Talk:PAYGO

I'm going to remove the section of Ronald Reagan - it's essentially a giant sloppy fellation. --75.68.115.72 02:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:72.211.227.83 - Please keep your edits from a neutral point of view. I wasn't the one who deleted them, but I think this might be the reason why. I think you have a valuable contribution. Can you phrase it more neutrally? Bsherr 16:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple views of Paygo

This is a controversial budgeting slogan. It has indeed been used by liberals who want to raise taxes to defuse the perjorative 'tax and spend liberal' to something more acceptible, like 'pay as you go' and use family budgeting as an example. Unfortunately, family budgeting involves family income, something that is not taken from other families. In federal budgeting, raising taxes takes money from one group to spend it on some other group or set of projects.

But an even bigger issue is the impact of tax reductions on the overall economy, which have been historically very good for the economy, and as a consequence, produced higher GNP, higher incomes, avoided recessions, and allow the treasury to collect MORE in taxes, albeit with a smaller percentage rate, a higher basis for taxes raises revenue even though the tax rate is reduced.

Liberals recoil at the thought that tax reductions benefit everyone, citing unsubstantiated claims that cutting taxes only benefits the rich which is not only wrong, it is a political sales pitch more than an economic outcome. Indeed, those who pay the most taxes are also the richest, so any reduction in rates will have a precentage reduction in taxes. If someone pays a high tax bill, and another person pays a small tax bill, the same percentage reduction in taxes will of course produce a higher overall dollar tax reduction, but this is not the same as a higher percentage reduction. In fact, we still have a graduated income tax system, and higher income people pay more taxes as a percent of income.

There are unfortunately some who are able to edit out balanced views here, and take the opportunity not only to edit out what they don't want others to read, but add insulting and vulgar comments as parting shots to those who contribute factual content that does not fit their own list of political talking points. This is indeed a problem with a system that allows anyone to edit (and delete) someone else's statements that help clarify a definition, and provide an alternative view.

Any spelling errors are due to my keyboard, not my ability to spell <<grin>>

HalRogers Halrogers 19:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hal, whether PAYGO is "a controversial budgeting slogan" isn't the point. The fact is there was a budget law referred to as PAYGO enacted in 1990. The fact is Congress and the president stuck to the PAYGO limits in the 1990's and by the end of the 1990's the federal government was running a budget surplus. The fact is in 2001 Congress and the president watered down PAYGO, then allowed it to expire, and the budget went from a surplus to huge deficits.

This should not be partisan. Republican President George H. W. Bush signed the PAYGO law, passed by a Democratically controlled Congress. Democratic President Bill Clinton followed PAYGO, as did the Republican controlled Congress after they took over in 1994. There were groups within both parties that disagreed with them. The facts are Republican President George W. Bush and the Republican controlled Congress decided to let PAYGO expire in 2002, and the Democratically controlled Congress decided to reinstate PAYGO (as a budget rule). Whether one thinks those were good or bad decisions is an exercise left to the reader.

Russ Anderson (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)