only for extending unemployment benefits but is also for extension of the highway trust fund, satellite television and other expenditures.

 

[30ashopper]

Not all of the stimulus money has been spent - why not take it from there??

That's exactly what Bunning wanted, and from what I understand, he got, at least, a vote on it. The bill, now passed will have to be funded by Treasury. The bond presses are spinning fast and furious to finance the debt.