Seems to me that our former President had a bit to due with our debt as well. Nobody cared when Bush spent a trillion dollars on Iraq but all hell breaks loose when Obama wants to spend money on our own citizens and infrastructure. You can thank Bush for Obama as well, Bush was so bad that the people would have elected any Democrat vs another clone of him.

Enjoy the next 8 years

Using your argument, Obama is 4 times worse than Bush!!!

Would it be more appropriate to call it PRINT AS WE GO? This is what Washington is doing now so it’s nothing new.

Obama is b*tching about deficit spending?! After creating $1.8 trillion deficit this year alone?! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

This is hillarious!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So exactly who is he going to blame for the increased deficit now?? Congress has passed every spending program he has called for in the 6 months he has been in office. To do pay as you go at this point will mean massive tax increases. MASSIVE TAX INCREASES! Is he going to blame congress for spending what he told them to do so he can deflect the blame!!

Only one comment.....BALANCED BUDGET like most states are required by their constitutions to maintain (of course that causes real problems too when they pass a budget based on assumptions of future revenue.) Since CONGRESS, not the president, is responsible for the budget (president only proposes, Congress enacts) of course it is the responsibility of Congress to finalize how they are going to pay for everything the president recommends and they include in those budgets. That is one reason a line item veto is needed for all budget bills.

This so sad it is funny. Mr. money grows on trees telling others to be more responsible. This so called president doesn't have a clue.

The line item veto is unconstitutional in that it gives the executive branch the powers specifically delineated to the legislative branch. Congress has the power of the purse because theoretically they represent the people. And since it is the people's money that they are spending, the people should be represented.

The president's plan would require Congress to pay for new entitlement spending, such as health care, by raising taxes or coming up with budget cuts — a "pay-as-you-go" system that would have the force of law. Under the proposal, if new spending or tax reductions are not offset, there would be automatic cuts in so-called mandatory programs — although Social Security payments and some other programs would be exempt.

Is this the presidents way of telling the people that we ARE going to have tax increases, but HE was not the one to do it???? (as to stay true to his campaign promise..sorry I see right thru you now mr. ) I wonder.

Obama's "PAYGO" plan would also require future tax cuts to be financed by tax increases elsewhere in the code, though exceptions are made for extending President George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as other tax cuts that are scheduled to expire.

ya...more taxes...lets see..now they get...62% of what I earn. (Ill do the actual math tonight..and include VAT, Soda, Cigs, Alcohol, Gas, Electric, City, State, Health Care in so I can predict what it will be come 2011)

The PAYGO system was established as a standing rule of the House of Representatives (Clause 10 of Rule XXI) on January 4, 2007 by the 110th Congress:

It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report if the provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net effect of increasing the deficit or reducing the surplus for either the period comprising the current fiscal year and the five fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the following calendar year or the period comprising the current fiscal year and the ten fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the following calendar year.

Less than one year later though, facing widespread demand to ease looming tax burdens caused by the Alternative Minimum Tax, Congress abandoned its pay-go pledge.

And of course this was the Democrat controlled congress who have been running up the deficit ever since. hmmmmm did not mean much then as it has no meaning now!

Why is it that the liberals always want to justify Obama's spendulous ways, by pointing to George W. Bush? It was no more okay for GWB to go crazy with spending that it is for Obama. The remarkable fact is that Obama has increased spending by a wild margin over GWB. So, pointing to Bush as justification or Obama's actions simply doesn't wash.

I like this idea. It seems as though PAYGO rules would have been awfully beneficial the last 8 years.

Good job Mr. President!

Now what was it the Republicans were complaining about?

H. Stowell.........bull manure! The National debt from Bush/Cheney and their war looking for nuclear fly swatters......and electrocuting our soldiers.......has left this nation in a hole. Then the SOB's...........tried to give out BILLIONS IN DECEMBER AS THEY CRAWLED BACK INTO THE WOODWORK. Bush/Cheney.......left such a foul mess it will take years......to save this country.........Thank God the American people got rid of the BIG GOVERNMENT THAT BUSH/CHENEY PUT INTO PLACE.

Now what was it the Republicans were complaining about?

Conceptually it's great...should be (as someone else pointed out) 'spend 1, save 2' so that we can actually get ahead in life, much like we do with our personal finances, but that's a whole different story.

Two main arguments as I see it.

1.) From the article itself:

The House and Senate already have their own PAYGO rules, but have routinely found ways around them

If we already have laws, why don't we try following them instead of finding all the loopholes so we can exploit them for our (thier) own benefit? Think how much time and energy (and our money) is wasted:

a.) trying to find out ways to get around existing laws

b.) trying to come up with new laws to add to the existing laws

c.) then (you can guarentee) find loopholes around those as well

2.) If you are going to spend wildly and then after the fact, say that you're going to establish this policy, it's...dare I say "two faced". Imagine buying a Porshe on the way home today and then telling the spouse, "ok, we're really going to have to buckle down and not spend unless we really have to". They look in the garage and then back and you and (I presume) beat you senseless.

(Not to mention as I've said before, if they're interested in saving money, strip their eternal benefits, their eternal pensions, their raises that they gave themselves and see how much they could start saving by not leading us to believe "they feel our pain", instead, fly coach, etc. etc...again, it's a joke if I take take take and then come up with rules why "we" should be cautious in our spending.)

But that's just my take on it.

Shawn, have you ever noticed that business, wall street, and the lawyers always look first for the loophole before they even attempt to play by the rulebook?

Marcia, even if you are right, you cannot make it better by spending more, simple as that. That's no BULL.

Marcia, putting us deeper into debt is not the way to get us out of it. 

schwannomin and Marcia -

The federal deficit is on pace to explode past $1.8 trillion this year, more than four times last year's all-time high.

Since Obama has already quadrupled the deficit from Bush, what does that make him? BTW - the highest growth was in the last two years of the Bush administration and you-know-who controlled Congress those years. You do realize that Congress sets the budget, don't you?

Grow up and learn some math.

So, Ummm....................,

How is all that hope and change working for you now?

Actually, its a great idea..pay for what you get as you got the moeny..as nearly all of us will be doing in the coming years. However, to think that our elected, without a huge push from the voters will do it is a dream....they have not done that in the past 30 or more years....why would Obama or anyone else think they would...but then the republicans and most on here will blame Obama anyway....and then you all keep electing the same fools you have always elected...if any of you want change, really want change, vote an all new group into congress....

Consider this,,your congress has already sold out the bigger part of this nation....to be that great again this country has to take care of itself...put itself first...or else every other country will own a hge piece of the place where we all live.

Schwannomin and Marsha -

Food for thought:

The president's plan would require Congress to pay for new entitlement spending, such as health care, by raising taxes or coming up with budget cuts — a "pay-as-you-go" system that would have the force of law. Under the proposal, if new spending or tax reductions are not offset, there would be automatic cuts in so-called mandatory programs — although Social Security payments and some other programs would be exempt.

The following are Mandatory Spending items:

Superlogi, Again your post supports your party but doesn't quite ring true for most of us. Bush and Cheney sent us to war. You can scream until you're blue in the face that the democratic congress supported this move, but no one will care. Until you go back in time and analyze every moment of deceit presented or arranged by Cheney, aka the master of war, we'll just assume and believe that he lied to congress to get his way. Don't get me wrong... I admire the guy. He's the best liar I've ever seen! Quite the manipulator.

Okay, that aside. Did you see the NYT article that analyzed the budget deficit? About a third on recessions (less tax income), about a third on Bush "new" policies, about 20% on Bush policies extended by Obama, 7% on the stimulus, and 4% for new Obama initiatives. I know you will all scream foul because of its source, but what do you say to the analysis? I've read it several times and can see where numbers could shift a little (i.e. the bank bailouts), but it looks basically sound to me.

And "pay-as-you-go" is a logical next step... only affects new and doesn't cut any jobs at the moment.

Dee-dee, You want to balance the budget but you don't. You people cannot have it both ways. I've been blasted by the right for saying this before, but I'll say it again... No major budget cuts that will affect jobs will be even discussed until the jobs picture improves. But you went through a pretty thorough list... and I can see your points... but what would you have him do? Wake up to what? The republican way and do nothing but cut taxes... banks, industries, and jobs be damned? NOT.

LMarcT - I'd love a balanced budget, however, the current healthcare reform is certainly not going to balance our budget - in fact, it is going to increase our debt!

And while increasing our debt, it's going to cut benefits to those currently out of work and our retired and disabled military instead of the deadbeats and illegals that have been free loading off taxpayer monies for far too many years!

It's interesting that the President's pet projects are exempt from pay-as-you-go.

This appears to be another strategy to eventually increase taxes on us all.

Remember, there's always someone, somewhere, who has less money than you. Be sure to spread your wealth around.

so u think this is a bad idea?

The idea of PAYGO is a great idea. The problem is that Obama and his gang in Congress are creating so many loopholes that the term is meaningless. Obama's original budget, although unacceptably high, at least required that new taxes or offsets be included in the same budget year as the increases.

What's not okay, is that this is no more than political bluster, designed to make us believe Obama has abandoned his spendulous ways. Simply not true!

I really think the idea is irrelevant. I have no confidence in anyone in this administration. I have trouble believing that this is going to work as advertised. I really believe the money will be spent and whether it can be off set is going to be an after thought, if it's thought about at all. So I take this proposal with a grain of salt. I won't let it interupt the flow of my day.

here's an idea: "forgive all the debt; zero out all the accounts and play "do-over" ; sorta like a "time-out," 'i need to catch my breath.'

I think the punishment is designed for those who are successful or have managed their finances properly.

It's the American way - punish those doing the right thing and keep making excuses for irresponsibility. Sigh........

Can we impeach Obama? Why don't we set him up with a prostitute and then take some pictures and impeach him!!! haha

It wouldn't matter what Obama would do, he is the darling of the Democrats. They will simply look the other way. They already have looked the other way. Obama is being nailed repeatedly for what he's doing to this country, and the facts are simply ignored by the liberal press. Every once in a while, they'll throw us a bone, but the next day, it's all forgotten.

Hartcamargo, the American way! Create evidence to get rid of those you don't agree with. Yeah.

hartcamargo

No, unfortunately, stupidity is not an impeachable offense. Now if we could impeach the Pelosi puppets, we'd be better off. Hey wait, we can vote them out in 2010!

me too!

And don't forget: Secret Muslim!!! Apology tour!! ACOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRNNNN!!!!!

Run for the hills!!!

The problem is, he's not trying to run the economy the way people run their personal finances. The general population cannot simply take money from someone else to finance their desire to increase spending, which is exactly what he proposes to do.

You can bet the farm that spending will not actually decrease. It never has. A "decrease" in DC is defined as "less of an increase than we expected." What Obama is actually saying is that program costs will continue to increase, and the overall tax burden is not going to decrease; if anything, it will simply shift. But, in the end, his intent clearly is to raise taxes to support his socialist programs.

how many states actually have balanced budgets right now? they don't do it well either.

You cannot hide. The USA is the only major country on the face of the earth that assesses taxes on its citizens, even if they live outside the USA. However, there are many places in this world, where you can live quite comfortably and safely on a small fraction of what's required in the US... with great health care to boot!

Exactly, do you remember during the 3rd debate. The issue of Ayers came up and Obama said "Mr. Ayers is not involved in my campaign. He has never been involved in this campaign." So he said THIS campaign when the allegation was his Senate campaign.

Ok, I know off topic but Profchaos said you have to listen to what he is actually saying.

Eric Cantor........was a RUBBER STAMP for those arse wipes Bush/Cheney......

Marcia, then please explain why the arse wipe JOHN MURTHA keeps getting elected.

At least 63% are that dumb. Check out the approval ratings. Even though very few approve of his economic "prowess", 63% continue to support him overall. Go figure!

If every member in Congress is getting A+ health benefits paid for by my tax dollars, I deserve the same. If members of Congress leave office with fat pensions even if they are prosecuted, why shouldn't I have a pension paid for by my tax dollars?

You are right on both accounts...now if you think that's what will come of ANY of this...I have some great property to sell you. Remember we are still talking about the same group of people that told the nation that we would all have to buckle down during these hard times and that "we're all in this together"...and then gave themselves a raise (which they could have individually voted against, but didn't).

If you honestly think Congress has your best interest above their own personal one...

Remember we are still talking about the same group of people that told the nation that we would all have to buckle down during these hard times and that "we're all in this together"...and then gave themselves a raise (which they could have individually voted against, but didn't).

And let us never forget...at least I won't.

It took 3months for me to know better (and I mean I know BETTER) than let this congress and pres blow smoke up my rear ever again. It took millions of us 8 years (argue-able) to figure it out about Bush...but only 3month for Obama. I bet, that he will get less votes next year (actual votes) than Bush's oppenent did in 04

What solutions? Can you point to one thing that he has resolved?

Sorry to bring Bush in this but this current President does everything in the name of "what Bush did", and "economic crisis".....

just talking Pres not Party

There you go again, justifying Obama's spending habits by pointing to Bush. It was wrong for Bush and, since Obama is spending incredibly more, it is doubly wrong for Obama.

read the comment four above this one

95% tax break for who? The rich, congress, and all the other bloodsuckers.....

Not a 95% tax break, but no new taxes for 95% of Americans.

Just wait until you see the new carbon tax we're going to be hit with. Of course, the tax will only be leveled at those who actually produce the carbon, but the cost (plus the cost of administration) will be passed along to us.

Merrill: You are correct. That plus VAT (if passed) will increase taxes on every single person in this country.

Mississippiboy,

Son, we gotta remember that MUSLIMS don't lie especially our Prez.....they just bow down and blow smoke from their asses five times a day.......yelp, hope we can catch the Prez bowing down so we can kick his ass over the pond all the way back to Kenya...his homeland. Now we have to remember that they are peace loving people and don't want to hurt anyone...it's against their beliefs.....what ever that is.

By the way, didn't you notice during his first few weeks that he did skip out on one dinner?... it served ham, y'know that stuff that certain religions cannot eat.

Obama is Jewish?

Seriously, the whole "Secret Muslim" whisper campaign thing was to try to appeal to racists during election time frame. Your masters have moved on to other smear tactics. Keep up with the times!

No. I think you mean we paid as he left.

Go USA you are right sorry.

Yes, he does and so does Congress because we keep voting these same clowns into office again and again.