Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Newton Leroy Gingrich, Ph.D. : An Appreciation

Newton Leroy Gingrich, Ph.D. : An Appreciation (Page 5)
Thread Tools
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2012, 04:51 PM
 
Still no relevant evidence.

WHERE did Newt specifically criticize another person or persons for having extramarital relations?

Otherwise, the hypocrisy claims fall flat and look desperate. At best, It's part of the illogical argument that the left offers that suggests that you can't support and encourage high standards if you yourself ever find yourself falling short.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2012, 05:54 PM
 
Stu,

This makes about as much sense as claiming that an "anti-crime activist" who's also a murderer isn't a hypocrite … as long as he doesn't specifically criticize someone else for killing people. If the point still doesn't register with you … then oh well.

OAW
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2012, 06:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Stu,

This makes about as much sense as claiming that an "anti-crime activist" who's also a murderer isn't a hypocrite … as long as he doesn't specifically criticize someone else for killing people. If the point still doesn't register with you … then oh well.

OAW
Not at all. All I have seen are claims that it was Newt who was a big traditional morals cheerleader. All I'm asking for is some evidence of this. Not simply claims that he was - actual evidence. Show me specifically where he chastised others for the behavior he himself was engaged in. That's the threshold for credibly calling someone a hypocrite. Period.

Just because he had aligned himself with others who may have been big on chastising those who aren't faithful to their wives, doesn't mean that Newt had ever done this himself. This really looks like "guilt by association," and again, at worse it's an example of people trying to illogically claim that we can't strive for and encourage high standards, even if we ourselves fall short of those standards. If that's the best that Democrats have for 2012, they are coming to a 'gun fight with a knife."
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2012, 11:08 PM
 
Newt WIns SC with 41% to Mitt's 27%
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 12:01 AM
 
While he appears to have avoided being caught with a sound bite, Gingrich does appear to have tried to capitalize on the moral issues around Clinton's affair by orchestrating an election-time ad campaign asking "What did you tell your kids?".
Gingrich Orchestrated GOP Ads Recalling Clinton-Lewinsky Affair
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 12:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
While he appears to have avoided being caught with a sound bite...
Exactly. He himself wasn't out chastising people for things he was doing. The cries of "hypocrite" are really unfounded at this point.

As to your link, what WOULD you tell your kids about why the President was impeached and the fact that "oral sex" was being bandied about nightly on the news?

Bill Clinton's problems where a lot deeper than just fooling around on his wife. We all knew he did that before even getting elected. It wasn't a secret.
     
Dork.  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 10:02 AM
 
Woot! Look who's back from the dead (again!)

Do you think this will go all the way to the convention?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 12:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The cries of "hypocrite" are really unfounded at this point.
No, they're not unfounded. Your blind hatred for Bill Clinton, which you've made no secret of over the years here, has precluded any objectivity on your part. You keep trying to absolve others' indiscretions by pointing out that Bill Clinton "got away" with something years ago, and it's showing how your constant attempt to impress us with your ability to use "logic" is nothing more than emotionalism.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 01:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
No, they're not unfounded. Your blind hatred for Bill Clinton, which you've made no secret of over the years here, has precluded any objectivity on your part.
I asked for evidence. None was provided. I'd say that it isn't my blind hatred (which actually doesn't exist - I actually kind of like the post 1994 Clinton -except for the part where he committed high crimes) that should be in question here. I haven't made claims I can't support. Those are the actions of people acting out of emotion.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 02:32 PM
 
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 02:56 PM
 
On the 15th anniversary that Newt Gingrich was censured for ethics violation, fined $300,000, and removed from his post, the inbred hicks of South Carolina pick him for presidential candidate, all because he whined the loudest about the "liberal media."

Of course, Romney's terrible performance in the past few days helped. Why can't Romney just be honest, and say "I used to be pro-choice, and I've since changed my mind." Watching him squirm while pretending he hasn't changed his politics is just ridiculous.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 03:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
On the 15th anniversary that Newt Gingrich was censured for ethics violation, fined $300,000, and removed from his post, the inbred hicks of South Carolina pick him for presidential candidate, all because he whined the loudest about the "liberal media."
Let's not forget that the "ethics violation" was teaching a college course that some said was politically partisan. Perspective is a wonderful thing.

Of course, Hillary Clinton almost became the Democrat's candidate after having been found to have been involved in a fraudulent real estate scheme, and Barrack Obama still hasn't explained why a felon bought property that he couldn't afford then sold him the chunk he wanted. This on top of all the shenanigans the current administration has been involved with from Solyndra to Fast and Furious...

Really, is that what you want this boiled down to? Actually, I'm guessing the Democrats want ANYTHING to be the issue other than Obama's lack of a record of accomplishment. Both Gingrich and Romney would plow him over if that was the deciding factor.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 04:35 PM
 
Newt isn't a hypocrite.

He is just a liar, a cheat, and a person without morals. A perfect Republican candidate and SC proves it.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 08:57 PM
 
I can tell Democrats are afraid of Gingrich by the level of seething hatred they have towards him. Hatred is always an indicator of fear, and the hatred towards Gingrich (and Santorum) is off the charts.

Don't worry, though, guys. Romney is still favored to win the nomination.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 09:10 PM
 
If those Democrats do exist and this claim is not a straw man, I'd say they haven't figured out that it really doesn't matter who is elected.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 09:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
I can tell Democrats are afraid of Gingrich by the level of seething hatred they have towards him. Hatred is always an indicator of fear, and the hatred towards Gingrich (and Santorum) is off the charts.
It's true. One can observe exactly the same fear from Republicans toward Obama.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 09:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Newt isn't a hypocrite.

He is just a liar, a cheat, and a person without morals. A perfect Republican candidate and SC proves it.
Obama has never lied? He hasn't cheated anyone? Are you sure (though to be sure, with the media's disinterest in Obama's past who would know)? What about the last Democrat President?

Is it okay for them, but not Newt?
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 09:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
It's true. One can observe exactly the same fear from Republicans toward Obama.
Zing!!
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 09:16 PM
 
How is that a zing? It exactly supports what I said.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
How is that a zing? It exactly supports what I said.
The "OMG! They fear him!" statement is pointless. Democrats fear virtually every potential Republican politician, just as Republicans fear virtually every Democrat politician. If they didn't, there wouldn't be any point to having political parties.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 09:25 PM
 
That's not true. No one fears a candidate they think has no chance of ever winning. The fear varies in proportion to the perceived ability of that politician to win a race and enact his policies.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 09:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
That's not true. No one fears a candidate they think has no chance of ever winning. The fear varies in proportion to the perceived ability of that politician to win a race and enact his policies.
I agree, but I think the point was that there is no real point in pointing out the Democrat's fear of Newt when Republicans fear Obama just the same. I.e. this fear is not somehow unique or telling of anything in particular other than possibly that Newt could win the nomination, which I think has been an understood possibility for some time now.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2012, 10:04 PM
 
As opposed to all the predictions that Gingrich wouldn't be able to compete in Florida, PPP is saying Gingrich and Romney are neck and neck in the state right now.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 01:41 AM
 
I hope Newt wins the Republican nomination. It's the candidate Republicans deserve.

Hate? Fear? Nope. You mean we fear Newt the same way we fear Herman Cain?

Newt is a clown like Herman Cain. So I guess if you fear clowns, you might be fear Newt.

Perry/Bachmann - Dummies
Romney/Huntsman - Smart Mormons
Newt/Cain - Clowns
Santorum - Religious Right
Ron Paul - Libertarian
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 01:47 AM
 
Newt the Clown

Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 01:53 AM
 
That looks Photoshopped.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 02:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
I hope Newt wins the Republican nomination. It's the candidate Republicans deserve.
Someone who was in charge of the pursestrings at a time that the budget balanced and jobs where created?

Yeah, I'd say we all deserve that. I'd much rather have someone with a list of accomplishments that could help this country and ideas that make sense, instead of a guy whose resume is thin on big accomplishments and record is almost Carteresque.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 02:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Someone who was in charge of the pursestrings at a time that the budget balanced and jobs where created?

Yeah, I'd say we all deserve that. I'd much rather have someone with a list of accomplishments that could help this country and ideas that make sense, instead of a guy whose resume is thin on big accomplishments and record is almost Carteresque.

It's funny how Republicans very rarely give Clinton credit for having a budget surplus and instead give all credit to congress, yet Obama gets all the blame for our economic woes now while congress gets comparatively little.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 05:48 AM
 
Different circumstances, besson. When the Republicans swept in 1994, they controlled both the House and Senate. In Nov. 2010 they only gained control of the House (and are being led by Bohener who isn't particularly effective), so their ability to influence fiscal policy has been much more limited. And Clinton rightfully gets less credit for the economy because he was dragged kicking and screaming to Newt's balanced budgets. The Democrats at the time attempted to resist every economic policy of the Republicans, but they certainly loved talking the credit when it worked out well. Primarily it was neither Newt nor Clinton who deserved credit for the late-90s, it was the private economy and the tech sector in particular. But of the two, Newt deserved more credit.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jan 23, 2012 at 05:55 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 07:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It's funny how Republicans very rarely give Clinton credit for having a budget surplus and instead give all credit to congress, yet Obama gets all the blame for our economic woes now while congress gets comparatively little.
I don't give ALL credit to Congress. Clinton does get some credit. But, let's remember - the budgets didn't start getting balanced until after the Republicans took over and it was one of the issues they pushed. There was a big "government shutdown" over the fact that Clinton wouldn't budge and the Republicans took a lot of heat over it. It was they who paid the price for standing their ground, and it is they who should get most of the credit and the guy who took the most heat was Gingrich. Suggesting otherwise is an attempt to re-write history.

Besides, if Bill Clinton where running on the Democrat side, this MIGHT have some relevance. The guy that they are putting up is by far no Bill Clinton. He had none of Clinton's accomplishments nor experience before getting into office, and didn't do the things while in office to achieve the "change" needed to move the country forward. THAT'S the tough position the Democrats are going to be in in 2012, but I'm sure they are going to try and steer clear of the issues and try to make this a popularity contest the best that they can.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 08:16 AM
 
It will be interesting to see what other "old news" the anti-(R) machine at ABC will try to resurrect just before the Florida primaries. Maybe they'll hold off on the "document forgeries" stuff until early fall.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 08:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Newt isn't a hypocrite.

He is just a liar, a cheat, and a person without morals. A perfect Republican candidate and SC proves it.
This coming from someone who could be selling used bubble gum to prostitutes for all we know. The fact that you do not fear Newt as a formidable candidate against Obama is good news for Republicans.

I mean... these were all the same traits of another shoddy leader that gave his life so you could have last Monday off of work.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 08:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
While he appears to have avoided being caught with a sound bite, Gingrich does appear to have tried to capitalize on the moral issues around Clinton's affair by orchestrating an election-time ad campaign asking "What did you tell your kids?".
Gingrich Orchestrated GOP Ads Recalling Clinton-Lewinsky Affair
I had long-felt that Clinton should have simply admitted the affair outright and got it out of the headlines. The problem was, he couldn't have done this after his unwitting wife had taken to the airwaves with the whole; "vast right-wing conspiracy" thing. This became big news because a man who had taken an oath to uphold the laws from the highest office in the country in fact lied about his actions (sexual, that's it) to the entity charged with adjudicating them.
ebuddy
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 08:49 AM
 
Romney is the safe choice. That's why he's the choice of the Establishment. Newt currently doesn't seem as competitive against Obama, and I'm sure FNC and the other networks will play that up if Newt wins Florida. But I truly think the Leftards underestimate Newt at their own peril.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 11:02 AM
 
Well, what a difference a weekend makes. I'm not sure what way to look at this. I think a lot of Newt's traction is from his willingness to go negative on Romney, which all the hopefuls seemed hellbent at avoiding in the debates last year.

On the other hand, "polished" Romney isn't living up to that adjective in the debates while Newt looks comfortable. I suppose it's still Romney's to lose.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 11:38 AM
 
Latest Rasmussen Florida poll: Gingrich 41%, Romney 32%! I'll be so thrilled if we have a real conservative alternative this November. Newt definitely has the wisdom and ability to restore our country, and this is probably the last opportunity we'll have to do it.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 01:10 PM
 
I wonder if the White house is worried that Obama may have to debate Newt. If the Repubs can keep 'em guessing until June or later....

Nothing is for sure.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This coming from someone who could be selling used bubble gum to prostitutes for all we know. The fact that you do not fear Newt as a formidable candidate against Obama is good news for Republicans.

I mean... these were all the same traits of another shoddy leader that gave his life so you could have last Monday off of work.
You sell used bubble gum to prostitutes? Wow.

The greatest accomplishment of MLK is that you get Monday off? That's your takeaway? That's the first thing that comes to your mind you think of MLK? Really?

How about equal voting rights? Something Republicans are trying to curtail with all the new voting laws.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Someone who was in charge of the pursestrings at a time that the budget balanced and jobs where created?

Yeah, I'd say we all deserve that. I'd much rather have someone with a list of accomplishments that could help this country and ideas that make sense, instead of a guy whose resume is thin on big accomplishments and record is almost Carteresque.
Newt wasn't in charge of the pursestrings; Congress is. Newt was in charge of the House, which he was force out by Republicans in 1999.

However, Newt did dip into Freddie Mac's purse. Newt took $1.6 million from Freddie Mac's purse as a "historian".
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 05:30 PM
 
I don't buy this idea that Newt was a part of the Clinton balanced budgets, so therefore we should elect him so that he can do this again. It doesn't make sense to me. For starters:

- If Newt's leadership was so valued during that time, where has it been since then? Even when he hasn't been in a position of leadership, if he was more outspoken during, say, the Bush years and their spending sprees, I'm sure he would have gotten some attention - getting the media's attention is not that hard.

- We can't turn back the clock and make it the 90s again. Some of the Hilary Clinton supporters seemed to want to do this during her campaign (thinking that a Hilary Clinton presidency would resemble a Bill Clinton presidency)

- As alluded to, there his a whole host of variables that influences where credit and blame should rest: who is in control of all three branches, random luck (e.g. benefiting from the Dotcom bubble). It seems that these other variables seem to be ignored when Obama is in office, but whatever...

The point is that saying that Newt, or any one person including Clinton himself should be credited for the Clinton years of budget surplus seems like a feeble argument at best, and likewise to the notion that this time would somehow be relevant now in electing Newt. I think that you could say that some credit goes to somebody like Clinton or Newt, but there is no cause and effect relationship here, they were a small part of a very complex machine.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
Different circumstances, besson. When the Republicans swept in 1994, they controlled both the House and Senate. In Nov. 2010 they only gained control of the House (and are being led by Bohener who isn't particularly effective), so their ability to influence fiscal policy has been much more limited. And Clinton rightfully gets less credit for the economy because he was dragged kicking and screaming to Newt's balanced budgets. The Democrats at the time attempted to resist every economic policy of the Republicans, but they certainly loved talking the credit when it worked out well. Primarily it was neither Newt nor Clinton who deserved credit for the late-90s, it was the private economy and the tech sector in particular. But of the two, Newt deserved more credit.
Originally Posted by stupendousman
I don't give ALL credit to Congress. Clinton does get some credit. But, let's remember - the budgets didn't start getting balanced until after the Republicans took over and it was one of the issues they pushed. There was a big "government shutdown" over the fact that Clinton wouldn't budge and the Republicans took a lot of heat over it. It was they who paid the price for standing their ground, and it is they who should get most of the credit and the guy who took the most heat was Gingrich. Suggesting otherwise is an attempt to re-write history.
You guys are KILLING me with this! I know this is what you like to tell yourselves ... unfortunately the facts don't bear that out. Actually, let me rephrase that. What you are saying about the budgets put forth by the GOP controlled Congress that President Clinton had to deal with is correct on a certain level. The problem is that you are catching a case of convenient amnesia about the crucial piece of legislation that contributed to the elimination of the budget deficit and creation of surpluses during the Clinton Administration. And that gentlemen ... is PAYGO.

The PAYGO compels new spending or tax changes not to add to the federal deficit. Not to be confused with pay-as-you-go financing, which is when a government saves up money to fund a specific project. Under the PAYGO rules a new proposal must either be "budget neutral" or offset with savings derived from existing funds.[1] The goal of this is to require those in control of the budget to engage in the diligence of prioritizing expenses and exercising fiscal restraint.

An important example of such a system is the use of PAYGO in both the statutes of the U.S. Government and the rules in the United States Congress. First enacted as part of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (which was incorporated as Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990), PAYGO required all increases in direct spending or revenue decreases to be offset by other spending decreases or revenue increases. It was thought that this would control increases in deficit spending. Direct spending (or "mandatory spending") is largely composed of "entitlement spending," which means that a group of beneficiaries are entitled to a benefit and, without further legislative action, the government must provide that benefit—hence it is considered to be "mandatory." Only by legislative action can the benefit be either expanded or reduced. If a benefit is expanded or increased, that increase in direct spending must be offset by an increase in revenue or a decrease in direct spending.

In terms of revenue, PAYGO is designed to control revenue reductions. If revenue is estimated to be reduced through a reduction in tax rates of any kind or other effects on revenue collected by the Federal Government, that effect on the deficit must be offset either through increased tax rates or increase in revenue collection elsewhere, or spending reductions of the same amount.

In the initial PAYGO regimen, enacted in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA '90), by statutory requirement, if legislation enacted during a session of Congress had the effect of increasing the projected deficit for the following year, a "sequestration" would be triggered. A sequestration is an across the board spending reduction of non-exempt mandatory programs to offset this increase in the deficit, as calculated by the Office of Management and Budget.

These rules were in effect from FY1991-FY2002.[2] Enacted in 1990, it was extended in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In FY 1991, the Federal deficit was 4.5% of GDP, and by FY 2000, the Federal surplus was 2.4%.[3] Total Federal spending as a percentage of GDP decreased each year from FY1991 through FY 2000, falling from 22.3% to 18.4%. Deficits, though, returned by the last year PAYGO was in effect: There was a "return to deficits ($158 billion, 1.5% of GDP) in 2002".[3]
1. PAYGO was enacted in 1990 as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. It passed the House on a 228-200 vote. 181 Dems and 47 GOP voted for it ... while 74 Dems and 126 GOP including Newt Gingrich voted against it. It passed the Senate on a relatively bipartisan vote of 54-45-1. President G. H. W. Bush signed it into law and took a ton of heat from the GOP base for violating his "Read my lips ... no new taxes." pledge.

2. PAYGO was extended in 1993 as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act Of 1993. It passed the House on a vote of 218 - 216. It passed the Senate on a vote of 50-50 with VP Al Gore breaking the tie. The key takeaway here is that not a single GOP Representative or Senator voted for it. I repeat ... not a single GOP Representative or Senator voted for it. Including Speaker Gingrich.

3. The budgets that the GOP controlled Congresses put forth led by Speaker Gingrich did help to get the deficit under control. That along with a booming economy during the mid-to-late 1990s. But the fact of the matter is that their hands were tied by the PAYGO provisions enacted earlier that they vehemently opposed! And why did they oppose it? Because it could lead to tax increases ... and anyone who follows politics closely knows that if there is ever a conflict between "increasing taxes" and "lowering the deficit" ... all of a sudden "Deficits don't matter" if there is member of the GOP in the White House ..... and "We have a spending problem not a revenue problem" if there is a Democrat in the White House.

4. The federal government goes into surplus. G. W. Bush "wins" the White House in 2000. The GOP is still in control of Congress. And naturally the GOP couldn't leave well enough alone so they decided to do the only thing that ultimately matters to them ... which is to lower taxes in such a way that primarily benefits the wealthy. But in order to do that PAYGO had to go. And by 2002 it was no more. The Bush Tax Cuts were enacted. Medicare Part D was enacted. 2 wars were launched. And the government promptly returned to deficits. Imagine that.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jan 23, 2012 at 07:33 PM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 05:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Newt wasn't in charge of the pursestrings; Congress is. Newt was in charge of the House....
...which is where in Congress all government spending must originate.

Are we done going round the mulberry bush?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
- If Newt's leadership was so valued during that time, where has it been since then? Even when he hasn't been in a position of leadership, if he was more outspoken during, say, the Bush years and their spending sprees, I'm sure he would have gotten some attention - getting the media's attention is not that hard.
People are under no obligation to serve in government all of their life, despite the fact that some elected officials act as if it where their birthright.

- We can't turn back the clock and make it the 90s again. Some of the Hilary Clinton supporters seemed to want to do this during her campaign (thinking that a Hilary Clinton presidency would resemble a Bill Clinton presidency)
The problem is that Obama has turned back the clock and made it the late 70's again. He doesn't seem to have the foresight or ability to make tough decisions on spending and cutting that someone like Newt has already shown capability with.

- As alluded to, there his a whole host of variables that influences where credit and blame should rest: who is in control of all three branches, random luck (e.g. benefiting from the Dotcom bubble). It seems that these other variables seem to be ignored when Obama is in office, but whatever...
All I know is that when Newt and the 94' Republicans said that they would balance the budget, and Clinton wasn't really making an honest effort, after standing firm and getting a HUGE amount of grief over their insistence that the budget be balanced - it was. If you say you are going to do something, sacrifice to see to it that everything in your power is done to see it accomplished, then that thing actually happens - that's pretty much the point that you normally get credit for something.

The point is that saying that Newt, or any one person including Clinton himself should be credited for the Clinton years of budget surplus seems like a feeble argument at best, and likewise to the notion that this time would somehow be relevant now in electing Newt. I think that you could say that some credit goes to somebody like Clinton or Newt, but there is no cause and effect relationship here, they were a small part of a very complex machine.
If someone makes something their goal and forces the issue and it happens, that's normally a pretty clear cause/effect to be able to claim accomplishment. While there may have been variables at play back then which helped the situation and assured that the goal was achieved that may or may not exist today, you really can't rewrite history and suggest that the actions taken by Gingrich wasn't what was responsible for taking advantage of whatever environment allowed for a balanced budget. Clinton had 2 years and didn't really strive for a balance budget. The Republicans where in power and just a short time later - BAM - balanced budget. You can try to spin it as if Gingrich had little responsibility, but I don't think that anyone who payed attention at the time will buy that argument.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 06:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
...which is where in Congress all government spending must originate.

Are we done going round the mulberry bush?
Who, a Republican under the name John Boehner, is the current speaker of the House.

So Republicans are responsible for the massive deficit and budget.

Guess you'll have to stop blaming Pres. Obama based on your arguments.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Who, a Republican under the name John Boehner, is the current speaker of the House.

So Republicans are responsible for the massive deficit and budget.
Unless there is a Democrat president, in which case it's all his fault!
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 07:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Who, a Republican under the name John Boehner, is the current speaker of the House.

So Republicans are responsible for the massive deficit and budget.
Only for the past year. The first two years, the Republicans had little to do with it. It will be interesting to see how budget talks go this year.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You guys are KILLING me with this! I know this is what you like to tell yourselves ... unfortunately the facts don't bear that out. Actually, let me rephrase that. What you are saying about the budgets put forth by the GOP controlled Congress that President Clinton had to deal with is correct on a certain level. The problem is that you are catching a case of convenient amnesia about the crucial piece of legislation that contributed to the elimination of the budget deficit and creation of surpluses during the Clinton Administration. And that gentlemen ... is PAYGO.
Which helped as well.

Though, Why didn't we have a balanced budget during Clinton's first two years, if PAYGO is what the catalyst was? Remember, Bill Clinton is on record as stating prior to 1994 that we might eventually get a balanced balance in 9 years. Why would he think that if he was required by a law to get it done in a year? Paul Tsongas publicly complained that he didn't think that Clinton would ever agree to actually getting the budget balanced.

PAYGO helped, but Bill Clinton wasn't planning on balancing the budget in years. Until 94 when his hand was forced. That's a fact.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 11:38 PM
 
^^^^

Again Stu. I think you guys see what you want to see as long as it fits into your ideological narrative. Regardless of the facts on the ground. The reality is the GOP never passed a balanced budget during the Clinton Administration. They passed budgets that reduced spending as part of a "deficit reduction" program. But it was by no means balanced. The reason why the government eliminated the deficit was because PAYGO forced the politicians to not give away the store with tax cuts as well as restrained them on new spending. And again … the GOP was staunchly opposed to this because the former is exactly what they wanted to do and did do once they eliminated PAYGO. With that fiscal restraint in place, better than expected tax revenues from a booming economy led to "balanced" financial RESULTS … even though the BUDGET wasn't enacted that way.

OAW
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 11:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^^

Again Stu. I think you guys see what you want to see as long as it fits into your ideological narrative.
Which facts that I've offered do you dispute?

Regardless of the facts on the ground.
It's clear, you disregarded the facts.

The reality is the GOP never passed a balanced budget during the Clinton Administration. They passed budgets that reduced spending as part of a "deficit reduction" program. But it was by no means balanced. The reason why the government eliminated the deficit was because PAYGO forced the politicians to not give away the store with tax cuts as well as restrained them on new spending. And again … the GOP was staunchly opposed to this because the former is exactly what they wanted to do and did do once they eliminated PAYGO. With that fiscal restraint in place, better than expected tax revenues from a boomin economy led to "balanced" financial RESULTS … even though the BUDGET wasn't enacted that way.
The fact is that the Clinton administration wasn't concerned with the defect or balanced budgets and as I've pointed out, even members of his own party where frustrated with his refusal to act in this regard. Bill Clinton didn't shut down government because he wanted to spend and tax less - he did it because Congress wanted this and forced his hand. You can point out all the other exterior circumstances which helped the Gingrich and the Republican's with their goal, but the fact remains that it was their goal, and it was achieved and not in the 9 years Clinton see-sawed over.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2012, 11:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^^

Again Stu. I think you guys see what you want to see as long as it fits into your ideological narrative. Regardless of the facts on the ground. The reality is the GOP never passed a balanced budget during the Clinton Administration. They passed budgets that reduced spending as part of a "deficit reduction" program. But it was by no means balanced. The reason why the government eliminated the deficit was because PAYGO forced the politicians to not give away the store with tax cuts as well as restrained them on new spending. And again … the GOP was staunchly opposed to this because the former is exactly what they wanted to do and did do once they eliminated PAYGO. With that fiscal restraint in place, better than expected tax revenues from a booming economy led to "balanced" financial RESULTS … even though the BUDGET wasn't enacted that way.

OAW

Why was PAYGO disbanded, and has there been talk of bringing it back that I have missed?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:31 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,