DVD Talk
2011 Budget Cut Thread ptII - Debt Ceiling Armageddon [Archive] - Page 3 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : 2011 Budget Cut Thread ptII - Debt Ceiling Armageddon


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Pharoh
07-30-11, 01:32 PM
Or as more likely to happen, the raters will keep the US at its AAA rating, but assign a comment on how things are turning negative.

Pharoh
07-30-11, 01:34 PM
That is of course, that the White House stops playing silly games and a deal gets done.

dvd-4-life
07-30-11, 01:48 PM
What does Obama have too lose by declaring the 14th Amendment?

Pistol Pete
07-30-11, 01:59 PM
What does Obama have too lose by declaring the 14th Amendment?
The Republicans will tie it up in court for years, call for impeachment at every opportunity, and exclaim that he's a socialist with no respect for the constitution like the good folks of middle America!

Hmm. Doesn't sound any different than the status quo, does it?

Navinabob
07-30-11, 03:07 PM
West Wing really was a great show...

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/v5igKuNF1rI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

classicman2
07-30-11, 06:19 PM
The House soundly defeated the Reid plan. I believe there were 243 votes against the plan. 11
Democrats voted against it. 13 members (mostly who would have voted against the plan) did not vote.

Th0r S1mpson
07-30-11, 06:49 PM
Boehner got tired of dealing with Obama and instead switched to working with the senate. Then Reid and Obama got together on a plan and forced the house to go it alone. House plan shot down, Reid plan shot down, now the republicans are going right to Obama and doing an end-around pissing off Reid. After the triple-reverse, the ball is on the ground and the Defense is standing there watching everyone fight for the ball. Just punt already.

eXcentris
07-30-11, 07:21 PM
The US government is more like cricket than football. A match can last for days before anyone can actually win. Checks and balances is one thing but at some point there has to be a "final arbiter" who can say "this is the plan, if you don't like it, vote me/us out at the next election". I'm starting to understand why Fareed Zakaria called the US system of government "antiquated". :)

classicman2
07-30-11, 07:32 PM
Tom Harkin (D/IA) just finished speakng on the floor the Senate. He said "It doesn't matter whether it is constitutional or not whether the president can unliaterally invoke the 14th Amendment to raise the debt limit. He must do it.'

Harkin then used a precedent Jefferson's purchase of the LA territory.

Side note: Harkin (who should know better) make a comment that Thomas Jefferson was one of the chief framers of The Constitution. If a U.S. Senator makes this mistake, how can I expect the posters of this forum to not make the same mistake? ;)

Th0r S1mpson
07-30-11, 08:18 PM
Side note: Harkin (who should know better) make a comment that Thomas Jefferson was one of the chief framers of The Constitution. If a U.S. Senator makes this mistake...

<img src="http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/replicate/EXID50736/images/tar_and_feather.jpg">
"Chief framer lol wut? I see what ur saying but he might as well been an Indian Chief framing it with all that slave sleeping. Vote for real change vote out Jefferson!!!!11"
-Tea Party Activist, 1805

kvrdave
07-30-11, 08:54 PM
Um...Obama came up with a proposal that did exactly that - 4 trillion in cuts over 10 years. The Republicans rejected it. Where's the counter-proposal that also comes up with $4 trillion in cuts. You said, Republicans have asked for that. So that means they would come up with a proposal that asks for that, no?

A few pages back, it was discussed. It did absolutely nothing until 2013 and then mainly relied on us being out of Iraq and Afghanistan. No one gave it any credence. Think about why you don't hear anyone talking about the great Obama plan that would have cut far more than the Republicans offered. Just another thing based on projections that don't have any chance of being part of reality. And certainly no actual change in what the government spends.

hahn
07-31-11, 04:05 AM
A few pages back, it was discussed. It did absolutely nothing until 2013 and then mainly relied on us being out of Iraq and Afghanistan. No one gave it any credence. Think about why you don't hear anyone talking about the great Obama plan that would have cut far more than the Republicans offered. Just another thing based on projections that don't have any chance of being part of reality. And certainly no actual change in what the government spends.

So you don't count cutting military spending as cutting spending? If I recall, you agreed just a few days ago that the military spending was out of control. Let me ask you a question dave - do you believe that it was worth it to invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you believe it's worth staying? And if you do, what do you think will be accomplished in staying that will be worth what it has cost in money and human lives?

*No one* gave it any credence? You mean just the Republicans. Gee, I wonder why. The ONLY reason is because they view liberals as the enemy (LITERALLY) and therefore anything and everything put out there by a liberal (despite the fact that by his actions, Obama is FAR more conservative than liberal) is to be opposed, denounced, and sneered at. They could give a rat's ass whether it does the country any good. In fact they probably worry that it will, which would be bad for them. Thus, Obama's plan is "not based on reality". The Republican politicians need an enemy otherwise they wouldn't know what to do because they don't have any REAL ideas for making the country a better place. They don't know who they are or what they stand for, except that if liberals are for it, then they're against it. Which goes a long ways to explain why they're so often hypocritical. They simply forget where they stand on the issues. Or more likely never knew to begin with. As long as they know where the liberals stand, they know where they stand too - always ALWAYS opposite.

I have a question for the conservative posters. What was so bad about our economy (or life in general) at the end of Clinton's term in 2000 that you attribute to the tax levels back then?

hahn
07-31-11, 04:09 AM
just like the democrats under bush?
When did Democrats put the nation's economy at risk in such a reckless manner?

logrus9
07-31-11, 07:59 AM
I have a question for the conservative posters. What was so bad about our economy (or life in general) at the end of Clinton's term in 2000 that you attribute to the tax levels back then?

I guess you've forgotten the tech stock crash and the beginning of the recession.

http://www.nyse.tv/nasdaq-history-chart.gif

logrus9
07-31-11, 08:06 AM
When did Democrats put the nation's economy at risk in such a reckless manner?

Right now. Do you realize the Democrats are voting no and prolonging the process also?

If they are so worried about the deadline then pass the bill and work to "correct" the bad parts later.

Don't kid yourself, the reason they don't is because they want to protect their re-election, the same reason Reid didn't have a vote last year when the Democrats were in control.

classicman2
07-31-11, 08:37 AM
The Democratic leadership in the Senate will not allow voting on proposals coming from the House.

Why? They have the votes to defeat them.

classicman2
07-31-11, 09:26 AM
foxnews.com (Your fair & balanced news network :))

Washington – Bipartisan negotiators were racing against the clock Sunday morning to finalize a possible compromise package before a scheduled vote on a Democratic debt-ceiling plan which, without changes, stands little chance of advancing.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid pushed back a vote on the plan until 1 p.m. ET to give negotiators room to strike a deal, details of which began to emerge in the early morning hours. The senator was originally planning to call up his proposal shortly after midnight -- however, dozens of Republicans had vowed to defeat it, and the new round of talks between the White House and congressional Republicans offered a glimmer of hope that lawmakers might craft a package that can earn bipartisan support.

Lawmakers have until Aug. 2 to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling or risk the possibility of default. The Obama administration says that after Tuesday, the Treasury can no longer pay all of America's bills.

Sources said a tentative arrangement between the White House and Republicans closely resembles the plan first proffered by House Speaker John Boehner before he modified it to appease Tea Party conservatives. The plan, though, would call for a debt-ceiling increase designed to last until early 2013 -- a key demand of President Obama.

One source said the debt ceiling would be raised by as much as $2.4 trillion, with a roughly equal amount of deficit-reduction. The plan would immediately cut spending by about $1 trillion over the next decade, and then task a commission to recommend another set of cuts that would, taken together, add up to the size of the debt-ceiling increase.

Importantly, a "trigger" in the proposal would automatically enact across-the-board cuts to Medicare, defense and other areas if the committee's recommendations are not approved by the end of the year.

One source familiar with the talks noted that while the Medicare cuts would be capped, defense cuts would not and would make up roughly half of the total cuts. This mechanism could help compel Republicans avoid the "trigger" entirely by working through the commission to achieve deficit reduction.

But the framework of the deal floated perilously between the alternatives pushed by House conservatives and Senate Democrats.

The tentative plan would have Congress vote on a balanced-budget amendment -- a key demand of Tea Party-aligned Republicans -- but would not require Congress to approve it in order for the debt ceiling to be raised.

Top aides to House GOP lawmakers told Fox News they were concerned about the emerging deal. One source said it could be difficult to bring House conservatives back on board with such a plan.

At the same time, the tentative arrangement is closer to Boehner's original bill than Reid's. Reid, while giving GOP lawmakers more time to negotiate, initially indicated Saturday evening he was not satisfied with the progress so far. After Republican leaders claimed they were close to a deal, Reid shot that claim down.

When he emerged on the floor late at night to announce the new vote schedule, he sounded a bit more upbeat. Reid said he hopes the new round of talks "bears fruit."

The partisan makeup of Congress makes the task of striking a deal that much more complicated.

Neither party controls a supermajority in the Senate, making it necessary to attract bipartisan support in order to pass a bill.

Republicans hold a broad majority in the House, but conservatives may be skeptical of any deal that has too many Democratic fingerprints on it from the Senate side.

One source suggested that Boehner could change course and corral a coalition of Republicans along with a larger batch of Democrats -- though that would put the speaker in a difficult position within his own caucus.

___________________________

The reason for all the smiles and optimism displayed by Sen. Mitch McConnell last evening in the midst of all the rancor on the floor of the U.S. Senate last evening & Sen. Reid's repeating over & over the word 'filibuster." ?

logrus9
07-31-11, 10:07 AM
The plan, though, would call for a debt-ceiling increase designed to last until early 2013 -- a key demand of President Obama.


Bad move. That will probably lead to a downgrade because we will basically ignore the problem for 2 years. Can't the Republican leadership do math?

"they raised the ceiling 18 times under Reagan"

8 yrs / 18 raises x 12 months = 5.3 months per debt ceiling raise

"It's been raised 78 times since 1962"

49 years / 78 raises x 12 months = 7.5 months per raise

al_bundy
07-31-11, 10:34 AM
There is no reason to have a political issue like this in election season

kvrdave
07-31-11, 10:36 AM
So you don't count cutting military spending as cutting spending? If I recall, you agreed just a few days ago that the military spending was out of control. Let me ask you a question dave - do you believe that it was worth it to invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you believe it's worth staying? And if you do, what do you think will be accomplished in staying that will be worth what it has cost in money and human lives?

*No one* gave it any credence? You mean just the Republicans. Gee, I wonder why. The ONLY reason is because they view liberals as the enemy (LITERALLY) and therefore anything and everything put out there by a liberal (despite the fact that by his actions, Obama is FAR more conservative than liberal) is to be opposed, denounced, and sneered at. They could give a rat's ass whether it does the country any good. In fact they probably worry that it will, which would be bad for them. Thus, Obama's plan is "not based on reality". The Republican politicians need an enemy otherwise they wouldn't know what to do because they don't have any REAL ideas for making the country a better place. They don't know who they are or what they stand for, except that if liberals are for it, then they're against it. Which goes a long ways to explain why they're so often hypocritical. They simply forget where they stand on the issues. Or more likely never knew to begin with. As long as they know where the liberals stand, they know where they stand too - always ALWAYS opposite.

I have a question for the conservative posters. What was so bad about our economy (or life in general) at the end of Clinton's term in 2000 that you attribute to the tax levels back then?

1) Military cuts are fine, but assuming you will be out of two theaters that you haven't managed to get out of yet is kicking the can down the road. The military is not being reduced, the "savings" come from not being in wars that you have no way to know you won't be in. Those savings don't show up for over two years despite the fact that Obama claims we would have been out of Iraq by now, and has other plans that are before the 2 year period. It is folly and not an actual plan. If it were, you'd hear Democrats supporting it, but it isn't even being debated.

2) I'm okay if we leave tomorrow and just continue a Libya plan on them and bomb the shit out of them from afar each time they look to emerge from the stone age.

3) I don't mean "just Republicans." Where are the Democrats discussing the Obama plan?

4) The idea that Obama is far more conservative than liberal is laughable. I might as well tell you that Pat Buchannan is far more liberal than conservative. Wants higher taxes, got healthcare through, increases spending, increases size of government. What have you seen to make you think he is conservative?

5) To compare the great Clinton years and ignore the tech bubble would be like me talking about the incredible Bush economy and ignoring the housing bubble.

6) What indication do you have that the Democrats don't automatically just go with the opposite of what the Republicans want? It appears that your idea of compromise is the same as all of Congress.....you come to my way of thinking or you won't compromise.

Duran
07-31-11, 10:37 AM
Bad move. That will probably lead to a downgrade because we will basically ignore the problem for 2 years.

I don't get this. Are we insolvent? Will we be in 2 years? 10? Why is this a crisis that has to be solved right now, other than the Republicans chose this time (when unemployment is over 9%) to make it one?

classicman2
07-31-11, 10:42 AM
Bad move. That will probably lead to a downgrade because we will basically ignore the problem for 2 years. Can't the Republican leadership do math?

"they raised the ceiling 18 times under Reagan"

8 yrs / 18 raises x 12 months = 5.3 months per debt ceiling raise

"It's been raised 78 times since 1962"

49 years / 78 raises x 12 months = 7.5 months per raise

Bad moves are always part of a compromise.

You ask the question 'can't the Republican leadership do the math.' Why can't you realize that, especially in a divided government situation that we have, you rarely can have your cake and eat it too.? ;)

logrus9
07-31-11, 10:44 AM
There is no reason to have a political issue like this in election season

"It's the economy stupid" worked for Clinton. How can you not say this is an issue for the political season?

logrus9
07-31-11, 10:52 AM
I don't get this. Are we insolvent? Will we be in 2 years? 10? Why is this a crisis that has to be solved right now, other than the Republicans chose this time (when unemployment is over 9%) to make it one?

We borrow $0.42 of every dollar we spend and are looking to increase it. How much closer do we need to get to insolvency?

Assuming you have a mortgage that is several times your yearly salary, start spending 142% of your salary for a year and see if you become insolvent.

logrus9
07-31-11, 10:56 AM
Bad moves are always part of a compromise.

You ask the question 'can't the Republican leadership do the math.' Why can't you realize that, especially in a divided government situation that we have, you rarely can have your cake and eat it too.? ;)

I do realize that, my gripe is that all of the soundbites are the Democrats bringing up these figures and the Republicans don't argue. Most of the voters will only hear the soundbites, repeated ad nauseum and will be convinced.

I would have fought for a 1 year increase and required a balanced budget vote but not require passage.

Duran
07-31-11, 11:19 AM
We borrow $0.42 of every dollar we spend and are looking to increase it. How much closer do we need to get to insolvency?

Assuming you have a mortgage that is several times your yearly salary, start spending 142% of your salary for a year and see if you become insolvent.

So, in other words, you have no idea how close to insolvency we are, or even if we're within sight of it. Why not just raise taxes? Wouldn't that reduce your $0.42 borrowed?

You're arguing that we spend too much money, with the implication that it is not sustainable. I agree. But to think that means it's a crisis this instant, when our economy is in the toilet and 10% of job seekers are unemployed is not reality. Cutting spending drastically this instant will save money on the debt. It could also send us back into recession.

Equating personal finances with those of a sovereign is just plain silly.

Additionally, this debt ceiling thing is a farce. Congress has already authorized the expenditures. Now it doesn't want to pay them. That's brilliant! Who's not going to get paid? Government contractors? Employees? That'll do wonders for the economy! Even if we don't "default" on the debt, everything the government contracts for will become more expensive. Government gets discounted rates on many of its contracts because it always pays its bills on time. There's a risk premium that you don't have to include with the US government that you do when dealing with private entities. If the government stops paying contractors so that they can pay debt service, that discount is gone, and it's not coming back anytime soon.

Republicans, and the Tea Party in particular, don't care about the debt, and they don't care about the deficit. If they did, they wouldn't put taxes completely off the table. They want to reduce the size of government for their own reasons. That's fine, and generally I agree with them. But the game they're playing is dangerous for the country's economy, and I personally don't think they've chosen a good time to push for it.

OldDude
07-31-11, 11:45 AM
There is no reason to have a political issue like this in election season

Right. God forbid we understand a candidate's position on spending, debt, and taxes when we elect him. Egad, man that could actually lead to sensible government. We can't have that.

Jason
07-31-11, 11:48 AM
Right. God forbid we understand a candidate's position on spending, debt, and taxes when we elect him. Egad, man that could actually lead to sensible government. We can't have that.

Agreed. I'm much more concerned that they might have to rely on a teleprompter.

kvrdave
07-31-11, 12:44 PM
So, in other words, you have no idea how close to insolvency we are, or even if we're within sight of it. Why not just raise taxes? Wouldn't that reduce your $0.42 borrowed?

You're arguing that we spend too much money, with the implication that it is not sustainable. I agree. But to think that means it's a crisis this instant, [/b]when our economy is in the toilet and 10% of job seekers are unemployed is not reality. Cutting spending drastically this instant will save money on the debt. It could also send us back into recession.



Asked and answered. Impressive.

I heard a great idea for a balanced budget amendment that I would support. Anyone in congress that doesn't vote for a balanced budget is not allowed to run again. In crisis, we could certainly expect them to sacrifice their next run for the good of the country, couldn't we? -wink-

logrus9
07-31-11, 12:45 PM
So, in other words, you have no idea how close to insolvency we are, or even if we're within sight of it.

:lol: It's just as easy to say you don't know either. I believe we are headed in that direction and we seem to be moving faster.

Why not just raise taxes? Wouldn't that reduce your $0.42 borrowed?

Really, if you want to pay more taxes there has been a line on every tax form for years where you can pay extra towards the national debt. I wonder how many of the people that are so willing to pay more taxes have taken advantage of that? That being said, the idea that was put forth to close loopholes and only have 3 tiers sounded good.

You're arguing that we spend too much money, with the implication that it is not sustainable. I agree. But to think that means it's a crisis this instant, when our economy is in the toilet and 10% of job seekers are unemployed is not reality. Cutting spending drastically this instant will save money on the debt. It could also send us back into recession.

So you want to wait until it's an absolute, undeniable crisis and then rely on the politicians to work it all out and everything will be just fine?

Equating personal finances with those of a sovereign is just plain silly. Not really, it is simplified, but it makes it more understandable. Yes, an individual can't print their own money, but the more we print the less it's worth.

Additionally, this debt ceiling thing is a farce. Congress has already authorized the expenditures. Now it doesn't want to pay them. That's brilliant! Who's not going to get paid? Government contractors? Employees? That'll do wonders for the economy! Even if we don't "default" on the debt, everything the government contracts for will become more expensive. Government gets discounted rates on many of its contracts because it always pays its bills on time. There's a risk premium that you don't have to include with the US government that you do when dealing with private entities. If the government stops paying contractors so that they can pay debt service, that discount is gone, and it's not coming back anytime soon.

Republicans, and the Tea Party in particular, don't care about the debt, and they don't care about the deficit. If they did, they wouldn't put taxes completely off the table. They want to reduce the size of government for their own reasons. That's fine, and generally I agree with them. But the game they're playing is dangerous for the country's economy, and I personally don't think they've chosen a good time to push for it.
I understand your points and I agree we need to pay our bills, I don't believe that we won't. Did the Democrats worry about the economy when they pushed through Obamacare? Five years of spending before the results begin to kick in, all while in a fragile economy, without the bipartisanship they now cry about. They also keep shrilling about Bush's unfunded prescription plan, great let's kill it and let them explain to all the seniors that will ultimately lose more from that than any supposed cuts. Unfortunately these days certain groups on both sides are so entrenched nothing will happen unless their feet are held to the fire.

kvrdave
07-31-11, 12:48 PM
Duran - I think that if you are a Republican, you do this now because you won't ever have a real shot at it again. And my guess is that where Obama said he's have the deficit cut in half by the end of his first term, and given what actually happened, they don't believe he has any intention of controlling himself in the budget. They could wait and just give forth a budget that was balanced, but it wouldn't get signed and we'd be right here again with shouting of "Republicans want to steal Christmas and shut the government down."

They've gone this far, they can either see it to the end or never do anything again, and likely get voted out by those that wanted a modicum of fiscal responsibility.

classicman2
07-31-11, 01:07 PM
Polls show that the American people are in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment - poor misguided things. Won't they be favor of one 6 months from now - 18 months from now - etc.?

RoyalTea
07-31-11, 01:22 PM
Why are Democrats so against a BBA? Wouldn't that mean that in the future, the Democrats can raise taxes by however much they want because it would be constitutionally mandated to bring in as much tax revenue as it spends?

classicman2
07-31-11, 01:33 PM
The Senate just rejected a motion by Reid to bring his bill forward to the floor. The measure failed by a vote of 51 ayes & 49 nos. 60 votes were needed.

BKenn01
07-31-11, 01:35 PM
Why are Democrats so against a BBA? Wouldn't that mean that in the future, the Democrats can raise taxes by however much they want because it would be constitutionally mandated to bring in as much tax revenue as it spends?

Because they know raising taxes never is and never will be easy.

Navinabob
07-31-11, 02:04 PM
Republicans, and the Tea Party in particular, don't care about the debt, and they don't care about the deficit. If they did, they wouldn't put taxes completely off the table. They want to reduce the size of government for their own reasons. That's fine, and generally I agree with them. But the game they're playing is dangerous for the country's economy, and I personally don't think they've chosen a good time to push for it.

They don't even care about that! The ceiling has gotten raised roughly 70 times in the last 60 years. The issue the Republicans have is appeasing the vocal minority (Tea Party) that will tolerate nothing less than a 100% stonewall again Obama.

Everything else is just the political rhetoric that is used to justify their actions. This is basically going over to your ex-girlfriend's house and tossing all her ice-cream in the trash, and when she goes bat-shit insane, you calmly explain that you care about her health and can't watch her kill herself any longer with junk-food (instead of saying you just wanting to toss something she loves in the garbage).

wmansir
07-31-11, 02:39 PM
Ok, so the Tea Party doesn't have any principles, they just oppose Obama because.....???

Th0r S1mpson
07-31-11, 03:17 PM
Why are Democrats so against a BBA? Wouldn't that mean that in the future, the Democrats can raise taxes by however much they want because it would be constitutionally mandated to bring in as much tax revenue as it spends?

:lol:

Yes, I'm sure that's their first response. Guys! We'll be able to raise taxes by however much we want! This is great!

kvrdave
07-31-11, 03:18 PM
The Senate Republicans don't seem to be too much in league with the Tea Party from what I remember of the elections. Why can't the Democrats get any support from Republicans in the Senate?

DVD Polizei
07-31-11, 05:11 PM
I'm sure a wonderful and amazing deal will be struck, the US credit rating (whatever that means) will remain at AAA, and the us taxpayer will just be stuck with more taxes and less services.

Dr Mabuse
07-31-11, 07:33 PM
I see for many, if not most, it's still 'the other side's fault!!1!'.

:lol:

MoviePage
07-31-11, 08:43 PM
It's over. Crisis averted! (For now.)

logrus9
07-31-11, 08:45 PM
$1 trillion over 10 years, does that do much more than cover the interest?

Dr Mabuse
07-31-11, 09:02 PM
No, it does not cover the interest alone - and by a good margin.

3650 X 4 600 000 000 = 1.67900 × 10^13

Even if you go by the lowball average daily interest(3.6 billion a day) it's 1.31400 × 10^13

Both of those assume the interest rate stays the same as it is now on a daily basis. Which is of course a ridiculous assumption.

Th0r S1mpson
07-31-11, 09:52 PM
Thank you Obama. For everything.

XOXOXO

classicman2
07-31-11, 10:25 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/31/obama-announces-debt-reduction-deal-approved-by-senate-house-leaders/

If Fox is for it - shouldn't we all be for it? :)

What is the saying - "The devil is in the details'? I'm waiting to see what real power (if any) the bi-partisan committee has about spending & revenue. Without real, substantive power it's useless as tits on a boar hog. I'm betting it's merely a show horse like the last commission that was established to solve all of our debt problems.

PopcornTreeCt
07-31-11, 10:40 PM
Thank you Obama. For everything.

XOXOXO

:up:

General Zod
07-31-11, 11:15 PM
I don't care about any of this. I just want to know which side won? That's all that matters.

Th0r S1mpson
07-31-11, 11:19 PM
:up:

You found it... and to think, it was up Obama's butt this whole time!

kvrdave
07-31-11, 11:22 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/31/obama-announces-debt-reduction-deal-approved-by-senate-house-leaders/

If Fox is for it - shouldn't we all be for it? :)

What is the saying - "The devil is in the details'? I'm waiting to see what real power (if any) the bi-partisan committee has about spending & revenue. Without real, substantive power it's useless as tits on a boar hog. I'm betting it's merely a show horse like the last commission that was established to solve all of our debt problems.

What happened with the last commission that Obama set up to look at taking care of it? Oh yes, everyone completely ignored the entire thing. But this will be different. :lol:

I doubt it will happen, but I hope like hell our credit rating is downgraded. Seriously, what good is the word of S&P, etc. if they say that we must reduce by 4 trillion or the credit rating will go down, and we only go down by 1 trillion and they do nothing? Shit, they are no different than politicians if they do that.

starman9000
07-31-11, 11:39 PM
The local paper says they took "historic" action. Is there anything major in this bill that I'm missing, or is it just historic because it happened?

kvrdave
07-31-11, 11:50 PM
Calling it "historic" after all the build up will sell more papers. They did nearly nothing.

classicman2
08-01-11, 12:08 AM
What happened with the last commission that Obama set up to look at taking care of it? Oh yes, everyone completely ignored the entire thing. But this will be different. :lol:

I doubt it will happen, but I hope like hell our credit rating is downgraded. Seriously, what good is the word of S&P, etc. if they say that we must reduce by 4 trillion or the credit rating will go down, and we only go down by 1 trillion and they do nothing? Shit, they are no different than politicians if they do that.

It's a committee - not a commision.

You can't be serious about wanting a credit rating downgrade. "If I can't have what I want, I'll take my marbles and go home."

JasonF
08-01-11, 12:17 AM
I doubt it will happen, but I hope like hell our credit rating is downgraded.

Is it because you don't understand economics, or is it because you want the economy to crash?

Th0r S1mpson
08-01-11, 12:18 AM
Calling it "historic" after all the build up will sell more papers. They did nearly nothing.

But this time, it was a black person that did it.

Franchot
08-01-11, 12:19 AM
Calling it "historic" after all the build up will sell more papers. They did nearly nothing.

Nothing?!

We should get on our knees and praise these politicians who worked overtime and up until the deadline to make this happen. As a matter of fact we should erect statutes to each and every one of them. And also remember to reelect all of them in the next election for the service that they have provided for us in this darkest of hours. No doubt, they are slapping each other on the back and congratulating each other on a job well done. I wouldn't mind slapping them, also. On the back of their heads. HARD!

kvrdave
08-01-11, 12:31 AM
It's a committee - not a commision.

You can't be serious about wanting a credit rating downgrade. "If I can't have what I want, I'll take my marbles and go home."

Is it because you don't understand economics, or is it because you want the economy to crash?

Or I'm just silly enough to hope that somebody's word means something after all this crap. If they aren't downgraded after being told they must cut 4 billion, do you think they will actually believe they will be downgraded the next time? Do either of you think this 1 trillion is actually putting us on the path to a fiscally responsible government?

Maybe you are both that silly. I think nothing was done and nothing will change. And if our credit rating isn't downgraded, nothing will change in the short term, which will lead to even more fiscal irresponisibility in the long term, which will make this all worse, ultimately.

eXcentris
08-01-11, 12:43 AM
Is it because you don't understand economics, or is it because you want the economy to crash?

The credit rating of the US is as artificial as the value of the US dollar. If you just went with strict economic rules, the US's credit rating should have been downgraded years ago. The US gets a pass because it's the largest economy in the world, everybody buys US bonds and the US dollar is the base currency.

kvrdave
08-01-11, 12:45 AM
That is also a reason to keep it high. People have confidence in it. Probably more than they should.

JasonF
08-01-11, 01:27 AM
The credit rating of the US is as artificial as the value of the US dollar. If you just went with strict economic rules, the US's credit rating should have been downgraded years ago. The US gets a pass because it's the largest economy in the world, everybody buys US bonds and the US dollar is the base currency.

The U.S. gets a pass because, notwithstanding the nonsense of the last few weeks, a U.S. bond is still far and away the safest investment you can possibly make. As a matter of fact, U.S. Treasuries are so safe that people are willing to pay for the privilege of investing in them:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/31/opinion/073111krugman1/073111krugman1-blog480.jpg
Far from cutting borrowing, we should be borrowing every penny we can and pumping it back into the economy. Let China and Wall Street pay for our recovery.

X
08-01-11, 01:37 AM
Far from cutting borrowing, we should be borrowing every penny we can and pumping it back into the economy. Let China and Wall Street pay for our recovery.The problem is that we're borrowing that money to pay for our trade deficit, the consumable crap that people buy from overseas. Not "investments" in our economy.

Deadman31
08-01-11, 06:59 AM
from the Huffington Post

“Letter to the Peasants of America from the Top 2%,

You asked, Where did all the money and jobs go?

We took the money. We can never have enough. We shipped the jobs overseas. We started international corporations where we seek out the cheapest labor and the least stringent regulations. We invested in scams which produced nothing but debt for you.

We crashed the economy. Now Americans are just as desperate to have a low paying job as anywhere else in the world. We arranged the largest theft in history and stuck you with the bill.

We set up offshore businesses and accounts. We deposited our money in Swiss and Cayman Island banks. We bought enough politicians and judges to write the laws. We implemented free trade, free markets, low taxes for us, and no taxes for our corporations.

We used the military (you pay for) to take over any competition that can't be stolen or bought. We will destroy anyone in our way.

We bought TV networks, radio stations, newspapers, and Internet providers.
We propagandized our point of view to convince enough of you to vote against your own interest. We will go after civil rights, education, environmental laws, unions, Healthcare, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare ...any group or law that stands in the way of us controlling the economy and government. This allows us to profit as much as possible. That's our goal. That is all that matters.

Forever looking down on you,
The Top 2 %

RoyalTea
08-01-11, 07:34 AM
So, it looks like the Republicans got their way in terms of substance (spending cuts & no tax hikes). And it looks like the Democrats got their way in not making this issue come up again before the 2012 elections.

Congratulations Democrats on trading your convictions and beliefs for electability!

classicman2
08-01-11, 08:43 AM
This forum reminds me of what occurred on MSNBC & Fox this morning. MSNBC: The Tea Parties got their way. They won. The Democrats caved. Fox: Just the opposite.

The real winner: Politics, as usual, was victorious.

Th0r S1mpson
08-01-11, 09:19 AM
from the Huffington Post

“Letter to the Peasants of America from the Top 2%,

You asked, Where did all the money and jobs go?

We took the money. We can never have enough. We shipped the jobs overseas. We started international corporations where we seek out the cheapest labor and the least stringent regulations. We invested in scams which produced nothing but debt for you.

We crashed the economy. Now Americans are just as desperate to have a low paying job as anywhere else in the world. We arranged the largest theft in history and stuck you with the bill.

We set up offshore businesses and accounts. We deposited our money in Swiss and Cayman Island banks. We bought enough politicians and judges to write the laws. We implemented free trade, free markets, low taxes for us, and no taxes for our corporations.

We used the military (you pay for) to take over any competition that can't be stolen or bought. We will destroy anyone in our way.

We bought TV networks, radio stations, newspapers, and Internet providers.
We propagandized our point of view to convince enough of you to vote against your own interest. We will go after civil rights, education, environmental laws, unions, Healthcare, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare ...any group or law that stands in the way of us controlling the economy and government. This allows us to profit as much as possible. That's our goal. That is all that matters.

Forever looking down on you,
The Top 2 %

Nice of the Huffington Post owners to finally come clean on their motives and actions, but a bit arrogant to think they can speak for others.

Red Dog
08-01-11, 09:23 AM
This forum reminds me of what occurred on MSNBC & Fox this morning. MSNBC: The Tea Parties got their way. They won. The Democrats caved. Fox: Just the opposite.

The real winner: Politics, as usual, was victorious.

The real winner is the news networks with their doomsday countdown clocks and such. I'm guessing they had a nice spike in ratings in the last week or 2 over this compared to what they'd normally rate in the middle of the summer.

The whole thing was so silly and I'm still betting nothing will really get cut.

Venusian
08-01-11, 09:33 AM
So we cut $6 billion this year. Is that like 1 day of Iraq spending?

wishbone
08-01-11, 09:42 AM
The whole thing was so silly and I'm still betting nothing will really get cut.Krusty would probably be the only taker on that bet...

http://i52.tinypic.com/wrdh7a.png

"He's spinning the ball on his finger! Just take it! Take it!"

Burgundy LaRue
08-01-11, 09:42 AM
The real winner is the news networks with their doomsday countdown clocks and such. I'm guessing they had a nice spike in ratings in the last week or 2 over this compared to what they'd normally rate in the middle of the summer.

The whole thing was so silly and I'm still betting nothing will really get cut.

Pretty much. I haven't kept up with this topic that much because I knew ultimately, some two-bit deal would happen and no one would still understand what's really happening. At least I don't. It's just a bunch of posturing from everyone. *shrugs*

Sean O'Hara
08-01-11, 09:43 AM
from the Huffington Post

“Letter to the Peasants of America from the Top 2%,

You asked, Where did all the money and jobs go?

We took the money. We can never have enough. We shipped the jobs overseas. We started international corporations where we seek out the cheapest labor and the least stringent regulations. We invested in scams which produced nothing but debt for you.



I'm always amused that the American Progressive movement opposes job creation for workers outside the US. So much for the Internationale.

VinVega
08-01-11, 09:58 AM
I'm always amused that the American Progressive movement opposes job creation for workers outside the US. So much for the Internationale.
It's not really job creation if an American worker stops doing the task and a foreign worker starts do it. That's just job shifting.

classicman2
08-01-11, 10:04 AM
The real winner is the news networks with their doomsday countdown clocks and such. I'm guessing they had a nice spike in ratings in the last week or 2 over this compared to what they'd normally rate in the middle of the summer.

The whole thing was so silly and I'm still betting nothing will really get cut.

I think there will be cuts. And, I believe there will be revenue increases. Those two assumptions are made assuming what I hear about the special committee is correct. It is supposed to have real power - up or down vote required by both houses of congress on their recommendations - no super majority vote required.

General Zod
08-01-11, 10:22 AM
from the Huffington Post

“Letter to the Peasants of America from the Top 2%,

You asked, Where did all the money and jobs go?

We took the money. We can never have enough. We shipped the jobs overseas. We started international corporations where we seek out the cheapest labor and the least stringent regulations. We invested in scams which produced nothing but debt for you.

We crashed the economy. Now Americans are just as desperate to have a low paying job as anywhere else in the world. We arranged the largest theft in history and stuck you with the bill.

We set up offshore businesses and accounts. We deposited our money in Swiss and Cayman Island banks. We bought enough politicians and judges to write the laws. We implemented free trade, free markets, low taxes for us, and no taxes for our corporations.

We used the military (you pay for) to take over any competition that can't be stolen or bought. We will destroy anyone in our way.

We bought TV networks, radio stations, newspapers, and Internet providers.
We propagandized our point of view to convince enough of you to vote against your own interest. We will go after civil rights, education, environmental laws, unions, Healthcare, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare ...any group or law that stands in the way of us controlling the economy and government. This allows us to profit as much as possible. That's our goal. That is all that matters.

Forever looking down on you,
The Top 2 %
Jealousy is such a hard thing to overcome for some.

orangecrush
08-01-11, 10:36 AM
It's not really job creation if an American worker stops doing the task and a foreign worker starts do it. That's just job shifting.Americans are more efficient, so it usually isn't a 1:1 ratio.

orangecrush
08-01-11, 10:44 AM
The credit rating of the US is as artificial as the value of the US dollar. If you just went with strict economic rules, the US's credit rating should have been downgraded years ago. The US gets a pass because it's the largest economy in the world, everybody buys US bonds and the US dollar is the base currency.This. Which country (that has a large enough supply of notes) would be a safer option if we were downgraded? Does anyone really believe China's financials?

lordwow
08-01-11, 10:53 AM
This. Which country (that has a large enough supply of notes) would be a safer option if we were downgraded? Does anyone really believe China's financials?

This is the primary reason, in my opinion, the downgrade hasn't happened. We're not a great leader here, we're just better than the alternatives. Europe is a huge disaster right now, the Yen isn't really going to move into that role, and as you stated China's financials are questionable and they may be in for a hard landing the way inflation is going on over there.

Sean O'Hara
08-01-11, 11:33 AM
It's not really job creation if an American worker stops doing the task and a foreign worker starts do it. That's just job shifting.

There must be an economic incentive for shifting jobs, which will lead companies doing it to be more efficient and profitable which leads to ....

American progressives have such a provincial attitude which privileges their fellow citizens above everyone else in the world. They're no different from the America Firsters on the right. Why does some redneck in Pennsylvania deserve a job more than a poor Kenyan?

Venusian
08-01-11, 12:01 PM
Will Sen. Lee really filibuster? Are there enough votes for cloture?

classicman2
08-01-11, 12:53 PM
Will Sen. Lee really filibuster? Are there enough votes for cloture?

There 60 & some votes for cloture.

General Zod
08-01-11, 12:57 PM
Calling it "historic" after all the build up will sell more papers. They did nearly nothing.

Yep. At the end of the day all this did was exactly what Obama said it shouldn't do.. It kicks the can down the road. Doesn't solve a single thing - our debt will continue to grow and the "cuts" are laughable (nothing until 2014, bush-tax cuts expire would make up for 1/3 of it, etc).

I hope the house doesn't pass it but I'm sure the pressure will get to them.

eXcentris
08-01-11, 01:24 PM
The U.S. gets a pass because, notwithstanding the nonsense of the last few weeks, a U.S. bond is still far and away the safest investment you can possibly make. As a matter of fact, U.S. Treasuries are so safe that people are willing to pay for the privilege of investing in them:

Yes but this has little to do with the strength or the health of the US economy. If that were the case, countries would be buying Swiss, Australian or Canadian bonds. Again, the US gets a pass, so to speak, because it's the dominant reserve currency and go-to sovereign lender to the world.

kvrdave
08-01-11, 01:40 PM
Yes but this has little to do with the strength or the health of the US economy. If that were the case, countries would be buying Swiss, Australian or Canadian bonds. Again, the US gets a pass, so to speak, because it's the dominant reserve currency and go-to sovereign lender to the world.

Yeah, but when you put it like that, it sounds like a good reason.

VinVega
08-01-11, 01:42 PM
There must be an economic incentive for shifting jobs, which will lead companies doing it to be more efficient and profitable which leads to ....
more profit for the shareholders.

Groucho
08-01-11, 02:16 PM
So we cut $6 billion this year. Is that like 1 day of Iraq spending?Or one day of Obama's tour of Asia.

mosquitobite
08-01-11, 02:23 PM
This forum reminds me of what occurred on MSNBC & Fox this morning. MSNBC: The Tea Parties got their way. They won. The Democrats caved. Fox: Just the opposite.

The real winner: Politics, as usual, was victorious.

Moving this post to the media bias thread...

Th0r S1mpson
08-01-11, 03:13 PM
Romney won't vote for it (for obvious electoral reasons). He stayed very quiet until now. I assume he made sure this would pass the House before announcing he would be voting against it (just as Obama did last decade).

The House vote is going to be interesting though. I hope they are confident in those votes.

BearFan
08-01-11, 03:33 PM
I think the House vote will be pretty close ... looks like the Senate will pass it easily.

It is certainly not a great deal, but at least there will be some cuts (though I suspect way below the numbers they are throwing around). Probably as good as could be expectied given Obama and the Senate.

The Tea Partiers deserve credit for changing the debate from one of "how much can we spend" to "how much can we cut"

kvrdave
08-01-11, 03:40 PM
Perhaps, but this is also a win for Obama. With up or down votes on the recomendations, he gets out of any responsibility of actually doing something. He has done that quite well his entire political career.

BearFan
08-01-11, 03:46 PM
Perhaps, but this is also a win for Obama. With up or down votes on the recomendations, he gets out of any responsibility of actually doing something. He has done that quite well his entire political career.

Certainly, but I think that was going to be the outcome in most any scenario, his main concern was that this would not come up again until after the elections. The one spot he does lose on (at least for now) is continuing to piss of his base. It is not like they are going to vote GOP, but they may stay home, be less active, etc.

JasonF
08-01-11, 03:46 PM
Romney won't vote for it (for obvious electoral reasons).

Not to mention the obvious Article I reasons.

Red Dog
08-01-11, 03:49 PM
Does anyone really believe that the FY12 budget will be lower than what we spend in FY11?

That's the problem....these are constantly called 'cuts' by the media. A infinitesimally small reduction in planned spending is not a cut.

And look at how the debt savings is reported. It's reported as cutting the debt $2.5T over the next decade. When one hears that, one logically thinks that we're reducing our debt by $2.5T. But no, it just means we're adding to our debt by $7.5T instead of the $10T that was projected. Hooray!

Th0r S1mpson
08-01-11, 03:58 PM
A penny saved is a penny earned.

By spending 2.5T less, we save 2.5T.

We earn 2.5T.

What should we spend it on?

kvrdave
08-01-11, 04:03 PM
Reduce our planned spending. Rather than having a balanced budget amendment vote, they out to have a vote to get rid of baseline budgeting.

DJLinus
08-01-11, 04:13 PM
What should we spend it on?

http://www.beatsandbombs.com/wp-content/2008/12/tyrone-biggums.jpg

$2.5 trillion crack party!

Th0r S1mpson
08-01-11, 04:14 PM
Not leaving a lot of time if for some reason the Tea Party screws this up in the House, are we?

Must be a sure thing.

starman9000
08-01-11, 04:21 PM
A penny saved is a penny earned.

By spending 2.5T less, we save 2.5T.

We earn 2.5T.

What should we spend it on?

Let's do it email forward style:

300 million people in America
$2.5 trillion earned

$2,500,000,000,000/300 = $8,333,333,333.34 for all of us!

RoyalTea
08-01-11, 04:27 PM
Maxine Waters said this bill would be the "single worst piece of public policy to ever come out of this institution"

Th0r S1mpson
08-01-11, 04:35 PM
Maxine Waters said this bill would be the "single worst piece of public policy to ever come out of this institution"

Maybe she just has a really good impression of all the other public policies.

Lemdog
08-01-11, 04:35 PM
Maxine Waters said this bill would be the "single worst piece of public policy to ever come out of this institution"

Tea Party Extremist imo. ;)

VinVega
08-01-11, 04:40 PM
A penny saved is a penny earned.

By spending 2.5T less, we save 2.5T.

We earn 2.5T.

What should we spend it on?
rotfl

classicman2
08-01-11, 04:45 PM
Does anyone really believe that the FY12 budget will be lower than what we spend in FY11?

That's the problem....these are constantly called 'cuts' by the media. A infinitesimally small reduction in planned spending is not a cut.

And look at how the debt savings is reported. It's reported as cutting the debt $2.5T over the next decade. When one hears that, one logically thinks that we're reducing our debt by $2.5T. But no, it just means we're adding to our debt by $7.5T instead of the $10T that was projected. Hooray!

I'll settle for the House & Senate doing their business that they are required to do - submit a budget by 10/1/11 for FY 2012.

classicman2
08-01-11, 04:47 PM
Not leaving a lot of time if for some reason the Tea Party screws this up in the House, are we?

Must be a sure thing.

The Tea Party can't screw it up. There are enough Democrats who will vote for bill to insure passage.

Sean O'Hara
08-01-11, 04:55 PM
Romney won't vote for it (for obvious electoral reasons). He stayed very quiet until now. I assume he made sure this would pass the House before announcing he would be voting against it (just as Obama did last decade).

Whiskey tango foxtrot, over?

lordwow
08-01-11, 04:56 PM
It's going to be all the moderate Republicans and Democrats voting for it, and the Tea Party and Progressives voting against it. Regardless, it should pass easily.

classicman2
08-01-11, 04:59 PM
Prediction: Some members of the Tea Party will take the coward's way out as they did on the passage of the Boehner bill. They'll wait until the 218 number for passage is reached, and then they will cast their no vote.

Th0r S1mpson
08-01-11, 05:04 PM
Whiskey tango foxtrot, over?

Which part are you confused about? If it's the Obama part, he protested raising the debt ceiling under Bush, declaring it was a sign of poor leadership. Discussed a few pages back.

RoyalTea
08-01-11, 05:18 PM
Prediction: Some members of the Tea Party will take the coward's way out as they did on the passage of the Boehner bill. They'll wait until the 218 number for passage is reached, and then they will cast their no vote.

Is the CBC taking the coward's way out, too?

rw2516
08-01-11, 06:05 PM
FOR SALE As is. Used class M planet. Sol System. Milky Way Galaxy. One(1) moon(barren). Furnished. Partially industrialized w/infrastructure. Internet capable. Slave work force of @3 billion. Includes amusement parks, casinos, porn and indigenous narcotics. And BACON. Contact 202-456-1414. NO REFUNDS

JasonF
08-01-11, 06:18 PM
Which part are you confused about?

Probably the part where you think Mitt Romney gets a vote in the House.

Th0r S1mpson
08-01-11, 06:23 PM
Shut it.

Sean O'Hara
08-01-11, 06:23 PM
Which part are you confused about? If it's the Obama part, he protested raising the debt ceiling under Bush, declaring it was a sign of poor leadership. Discussed a few pages back.

I'm confused about why you think Romney gets a vote in the Senate.

Th0r S1mpson
08-01-11, 06:23 PM
You too.

eXcentris
08-01-11, 06:43 PM
They are about to vote! I'm excited! :banana:

But then I'm afraid that after the commercials, the credits will roll and I'll have to wait for next season to find out what happens. Friggin cliffhangers... :sad:

lordwow
08-01-11, 06:55 PM
House is voting.

starman9000
08-01-11, 07:02 PM
The Ds and Rs are fighting tooth and nail for the most Nay votes and for completely different reasons.

starman9000
08-01-11, 07:04 PM
Did I hear a Vuvuzula?

Th0r S1mpson
08-01-11, 07:06 PM
It seems this was a much harder sell to the Dems than the Republicans.

Obama is such a strong leader.

lordwow
08-01-11, 07:06 PM
Gabby Giffords just showed up to vote.

starman9000
08-01-11, 07:07 PM
Wow, Giffords should announce she's running now too.

Th0r S1mpson
08-01-11, 07:11 PM
Gabby Giffords just showed up to vote.

Very cool. :up:

Wonderful moment, actually.

kvrdave
08-01-11, 07:16 PM
What did she do?

lordwow
08-01-11, 07:18 PM
She voted aye.

kvrdave
08-01-11, 07:19 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/rep-gabrielle-giffords-appears-on-house-floor-for-first-time-since-her-shooting/2011/08/01/gIQAaXJGoI_story.html

AP () — — Rep. Gabrielle Giffords appears on House floor for first time since her shooting

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

:lol: Great story. No one rewrite or redistribute that.

Th0r S1mpson
08-01-11, 07:32 PM
Just to be clear, Giffords made it to vote, after all she's been through, and Romney didn't even bother to show up.

kvrdave
08-01-11, 07:47 PM
:lol:

crazyronin
08-01-11, 08:09 PM
Whiskey tango foxtrot, over?


Let it go,Sean, It's ThorSimpsontown

focker
08-01-11, 08:33 PM
This forum reminds me of what occurred on MSNBC & Fox this morning. MSNBC: The Tea Parties got their way. They won. The Democrats caved. Fox: Just the opposite.

The real winner: Politics, as usual, was victorious.

This is spot on. I was shocked to see the following on cnn.com:


Debt deal: Politicians win, middle class loses
By Daniel Mitchell, Special to CNN
August 1, 2011 6:01 p.m. EDT

(CNN) -- America is on a path to becoming a Greek-style welfare state. Thanks to the Bush-Obama spending binge, the burden of federal spending has climbed to about 25% of national economic output, up from only 18.2% of GDP when Bill Clinton left office.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Because of a combination of demographic forces and poorly designed entitlement programs, federal spending could consume as much as 50% of economic output by the time the baby boom generation is fully retired.

One symptom of all this excessive spending is that Washington is awash in red ink. We're now in our third consecutive year of trillion-dollar deficits and the politicians just had to increase the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit.

But it wasn't easy getting there. Just as happened with the "government shutdown" debate in March, Republicans and Democrats had fierce disagreements over the right approach. They bickered until the last minute and then finally agreed to more than $900 billion of supposed spending cuts and the creation of a "supercommittee" charged with proposing another $1.5 trillion of deficit reduction.

So which side won this fight? Republicans are bragging that they got spending cuts today, a promise of spending cuts in the future, and no tax increases. Democrats, meanwhile, are chortling that they took the debt issue off the table until after the 2012 elections, protected their favorite programs and created a supercommittee that will seduce the GOP into a tax increase.

Ignore that bragging. The easy answer is that politicians of both parties were the victors and taxpayers are the ones left in the cold.

In other words, the budget deal was a victory for the political establishment.

Here's why Republicans are winners. They get to tell their tea party activists that they forced Obama to cut spending. It doesn't matter that federal spending will actually be higher every year and that the cuts were based on Washington math (a spending increase becomes a spending cut if outlays don't climb as fast as some artificial benchmark).

They also get to tell their anti-tax activists that they held the line. Perhaps most important, the supercommittee must use the "current law" baseline, which assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire at the end of 2012. But why are GOPers happy about this, considering they want those tax cuts extended? For the simple reason that Democrats on the supercommittee therefore can't use repeal of the "Bush tax cuts for the rich" as a revenue raiser.

This means that most Republican incumbents are well-positioned to win re-election.

Here's why Democrats are winners. Thanks to the magic of government math, despite all the talk of budget cuts, discretionary spending will be more than $100 billion higher in 2021 than it is this year. And since defense spending in Iraq and Afghanistan presumably is winding down, this means even more money will be available for domestic programs.

In addition to telling the pro-spending lobbies that the gravy train is still on the tracks, they also get to tell the class-warfare crowd that there's an improved likelihood of higher taxes for corporate jet owners and other "rich" people. Notwithstanding GOP assertions, nothing in the agreement precludes the supercommittee from meeting its $1.5 trillion target with tax revenue. The 2001 and 2003 tax legislation is not an option, but everything else is on the table.

This means that most Democratic incumbents are well-positioned to win re-election.

It's worth pointing out that this doesn't mean all Republicans and all Democrats are happy about the deal. The hard-core conservatives are upset that the deal is mostly smoke and mirrors on the spending side and that there may be a tax-increase trap on the revenue side.

The hard-core liberals, by contrast, are angry that there are any spending cuts, even ones based on Washington math. Moreover, they want higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers today, not a supercommittee that may or may not follow through on soak-the-rich policies in the future.

One group of people, however, unambiguously got the short end of the stick in this budget deal. Ordinary Americans are caught in the middle. They're not poor enough to benefit from the federal government's plethora of income-redistribution programs. But they're not rich enough to have the clever lobbyists and insider connections needed to benefit from the high-dollar handouts like ethanol subsidies and bank bailouts.

Instead, middle-class Americans play by the rules, pay ever-higher taxes, and struggle to make ends meet while the establishment of both parties engages in posturing as America slowly drifts toward a Greek-style fiscal meltdown.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/01/mitchell.debt.deal/

All anyone on either side seems to care about is demonizing the opposing party and setting themselves up for reelection. All of these 'cuts' are completely bogus.

Here's a truly radical idea: If we want to keep the debt from spiraling out of control, the federal government should spend less next year than it does this year. None of the proposed plans could achieve this modest goal and the one now set to pass doesn't come close.

DVD Polizei
08-01-11, 08:44 PM
I need a Cartoonist Pro Bono:

Dems and Reps standing over an endless abyss of earmarks.

Dems pointing to Americans in the background: "Whew! We did it, guys! Our People are saved!"

Reps pointing to Americans in the background: "Yeah, we sure did! God Bless Our Citizens!"

A long pause...

Dems & Reps: "Just who the fuck are citizens? We didn't give something away to people other than ourselves, did we?"

classicman2
08-01-11, 09:24 PM
The Senate is expected to vote on the compromise at noon tomorrow.

Th0r S1mpson
08-02-11, 12:01 AM
Maxine Waters said this bill would be the "single worst piece of public policy to ever come out of this institution"

Oh, Maxine... you thought you had this won. But NO!


Washington (CNN) – It's not likely to be found on any Washington-area menus soon. Congressional Black Caucus chair Emanuel Cleaver blasted the final debt deal brokered between congressional leadership and President Obama on Twitter as a "Satan sandwich" Monday.

"This deal is a sugar-coated Satan sandwich," he said. "If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see."

The four-term Missouri Democrat continued his Twitter diatribe against the deal to raise the amount of money the nation can borrow and make a down payment on the federal deficit saying, "This debt deal is antithetical to everything the great religions of the world teach, which is take care of the poor, aged, vulnerable."

A Satan sandwich is not a tasty deal, Cleaver affirmed during an interview on CNN's "The Situation Room." And it's worse when it's been sprinkled with Potomac River water.

The deal provides for a bi-partisan congressional committee tasked with making long-term fiscal reforms that may include spending cuts as well as tax revenues. If the committee does not come to an agreement by the end of the year, a congressional vote on adding a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution will take place. If the amendment is not passed, massive cuts to defense spending and entitlement programs will be made, hitting key programs for both Democrats and Republicans.

Cleaver was especially irked by this provision, tweeting, "A special 'super Congress' to provide recs on cuts but not increases? Who said what we need in Washington is another committee?"

He's so irked that leading up to the House vote Cleaver was undecided about which way he'd vote and unclear about the road forward in Congress.

"I think we've got to figure out how we continue to govern in an atmosphere like we have here where everybody is nasty to each other and there's no compromise," he said. "We're here in Washington having fact-free debates."

Frustrated with what he views as a lack of any Democratic wins in the deal, Cleaver continued, "Republicans got everything they wanted out of this deal. They got everything they wanted except for the Democratic donkey."

The Satan sandwich may be absent from menus for now, but the not-so-tasty treat lives–on Twitter. It is now today's version of the Bronx Zoo snake with its own Twitter handle, @SatanSandwich, and it's own tweets: "Remember. If you don't pass me, people get hurt. If you do pass me, people get hurt. Hey... #WinWin."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/01/a-lucifer-panini/

General Zod
08-02-11, 12:31 AM
When I think of the single worst of something.. I think Maxine Waters.

eXcentris
08-02-11, 12:42 AM
I need a Cartoonist Pro Bono



Shoudn't be too hard to find, cartoonists generally like U2.

MoviePage
08-02-11, 12:51 AM
Shoudn't be too hard to find, cartoonists generally like U2.

:rimshot:

I tried a Satan Sandwich once. I couldn't resist the temptation, though it ended up being a bit too spicy.

Tracer Bullet
08-02-11, 08:35 AM
I need a Cartoonist Pro Bono:

Dems and Reps standing over an endless abyss of earmarks.

Dems pointing to Americans in the background: "Whew! We did it, guys! Our People are saved!"

Reps pointing to Americans in the background: "Yeah, we sure did! God Bless Our Citizens!"

A long pause...

Dems & Reps: "Just who the fuck are citizens? We didn't give something away to people other than ourselves, did we?"

No, you need an editor. And some talent. That would help too.

kvrdave
08-02-11, 09:02 AM
No, you need an editor. And some talent. That would help too.

<img src=http://www.catproblemsresolved.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/hissing-cat-2.jpg>

kvrdave
08-02-11, 09:11 AM
I have little hope of this, but I truly hope that the Big Budget Comittee actually looks at all the tax subsidies and loopholes and levels the playing field of taxes rather than thinking a simple raise of tax rates will do anything without fixing the actual tax structure.

classicman2
08-02-11, 10:38 AM
I heard Sen. Tom Coburn say this morning when asked he would be on the select committee - he almost laughed - and said of course not. Obviously he believes the committee is a sham.

btw: He's going to vote against the bill.

Red Dog
08-02-11, 11:09 AM
A sham? Why on earth would he think that? ;)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/us/politics/02panel.html?_r=1&ref=politics

In the last seven decades, Washington has assembled more than a dozen blue-ribbon panels to grapple with fiscal problems. These include the Hoover Commission in 1947-49, the Grace Commission in 1982-84 and the Simpson-Bowles commission, created by President Obama last year.

The panels were often devised as a way to give political cover to policy makers to make unpopular changes. But in most cases, Congress ignored the proposals or deferred action.

“Most of these deficit commissions have ended up exactly the way Simpson-Bowles did: with lots of talk, lots of congratulations and no actual changes,” said Bruce Bartlett, who was an economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan and the first President George Bush.

The Senate historian, Donald A. Ritchie, said, “There are not many exact parallels” to the new committee. Congress, Mr. Ritchie said, has had a number of joint committees, but most lacked the power to write and report legislation. One exception was the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, from 1946 to 1977.

kvrdave
08-02-11, 11:17 AM
Isn't it written such that if they don't take the commissions recommendations by a vote, there are automatic alternative cuts, including 10% to defense and 5% to other things?

starman9000
08-02-11, 11:48 AM
I think there's a balance budget amendment vote first, then the automatic cuts.

classicman2
08-02-11, 12:34 PM
The Senate has passed the debt ceiling bill. The vote is still going on, but the 60 votes required for passage has been exceeded.

Update: Final vote 76-24.

MoviePage
08-02-11, 01:36 PM
So now that the economy is fine again, what on earth will we worry about?

Navinabob
08-02-11, 01:43 PM
So now that the economy is fine again, what on earth will we worry about?

Turkey... deadly, delicious, turkey.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cdc-warns-of-ground-turkey-salmonella-outbreak-2011-08-02?link=MW_latest_news

Th0r S1mpson
08-02-11, 02:24 PM
Obama wasted no time and signed it into law.

Was it posted online for 5 days?

classicman2
08-02-11, 02:45 PM
Obama wasted no time and signed it into law.

Was it posted online for 5 days?

No, but it was not regular order.

Let's not attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill. ;)

Th0r S1mpson
08-02-11, 02:48 PM
<img src="http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images/IMG_9353_2.JPG">

Red Dog
08-02-11, 02:56 PM
So now that the economy is fine again, what on earth will we worry about?

Rest assured, there will be another Weinergate around the corner for everyone to obsess over.

RoyalTea
08-02-11, 03:03 PM
So now that the economy is fine again, what on earth will we worry about?

^DJIA dropped below 12000

wendersfan
08-02-11, 03:16 PM
^DJIA dropped below 12000

It was below 9000 when Obama took office.

:shrug:

JasonF
08-02-11, 03:26 PM
^DJIA dropped below 12000

Probably because the final bill didn't include enough austerity. ;)

kvrdave
08-02-11, 03:30 PM
Probably because the final bill didn't include enough austerity. ;)

Hell, did it include any? We are going to not spend as much as we were going to spend. We're not actually cutting spending.

Th0r S1mpson
08-02-11, 03:34 PM
Probably because the final bill didn't include enough austerity. ;)

You mean the hopeful audacity was not enough?

RoyalTea
08-02-11, 04:19 PM
Hell, did it include any? We are going to not spend as much as we were going to spend. We're not actually cutting spending.Listening to the liberals in the House, I was under the impression that we'd pay for the debt ceiling rise by raiding the checking accounts of disabled people.

Red Dog
08-02-11, 04:22 PM
Listening to the liberals in the House, I was under the impression that we'd pay for the debt ceiling rise by raiding the checking accounts of disabled people.

No worries. As long as we raid less than what we initially say we are raiding, we can claim we're actually raiding less money, or better yet, giving them money.

grundle
08-02-11, 05:53 PM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp

Obama on the Debt Limit

Claim: In 2006, Barack Obama spoke out against raising the debt limit.

TRUE

The full text of his remarks in the Senate on 16 March 2006 are:

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America's debt problem.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion'' with a "T.'' That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like
bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans — a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.

But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending. As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 billion in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.

Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.

Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here.'' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.

http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/cartoon-stepped-in-500.jpg

X
08-02-11, 05:59 PM
It was below 9000 when Obama took office.

:shrug:Any guesses what it'll be when he leaves office in one and a half years?

daniel18
08-02-11, 06:24 PM
Probably lower than it's peak of 14500.

Th0r S1mpson
08-02-11, 06:39 PM
Any guesses what it'll be when he leaves office in one and a half years?

I assume you mean when he leaves the office for a few hours to personally put a bullet in Kim Jong Il's brain on his way to heal the wounds between China and Tibet and form a lasting peace between all peoples of Pakistan and India?

Nesbit
08-02-11, 07:44 PM
I assume you mean when he leaves the office for a few hours to personally put a bullet in Kim Jong Il's brain on his way to heal the wounds between China and Tibet and form a lasting peace between all peoples of Pakistan and India?

K I'm back in. Hope and Change! Hope and Change! :banana:

DVD Polizei
08-02-11, 10:55 PM
I predict more revised earnings and job claims by this Friday. The DJIA will cruise back to mythical values once again. :up:

I think the Ostrich should be the America's national bird. :up:

Lemdog
08-02-11, 11:26 PM
I assume you mean when he leaves the office for a few hours to personally put a bullet in Kim Jong Il's brain on his way to heal the wounds between China and Tibet and form a lasting peace between all peoples of Pakistan and India?

Now you are talking.

Troy Stiffler
08-02-11, 11:27 PM
I assume you mean when he leaves the office for a few hours to personally put a bullet in Kim Jong Il's brain on his way to heal the wounds between China and Tibet and form a lasting peace between all peoples of Pakistan and India?

Maybe not. But I don't want to live in a world that is so soul-crushingly cynical to believe that these things will never happen. I'm young. Maybe when I grow up with coutless disappointments, missed/ignored opportunities, dead relatives and crushed dreams, I'll put one of those "you can keep the change" stickers on my car.

Troy Stiffler
08-02-11, 11:29 PM
http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/cartoon-stepped-in-500.jpg

Hmmm. The hole is larger, yet appears just as deep. I wonder if that's what the illustrator intended?

kvrdave
08-02-11, 11:30 PM
Maybe not. But I don't want to live in a world that is so soul-crushingly cynical to believe that these things will never happen. I'm young. Maybe when I grow up with coutless disappointments, missed/ignored opportunities, dead relatives and crushed dreams, I'll put one of those "you can keep the change" stickers on my car.

I grew up during the first gulf war, Newt Gingrich taking control of Congress after Clinton tried to get national healthcare passed, etc. You'll find that once you get older, nothing has really changed, it just pisses you off more.

Psi
08-02-11, 11:54 PM
I don't see anyone changing either. Most of the posters here say the same thing post after post.

O=&=O
08-03-11, 12:51 AM
Here is a view from the other side of the pond that was psoted on DrudgeReport today.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,777961,00.html

Patriotism is possibly the only thing that many uncertain American citizens have left. The crisis has not only cost them their jobs; it has also threatened their country's hegemony. And a solution for none of these problems seems apparent.

The QE's of the FED only profited Wall Street speculators, adding to this a couple of useless wars and a hint of Obama hatred and you get the good ingredients for a stock market crash.

Europe is not doing better. The main issue in Europe is the lack of an elected federal government.

Th0r S1mpson
08-03-11, 12:58 AM
...

How on earth are people supposed to address you with a name like that? :confused:

Do you have a preference?

RoyalTea
08-03-11, 06:29 AM
we've been downgraded again by China's leading ratings agency.

classicman2
08-03-11, 08:50 AM
It seems that we have a number of posters who don't seem to love their country. :)

Reality - it's been the same as long as I can remember, and that's quite a long time.

What will change a little (you can decide which the change would be good or bad) if the Republicans gain control of the 2 Houses and the WH in 11/2012. The Tea Party, which IMO was the winner in the debt ceiling debate, will have even more influence. They're absolutely opposed to any revenue enhancements. They really believe that the only problem is government spending. I believe that's wrong, but ........

RoyalTea
08-03-11, 09:25 AM
"Tea Party? "

I believe the correct nomenclature is now "terrorists," which shows that the "we need to have more civil political discourse" was complete bullshit.

Lemdog
08-03-11, 09:50 AM
"Tea Party? "

I believe the correct nomenclature is now "terrorists," which shows that the "we need to have more civil political discourse" was complete bullshit.
You just don't understand this "New Era of Civility".

orangecrush
08-03-11, 10:04 AM
we've been downgraded again by China's leading ratings agency.Which will amount to all of nothing.

classicman2
08-03-11, 10:32 AM
I can remember when old folks voted for Democrats - SS, Medicare, etc.

Now they generally vote for Republicans. I don't know why.

If the Republicans gain control of both houses & the presidency and cut vital entitlement programs, just maybe, the old folks will return to voting in their best interest - Democratic.

VinVega
08-03-11, 10:42 AM
What will change a little (you can decide which the change would be good or bad) if the Republicans gain control of the 2 Houses and the WH in 11/2012. The Tea Party, which IMO was the winner in the debt ceiling debate, will have even more influence.
I think the Tea Party will actually lose influence. If the Repubs control everything they will send in another round of tax cuts and increase spending just like they did under Bush. They'll cut the social programs, but defense will have a field day. The only reason Republicans have regained the mantle of fiscal responsibility is because there's a Democrat in the White House. They spent like drunken sailors under Bush and they will do it again.

Red Dog
08-03-11, 10:47 AM
I can remember when old folks voted for Democrats - SS, Medicare, etc.

Now they generally vote for Republicans. I don't know why.


Because 1) they have the most money by age group and 2) social issues.

Red Dog
08-03-11, 10:49 AM
I think the Tea Party will actually lose influence. If the Repubs control everything they will send in another round of tax cuts and increase spending just like they did under Bush. They'll cut the social programs, but defense will have a field day. The only reason Republicans have regained the mantle of fiscal responsibility is because there's a Democrat in the White House. They spent like drunken sailors under Bush and they will do it again.

One thing is clear and I've said it time and time again -- gov't spending only gets slowed (not cut) when you have split government.

kvrdave
08-03-11, 10:53 AM
I can remember when old folks voted for Democrats - SS, Medicare, etc.

Now they generally vote for Republicans. I don't know why.

If the Republicans gain control of both houses & the presidency and cut vital entitlement programs, just maybe, the old folks will return to voting in their best interest - Democratic.

I would guess that being the wealthiest demographic has something to do with it. But I'll bet the bigger issue is that most older people look at our energy policies, the stranglehold that the EPA, etc. put on our ability to do anything, and are tired of seeing the inaction of the Democrats. I know you are tired of that, but it just hasn't been enough to pull you out of the dark yet. -wink-

classicman2
08-03-11, 11:04 AM
I think the Tea Party will actually lose influence. If the Repubs control everything they will send in another round of tax cuts and increase spending just like they did under Bush. They'll cut the social programs, but defense will have a field day. The only reason Republicans have regained the mantle of fiscal responsibility is because there's a Democrat in the White House. They spent like drunken sailors under Bush and they will do it again.

The Tea Party didn't have the numbers or power when GWB was president. They are a force in American politics now. You & Red Dog need to get use
to it.

In your case - a different reason (political philosophy) than in Red Dog's case. ;)

classicman2
08-03-11, 11:07 AM
Because 1) they have the most money by age group and 2) social issues.

If the Repubs start messing around with Medicare & Medicaid (to a lesser extent) you'll see a change come about.

VinVega
08-03-11, 11:46 AM
The Tea Party didn't have the numbers or power when GWB was president. They are a force in American politics now. You & Red Dog need to get use
to it.

In your case - a different reason (political philosophy) than in Red Dog's case. ;)
The Tea Party are the same 30% who supported Bush come hell or high water when the rest of the country had had enough of him. They are the same people in my opinion. It's just the hard core Republicans. They can now voice their displeasure more easily because Obama is President. They will be put in line if the Repubs get control of everything. It's easy for them to influence Congressmen, they are perpetually running for reelection. Senators and the President only have to deal with them every 4 or 6 years.

Sean O'Hara
08-03-11, 11:55 AM
The Tea Party are the same 30% who supported Bush come hell or high water when the rest of the country had had enough of him. They are the same people in my opinion.

But that's a matter of fact, not opinion. Do you have data to back up that claim?

classicman2
08-03-11, 12:00 PM
The Tea Party are the same 30% who supported Bush come hell or high water when the rest of the country had had enough of him. They are the same people in my opinion. It's just the hard core Republicans. They can now voice their displeasure more easily because Obama is President. They will be put in line if the Repubs get control of everything. It's easy for them to influence Congressmen, they are perpetually running for reelection. Senators and the President only have to deal with them every 4 or 6 years.

You don't believe they influenced congressman & the president on this subject this time?

A bunch of the Tea Party members are not hard core Republicans. They simply chose the party name because it's difficult to get elected if you don't run as a Republican. Do you consider libertarians hard core Republicans? Is Senator Ran Paul or his daddy hard core Republicans?

BearFan
08-03-11, 12:21 PM
Because 1) they have the most money by age group and 2) social issues.

3) It is a different set of old folks, the New Deal depression era Dems are dwindling.

Red Dog
08-03-11, 12:32 PM
You don't believe they influenced congressman & the president on this subject this time?

A bunch of the Tea Party members are not hard core Republicans. They simply chose the party name because it's difficult to get elected if you don't run as a Republican. Do you consider libertarians hard core Republicans? Is Senator Ron Paul or his daddy hard core Republicans?

Like I said countless times, demonstrate to me how any of these elected tea partiers are libertarians. They are all social conservatives. They just happen to also be hard core fiscal conservatives which were hard to find in Washington before. These are basically Coburn types. They easily fit within the GOP framework. And like clockwork, they get louder when the other side has the power (just like liberals were louder when Bush was running things, even though Obama is just as bad if not worse on a myriad of issues).

classicman2
08-03-11, 12:50 PM
What is a social conservative? Does opposing abortion make one a social conservative?

Red Dog
08-03-11, 12:52 PM
No, but a social conservative most likely opposes abortion rights.

kvrdave
08-03-11, 12:55 PM
The Tea Party are the same 30% who supported Bush come hell or high water when the rest of the country had had enough of him. They are the same people in my opinion.

I think you are blinded by bias and a poor memory on this one. Are the same people in the Tea Party people that would have supported the prescription medicare program Bush set up? I have no idea how one could make that claim, yet that would certainly be "hell or high water." Would they have supported TARP? Bush did and Obama did, but they have been completely against it.

I think it is more likely that you have taken a group that seems to have set a priority on fiscal matters (to the point that they got rid of some incumbent Republicans) and ascribed to them a number of characteristics they don't have because it fits better with them being some fringe group.

But to think of them as merely hard core Bush supporters would seem very off base considering Bush got a lot of crap over his own fiscal policies.

kvrdave
08-03-11, 12:56 PM
No, but a social conservative most likely opposes abortion rights.

So a social liberal likely opposes human rights? -confused-



-wink-

VinVega
08-03-11, 01:19 PM
I think you are blinded by bias and a poor memory on this one. Are the same people in the Tea Party people that would have supported the prescription medicare program Bush set up? I have no idea how one could make that claim, yet that would certainly be "hell or high water." Would they have supported TARP? Bush did and Obama did, but they have been completely against it.

I think it is more likely that you have taken a group that seems to have set a priority on fiscal matters (to the point that they got rid of some incumbent Republicans) and ascribed to them a number of characteristics they don't have because it fits better with them being some fringe group.

But to think of them as merely hard core Bush supporters would seem very off base considering Bush got a lot of crap over his own fiscal policies.
Where were the Tea Partiers when Republicans controlled everything? I didn't see marches on Washington protesting Bush. They popped up right after the 2008 election and they will disappear just as soon as the Republicans control everything again. What would their options be anyway? Kick out Republicans for Democrats? Again the kicking out Congressmen is possible since incumbents win everything now anyway and only the primaries matter anymore, but Senators and the President are not going to kowtow to them. They will spend what they like and the Tea Party will have little influence over them. If the party bosses want it, they won't get much media coverage either. Right wing media can turn that switch off as well.

Artman
08-03-11, 01:23 PM
I agree with Dog and Vega...tea party are to the right of establishment repubs. Up until now I hadn't given them much credit for anything, except losing some Republican elections. I'm surprised the Dems let them set the tone as much as they did.

classicman2
08-03-11, 01:28 PM
I didn't say that the Tea Party folks are not to the right of establishment Republicans.

The Tea Party that cost the Repubs elections - well they more than made up with elections they won for the Repubs - example - the Blue Dog Democrats were decimated by the Tea Party people .

classicman2
08-03-11, 01:30 PM
VinVega when was the last time the Repubs controlled everything?

Sean O'Hara
08-03-11, 01:36 PM
I agree with Dog and Vega...tea party are to the right of establishment repubs. Up until now I hadn't given them much credit for anything, except losing some Republican elections. I'm surprised the Dems let them set the tone as much as they did.

You're wrong. Tea Partiers are centrists. They're also a perfect example of why centrists suck.

VinVega
08-03-11, 01:39 PM
VinVega when was the last time the Repubs controlled everything?
I believe their vice grip on the planet ended with the 2006 mid term elections when the first female Speaker of the House was named. :p

classicman2
08-03-11, 01:41 PM
I don't recall anyone saying the Tea Party folks are centrists.

After the 2010 elections the Democrats in the congress 'became' more liberal; and, the Republicans in the congress 'became' more conservative.

Th0r S1mpson
08-03-11, 01:43 PM
It was Sean O'Hara.

kvrdave
08-03-11, 01:57 PM
Where were the Tea Partiers when Republicans controlled everything? I didn't see marches on Washington protesting Bush. They popped up right after the 2008 election and they will disappear just as soon as the Republicans control everything again. What would their options be anyway? Kick out Republicans for Democrats? Again the kicking out Congressmen is possible since incumbents win everything now anyway and only the primaries matter anymore, but Senators and the President are not going to kowtow to them. They will spend what they like and the Tea Party will have little influence over them. If the party bosses want it, they won't get much media coverage either. Right wing media can turn that switch off as well.

They "formed" in 2009 and you are asking where they were when Bush was president? Uhhhh, they were unformed? Do you not think that Bush and his prescription entitlement and his endorsement of TARP had nothing to do with their forming?

According to The Hill last year, 40% of the Tea Party are Democrats and Independents ( http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie ). 57% Republican, 28 % Independent, and 13% Democrat. Is that the make up of the "Hell or High Water Supporters of Bush?"

They did endorse a Democrat from Idaho. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/15/walt-minnick-tea-party-en_n_538837.html Is that also something a group of just Republican supporting, Bush loving folks do? I think that at least gives some credence to the idea that they would support a Democrat over a Republican if they believed they were able to get the financials in order. Do you disagree?

They worked to get rid of Republican Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/TeaPartyChallenges/2011/02/17/id/386401

Again, I think you have made the Tea Party something it hasn't ever claimed to be. Perhaps more influenced by what you've heard said about them than what they have said about themselves. They are an excellent group to demonize.

Red Dog
08-03-11, 02:30 PM
WTF is a tea party endorsement? Is there a single figure or representative (even an organization would suffice) that speaks for the tea party? I've never heard of the "Tea Party Express," the group that supposedly endorsed this one Democrat.

Th0r S1mpson
08-03-11, 02:32 PM
I've never heard of the "Tea Party Express,"

I'd invite you out from under your rock, but the weather sucks out here.

mosquitobite
08-03-11, 02:56 PM
Where were the Tea Partiers when Republicans controlled everything? I didn't see marches on Washington protesting Bush. They popped up right after the 2008 election and they will disappear just as soon as the Republicans control everything again. What would their options be anyway? Kick out Republicans for Democrats? Again the kicking out Congressmen is possible since incumbents win everything now anyway and only the primaries matter anymore, but Senators and the President are not going to kowtow to them. They will spend what they like and the Tea Party will have little influence over them. If the party bosses want it, they won't get much media coverage either. Right wing media can turn that switch off as well.

Unfortunately the tea partiers were asleep when Republicans controlled everything. But they popped up DURING the 2008 election and the movement started with Ron Paul followers (a tea party money bomb is where the group got the name).

Ron Paul argues for taking over the Republican party from the inside out. That's where the tea party came in.

Now, have mainstream Republicans jumped on the bandwagon and diluted it? Yep. Have mainstream R politicians called themselves tea partiers when they are NOT (*cough* Bachmann, Palin) YES. They are opportunistics who show their true colors when crap like the Patriot Act and the Budget Deal come to a vote. Many of them will be sent packing again this year. If they're in an area where they appealed to tea partiers to get elected and then didn't hold to their campaign promises, they'll be primaried out. Mark my words.

kvrdave
08-03-11, 03:04 PM
WTF is a tea party endorsement? Is there a single figure or representative (even an organization would suffice) that speaks for the tea party? I've never heard of the "Tea Party Express," the group that supposedly endorsed this one Democrat.

Perhaps you are making my point. If there is no single figure or representative, isn't is crap to say that they are just the 30% who love Bush no matter what he does?

Red Dog
08-03-11, 03:18 PM
I don't think one thing impacts the other. But I don't agree with Vin's assessment anyhow. I certainly don't think these are the people who loved Bush. They may have supported him, but that was simply as a lesser-of-2-evils deal. The people who loved Bush no matter what were your more neo-con types. I think you have a wide-range of views of foreign policy among the self-identified tea partiers.

wendersfan
08-03-11, 03:27 PM
According to The Hill last year, 40% of the Tea Party are Democrats and Independents ( http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie ). 57% Republican, 28 % Independent, and 13% Democrat. Is that the make up of the "Hell or High Water Supporters of Bush?"Actually, according to the Gallup Poll cited in that article, Democrats and Independents make up about 13% of Tea Party supporters. The problem with The Hill's interpretation is that they fail to take into account that Independents who admit to being "leaners", i.e., having a preference to one party or the other, are in fact, partisans. So, when one reexamines the crosstabs, you discover that more than 86% of Tea Party support comes from Republicans.

kvrdave
08-03-11, 03:30 PM
Well that makes more sense since they are less likely to hate America.

wendersfan
08-03-11, 03:39 PM
Well that makes more sense since they are less likely to hate America.
Exactly.

Navinabob
08-03-11, 03:44 PM
They "formed" in 2009 and you are asking where they were when Bush was president? Uhhhh, they were unformed? Do you not think that Bush and his prescription entitlement and his endorsement of TARP had nothing to do with their forming?

According to The Hill last year, 40% of the Tea Party are Democrats and Independents ( http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie ). 57% Republican, 28 % Independent, and 13% Democrat. Is that the make up of the "Hell or High Water Supporters of Bush?"

They did endorse a Democrat from Idaho. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/15/walt-minnick-tea-party-en_n_538837.html Is that also something a group of just Republican supporting, Bush loving folks do? I think that at least gives some credence to the idea that they would support a Democrat over a Republican if they believed they were able to get the financials in order. Do you disagree?

They worked to get rid of Republican Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/TeaPartyChallenges/2011/02/17/id/386401

Again, I think you have made the Tea Party something it hasn't ever claimed to be. Perhaps more influenced by what you've heard said about them than what they have said about themselves. They are an excellent group to demonize.

Here is a good read on their make up, views and how they typically vote and why I happily demonize them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html

As of last year: Basically, they love God, guns and Glenn Beck. 84% think that the Tea Party view reflects the will of most Americans. 92% think Obama is trying to move America into socialism.

But the following is where you can see what they stand for (and why I think they mostly suck).

Tea Party supporters are more concerned with economic than social issues. Seventy-eight percent say economic issues are a bigger concern, while 14 percent point to social issues.

They are more likely than Republicans and Americans overall to see illegal immigration as a serious problem (82 percent), doubt the impact of global warming (66 percent) and call the bank bailout unnecessary (74 percent).

Fifty-three percent say the Roe v. Wade decision was a bad thing (compared to 34 percent of Americans overall), 40 percent oppose same-sex marriage and civil unions (compared to 30 percent overall) and 30 percent want gun control laws eased (compared to 16 percent overall).

Ninety-three percent describe the economy as at least somewhat bad, and 42 percent say it is getting worse. Fifty-eight percent believe America's best years are behind us when it comes to good jobs, compared to 45 percent of Americans overall.

Just ten percent say the stimulus package had a positive effect on the economy (compared to 32 percent of Americans overall), while 36 percent say it actually made things worse. More than half say it had no impact.

Eighty-nine percent say the president has expanded the role of government too much. More than three in four say lowering the federal government is more important than government spending to create jobs.

And while the vast majority opposes the health care reform bill, 62 percent say programs like Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs to taxpayers. (The figure is even higher among Americans overall, at 76 percent.)

VinVega
08-03-11, 04:04 PM
Navinabob's example points out what I'm saying. This is not a second American Revolution. They're just espousing the same platform that Republicans always have. It's nothing new. The Tea Party is just a bunch of Republicans to me. They're loud and angry Republicans. :shrug:

RoyalTea
08-03-11, 04:14 PM
I think the Tea Party originated as a libertarian movement, but then when some people saw it as a way to be republican but not have to admit to being republican, the movement was diluted and lost its original meaning.

Navinabob
08-03-11, 04:37 PM
I think the Tea Party originated as a libertarian movement, but then when some people saw it as a way to be republican but not have to admit to being republican, the movement was diluted and lost its original meaning.

No, they are a Glenn Beck movement. Basically, whatever FOX News says these people should be afraid of, they are. Whatever BS conspiracy theory (Kenya, socialism) FOX says exists these people eat up. They are an organization built around fear.

Their exact mirror are the extreme hippie democrats who the liberal media has convinced to be afraid of their own long list of crap. They are the nuts that will only give unisex names to kids, buy only organic food, fear Big Pharma, buy anything Apple, believe in pseudo-medicine and think legalizing pot would save our country. The only reason they don't have their own political sub-party is when they organize into a big group they turn into a cult instead.

RoyalTea
08-03-11, 04:47 PM
No, they are a Glenn Beck movement.

I'm not going to say Ron Paul founded the Tea Party, but I believe his followers were the original wave. I think Glenn Beck's followers came in later.

Now, if you think that Ron Paul and Glenn Beck are ideological twins, then there's no sense in making that distinction.

Navinabob
08-03-11, 04:56 PM
I'm not going to say Ron Paul founded the Tea Party, but I believe his followers were the original wave. I think Glenn Beck's followers came in later.

Now, if you think that Ron Paul and Glenn Beck are ideological twins, then there's no sense in making that distinction.

I don't think they are the same... and neither do the Tea Party. But twice as many of them like Beck than Paul.

This guy has a pretty good write-up over why you are likely not correct.

http://www.bermanpost.com/2010/10/is-tea-party-libertarian.html

Perhaps it would be best to start by way of explaining what the Tea Party actually means. TEA Party is an acronym that stands for Taxed Enough Already. By default anyone who describes themselves as a Tea Party 'type' (active protester or supporter) believes that taxes are to high. Flipping that around, they must be an advocate for lower taxes. The desire or belief in lower taxes stems from fiscal conservancy.

While lowering the taxes would likely translate into increased revenue (as they have in the past) there is a simultaneous push for less government spending. We see the government flushing money down the toilet as it runs up unprecedented levels of debt. By its own predictions and metrics the massive bailouts/stimulus have been unmitigated failures. People were angry at Bush for spending more money then other president had; people are furious at Obama for spending enough money to make Bush look like a fiscal conservative by comparison. Furor increased by the fact that the money was a best wasted and at worst some sort of political kick backs; all done despite the clear will of the people to the contrary (just as with ObamaCare).

The Tea Party also references the famous event Boston. Fiscal Conservatives are not Anarchists and understand that government does have a legitimate place. They also understand that an overbearing government is a repressive government. Besides threatening our freedoms and civil liberties, it also acts as an anchor sinking business and hindering the economy.

While the Tea Party must be seen as fiscally conservative (which is the main stream position) it has been noticeably silent on social issues. This silence is intentional. While some Tea Party members have advocated for and against some social issues (think gay marriage, legalizing drugs, abortion...) there is no 'official Tea Party position' on those matters. The reason has two separate but equally valid reasons. The first is that there is no centralized Tea Party command which can dictate by fiat what those official opinions or positions are. The second is that the Tea Party did not start out to be a 'party' in the same way Republicans and Democrats are. The Tea Party started out as an expression of disgust over government taxing and spending run amok. To join was an expression of that singular set of beliefs; taxes are to high, government is spending to much, no bailouts, personal responsibility with full repercussions for choice (good or bad [side note: there is an understanding that the ability succeed necessarily requires a chance of failing]). While people joining have other beliefs, their beliefs in no way filter back to become Tea Party positions.

On the basic political spectrum a Libertarian is someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Technically the Tea Party can not truly be defined as Libertarian because they are silent on social matters. Libertarians however could correctly be described as Tea Party people along with Conservatives. The Tea Party can be seen as an alliance of Conservatives and Libertarians putting their disagreement on social issues aside to focus on taking back the country from the fiscal liberals and(/or) Socialists. The Tea Party does have a Libertarian feel. This stems from the embedded notion that Conservatives push social conservatism and Liberals push social liberalism; but while Libertarians may agree in principle with the Liberals on social issues they really do not push those notions on others. That is to say that Conservatives and Liberals try to legislate their beliefs while Libertarians want everyone to just leave everyone else alone. In that context the silence on social issues seems the Libertarian approach giving the Tea Party that Libertarian feel. Of course it is not true that all Liberals or Conservatives try to force their social views on others, but there is a prevalent notion that the minority of people pushing views on others is much smaller among Libertarians that either Liberals or Conservatives.

Red Dog
08-03-11, 04:57 PM
The problem with Ron Paul is that he tends to draw in a lot of the conspiracy wacko types (without trying to shake them loose) so he has that in common with Glenn Beck.

I really don't know what its genesis was and it's pointless to debate that now. The fact is that it is a conservative (social + fiscal) movement now. It has a home in the Republican party. Now how much weight they have in the party nationally remains to be seen. We'll get a good idea of that in the presidential primary. If a guy like Romney wins, we know they still don't have much weight. It's probably why Perry is jumping in - he probably thinks he can bridge that gap - appeal to these folks and the more establishment types.

RoyalTea
08-03-11, 05:00 PM
I don't think they are the same... and neither do the Tea Party. But twice as many of them like Beck than Paul.

This guy has a pretty good write-up over why you are likely not correct.

http://www.bermanpost.com/2010/10/is-tea-party-libertarian.html

Perhaps it would be best to start by way of explaining what the Tea Party actually means. TEA Party is an acronym that stands for Taxed Enough Already. By default anyone who describes themselves as a Tea Party 'type' (active protester or supporter) believes that taxes are to high. Flipping that around, they must be an advocate for lower taxes. The desire or belief in lower taxes stems from fiscal conservancy.

While lowering the taxes would likely translate into increased revenue (as they have in the past) there is a simultaneous push for less government spending. We see the government flushing money down the toilet as it runs up unprecedented levels of debt. By its own predictions and metrics the massive bailouts/stimulus have been unmitigated failures. People were angry at Bush for spending more money then other president had; people are furious at Obama for spending enough money to make Bush look like a fiscal conservative by comparison. Furor increased by the fact that the money was a best wasted and at worst some sort of political kick backs; all done despite the clear will of the people to the contrary (just as with ObamaCare).

The Tea Party also references the famous event Boston. Fiscal Conservatives are not Anarchists and understand that government does have a legitimate place. They also understand that an overbearing government is a repressive government. Besides threatening our freedoms and civil liberties, it also acts as an anchor sinking business and hindering the economy.

While the Tea Party must be seen as fiscally conservative (which is the main stream position) it has been noticeably silent on social issues. This silence is intentional. While some Tea Party members have advocated for and against some social issues (think gay marriage, legalizing drugs, abortion...) there is no 'official Tea Party position' on those matters. The reason has two separate but equally valid reasons. The first is that there is no centralized Tea Party command which can dictate by fiat what those official opinions or positions are. The second is that the Tea Party did not start out to be a 'party' in the same way Republicans and Democrats are. The Tea Party started out as an expression of disgust over government taxing and spending run amok. To join was an expression of that singular set of beliefs; taxes are to high, government is spending to much, no bailouts, personal responsibility with full repercussions for choice (good or bad [side note: there is an understanding that the ability succeed necessarily requires a chance of failing]). While people joining have other beliefs, their beliefs in no way filter back to become Tea Party positions.

On the basic political spectrum a Libertarian is someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Technically the Tea Party can not truly be defined as Libertarian because they are silent on social matters. Libertarians however could correctly be described as Tea Party people along with Conservatives. The Tea Party can be seen as an alliance of Conservatives and Libertarians putting their disagreement on social issues aside to focus on taking back the country from the fiscal liberals and(/or) Socialists. The Tea Party does have a Libertarian feel. This stems from the embedded notion that Conservatives push social conservatism and Liberals push social liberalism; but while Libertarians may agree in principle with the Liberals on social issues they really do not push those notions on others. That is to say that Conservatives and Liberals try to legislate their beliefs while Libertarians want everyone to just leave everyone else alone. In that context the silence on social issues seems the Libertarian approach giving the Tea Party that Libertarian feel. Of course it is not true that all Liberals or Conservatives try to force their social views on others, but there is a prevalent notion that the minority of people pushing views on others is much smaller among Libertarians that either Liberals or Conservatives.

I'm not debating what they ARE. I'm debating what they were. I think they started off as a group of Ron Paul supporters, they got organized, gave themselves a name and then attracted more people who were more conservative than libertarian.

Sean O'Hara
08-03-11, 05:06 PM
I think the Tea Party originated as a libertarian movement, but then when some people saw it as a way to be republican but not have to admit to being republican, the movement was diluted and lost its original meaning.

It's populist, demagogic, and reactionary.

Like I said, centrist.

BearFan
08-03-11, 05:15 PM
The Tea party is certainly not all right wingers, I think quite a few are left over from the Reform Party/Perot, you see a log of this in their focus on the debt ...

classicman2
08-03-11, 05:32 PM
Navinabob's example points out what I'm saying. This is not a second American Revolution. They're just espousing the same platform that Republicans always have. It's nothing new. The Tea Party is just a bunch of Republicans to me. They're loud and angry Republicans. :shrug:

Republicans - like Democrats - have some pragmatic centrists - some traditional republicans (like Bob Dole for example) - some considerable to one end of the political spectrum - etc.

You know - like you - considerably to the left of center. :)

kvrdave
08-03-11, 05:41 PM
But the following is where you can see what they stand for (and why I think they mostly suck).

Tea Party supporters are more concerned with economic than social issues. Seventy-eight percent say economic issues are a bigger concern, while 14 percent point to social issues.
I tend to view the Republican party as much higher on social issues than 14% saying it is the biggest concern. As for them "loving God and guns, etc." that would make one think that social issues would be the biggest concern.

They are more likely than Republicans and Americans overall to see illegal immigration as a serious problem (82 percent), doubt the impact of global warming (66 percent) and call the bank bailout unnecessary (74 percent).
I don't have much problem with any of these. It would be nice to see what the other groups' percentages are. But again, this looks like a decently distinct group when one of the comparisons is against Republicans.

Fifty-three percent say the Roe v. Wade decision was a bad thing (compared to 34 percent of Americans overall), 40 percent oppose same-sex marriage and civil unions (compared to 30 percent overall) and 30 percent want gun control laws eased (compared to 16 percent overall).
At least here we see what one of the other groups think. Roe v Wade was a bad thing if you believe in state's rights, which more libertarians would tend to. But what about comparing them just to Republicans? Frankly, it looks to me like these stats are likely lower against same-sex marriage than Republicans overall. Do you think fewer than 40% of Republicans oppose it? If that is true, you'd have essentially universal support. So you likely hate these guys so much because they are more progressive socially than Republicans.

Ninety-three percent describe the economy as at least somewhat bad, and 42 percent say it is getting worse. Fifty-eight percent believe America's best years are behind us when it comes to good jobs, compared to 45 percent of Americans overall.

Just ten percent say the stimulus package had a positive effect on the economy (compared to 32 percent of Americans overall), while 36 percent say it actually made things worse. More than half say it had no impact.

Eighty-nine percent say the president has expanded the role of government too much. More than three in four say lowering the federal government is more important than government spending to create jobs.

And while the vast majority opposes the health care reform bill, 62 percent say programs like Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs to taxpayers. (The figure is even higher among Americans overall, at 76 percent.)

Essentially all the same. I don't get why you view them so negatively compared to others. I suspect you have bought into the demonizing of them and the fact that Sarah Palin tends to be the face of them. But she doesn't seem to share the views on social issues with the majority of them here.

VinVega
08-03-11, 05:51 PM
Republicans - like Democrats - have some pragmatic centrists - some traditional republicans (like Bob Dole for example) - some considerable to one end of the political spectrum - etc.

You know - like you - considerably to the left of center. :)
You can try to label me all you want. it doesn't bother me in the least. I'm not afraid of the "L" word. We could have a field day with you, you know. Mr. I'm a Democrat, but I attack Democrats 90% of the time. :lol:

Th0r S1mpson
08-03-11, 05:52 PM
<img src="http://outragetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/loser.jpg">

VinVega
08-03-11, 05:54 PM
:lol:

kvrdave
08-03-11, 05:58 PM
Cman is just unusual in that he is fiscally liberal and socially conservative. Modern Democrats cannot believe that such a beast exists as being immoral and hating America should be second nature. :D

Jason
08-03-11, 07:00 PM
Now, if you think that Ron Paul and Glenn Beck are ideological twins, then there's no sense in making that distinction.

I don't think anybody is glenn beck's ideological twin. I'm not even sure he's a tea partier in the strict sense. I think he just saw them as a group of malcontents he could latch onto.

Th0r S1mpson
08-03-11, 07:10 PM
Cman is just unusual in that he is fiscally liberal and socially conservative.

It's not that unusual really, it's just that most people his age can't use a computer.

Bill Needle
08-03-11, 08:28 PM
US borrowing tops 100% of GDP

US debt shot up $238 billion to reach 100 percent of gross domestic project after the government's debt ceiling was lifted, Treasury figures showed Wednesday.

Treasury borrowing jumped Tuesday, the data showed, immediately after President Barack Obama signed into law an increase in the debt ceiling as the country's spending commitments reached a breaking point and it threatened to default on its debt.

The new borrowing took total public debt to $14.58 trillion, over end-2010 GDP of $14.53 trillion, and putting it in a league with highly indebted countries like Italy and Belgium.

Public debt subject to the official debt limit -- a slightly tighter definition -- was $14.53 trillion as of the end of Tuesday, rising from the previous official cap of $14.29 trillion a day earlier.

Treasury had used extraordinary measures to hold under the $14.29 trillion cap since reaching it on May 16, while politicians battled over it and over addressing the country's bloating deficit.

The official limit was hiked $400 billion on Tuesday and will be increased in stages over the next 18 months.

The last time US debt topped the size of its annual economy was in 1947 just after World War II. By 1981 it had fallen to 32.5 percent.

Ratings agencies have warned the country to reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio quickly or facing losing its coveted AAA debt rating.

Moody's said Tuesday that the government needed to stabilize the ratio at 73 percent by 2015 "to ensure that the long-run fiscal trajectory remains compatible with a AAA rating."

Given the current hyper-spending rate of the federal government, for the ratio to reach 73% by 2015 the economy would need to experience - at a minimum - double-digit growth through the end of 2015. Starting now.

http://images5.cafepress.com/image/45077475_125x125.png

mosquitobite
08-03-11, 09:37 PM
I'm not debating what they ARE. I'm debating what they were. I think they started off as a group of Ron Paul supporters, they got organized, gave themselves a name and then attracted more people who were more conservative than libertarian.

That's what I am saying as well.

Are they Republican? Sure. That's what Ron Paul told his followers to be! He knows 3rd party doesn't win. That's why the tea party is WITHIN the Republican party!

classicman2
08-03-11, 10:04 PM
On fiscal issues, I do tend to be somewhat of a New Deal Democrat.

I depart from most Democrats when it comes to the social issues, as do a whole bunch of other Democrats.

I tend to be more libertarianish when it comes to foreign policy issues.

My main disagreement with 'modern day Democrats' is -you know what- their polyannish view about energy.

Like JFK & RMN I believe I'm mostly a pragmatic centrist. ;)

Ranger
08-04-11, 12:35 AM
2010 ests. but still interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt

Doesn't look so bad for us. :)

Troy Stiffler
08-04-11, 11:06 PM
2010 ests. but still interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt

Doesn't look so bad for us. :)

Looks like Libya is fiscally responsible. How are things going over there? I bet it's like paradise.

NotThatGuy
08-06-11, 01:36 PM
Here is a great reason to cut all social services and find a new way to "help" those who cannot or will not help themselves:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VuCKkOkQcHY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Strevlac
08-06-11, 02:37 PM
Here is a great reason to cut all social services and find a new way to "help" those who cannot or will not help themselves:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VuCKkOkQcHY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here I am, kept a roof over my head through college while waiting tables, completely miserable 4 years then took 6 years to pay back student loans. I say, fuck those people. Cut them off now.

classicman2
08-09-11, 05:20 PM
Sen. Reid's choices for the 3 Democrats on the super committee: Murray, Baucus, & Kerry

If McConnell responds in kind - gridlock guranteed.

RoyalTea
08-09-11, 05:46 PM
The House is shutting down the page program, saying that email and blackberries have made the pages obsolete.

Why doesn't the House stop using email and blackberries so that the pages can keep their jobs? The program only costs $5M. which is only 0.0001% of the annual federal budget.

Jason
08-09-11, 07:30 PM
Sen. Reid's choices for the 3 Democrats on the super committee: Murray, Baucus, & Kerry

If McConnell responds in kind - gridlock guranteed.

Well, who are the three biggest assholes in the senate? That'll pretty much determine who he'll pick.

X
08-09-11, 08:01 PM
Well, who are the three biggest assholes in the senate? That'll pretty much determine who he'll pick.How? One and a half of them have already been chosen.

Th0r S1mpson
08-09-11, 09:18 PM
The House is shutting down the page program, saying that email and blackberries have made the pages obsolete.

I must protest!

Weinergate cannot be considered a suitable replacement for Mark Foley!

classicman2
08-09-11, 09:54 PM
I don't understand why Reid didn't choose Kent Conrad. He is chairman of the budget committee, and he's been on the budget committee for a long time.

The reason might be that he is too much of a centrist.

Venusian
12-07-11, 04:58 PM
So the payroll tax cut is set to expire at the end of the year, and shockingly Congress wants to extend it (like I predicted :)) and even more shockingly, they can't agree how.

Democrats have offered plans to add a surtax to millionaires. GOP has offered plans to start making the rich pay more for Medicare.

Both sound good. Let's do both and cut the deficit!

X
12-07-11, 05:41 PM
Funny how we keep hearing about the Social Security trust fund running out of money and this tax cut is directly out of that fund (which we also hear is a retirement/insurance plan). Why are we cutting people's contributions to their retirement? How about a real income tax cut and fund it with equivalent decreased federal spending?

Do the non-contributions to peoples' SS retirement accounts count against how much they get paid when they retire or do their non-contributions magically show up as though they paid that much in?

Venusian
12-07-11, 05:51 PM
they magically show up because the fund is still funded from the treasury. the money there is borrowed from the trust fund. its a perpetual machine!

Superboy
12-07-11, 09:18 PM
Why don't we just print more money?

kvrdave
12-07-11, 11:49 PM
Democrats have offered plans to add a surtax to millionaires. GOP has offered plans to start making the rich pay more for Medicare.

Both sound good. Let's do both and cut the deficit!

rotfl

Yeah, let's not spend more next year than we did this year. DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING????

Venusian
12-08-11, 11:49 AM
How about a real income tax cut and fund it with equivalent decreased federal spending?


a similar proposal is out there:

The income tax credit would provide an extra $120 billion to $150 billion next year for families making under $200,000 — roughly the same dollar amount as the payroll tax cut, which amounts to about $1,000 for the average family, said senators familiar with the plan. The credit would come out of the general fund as opposed to the Social Security fund.

“I think that is a smart idea. It’s a way to provide tax relief without raiding the Social Security trust fund. That appeals to me too because I’ve been trying for years to fix Social Security,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told POLITICO. “The problem with the payroll tax holiday is it’s coming out of Social Security, so you shouldn’t be robbing seniors to pay for tax cuts that can be done with a tax credit.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70024.html#ixzz1fxkFnnwi


Would it be a refundable tax credit? If so, I'm not a fan.

CRM114
12-08-11, 12:10 PM
Funny how we keep hearing about the Social Security trust fund running out of money and this tax cut is directly out of that fund (which we also hear is a retirement/insurance plan). Why are we cutting people's contributions to their retirement? How about a real income tax cut and fund it with equivalent decreased federal spending?

Do the non-contributions to peoples' SS retirement accounts count against how much they get paid when they retire or do their non-contributions magically show up as though they paid that much in?

What you are hearing is wrong. Social Security is not going bankrupt and yet you lap up the propaganda put forth by the special interests who will benefit from it's elimination or privatization.

The Outlook for Social Security (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5530/06-14-SocialSecurity.pdf)

Without ANY intervention similar to 1983, the "CBO projects that the trust funds will become exhausted in 2052."

Venusian
12-08-11, 02:01 PM
What you are hearing is wrong. Social Security is not going bankrupt and yet you lap up the propaganda put forth by the special interests who will benefit from it's elimination or privatization.

The Outlook for Social Security (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5530/06-14-SocialSecurity.pdf)

Without ANY intervention similar to 1983, the "CBO projects that the trust funds will become exhausted in 2052."

How is that not going bankrupt?

orangecrush
12-08-11, 02:17 PM
a similar proposal is out there:



Would it be a refundable tax credit? If so, I'm not a fan.All other things being equal, a payroll tax reduction is much better than a tax credit of equal size (refundable or not).

CRM114
12-08-11, 02:22 PM
How is that not going bankrupt?

In FORTY years if we do nothing. Short term payroll tax cuts aren't going to do anything to effect it.

kvrdave
12-08-11, 02:38 PM
But we must find alternatives to our couple hundred years left of fossil fuels now. CRISIS!!!!

Seems that time is relative after all.

X
12-08-11, 02:43 PM
How is that not going bankrupt?Due to unemployment we're already taking more out of the SS trust fund than is going into it. I don't think that had been factored in as happening for a long time from now. And don't forget about the real elephant in the room, Medicare.

X
12-08-11, 02:43 PM
All other things being equal, a payroll tax reduction is much better than a tax credit of equal size (refundable or not).Why?

CRM114
12-08-11, 02:47 PM
But we must find alternatives to our couple hundred years left of fossil fuels now. CRISIS!!!!

Seems that time is relative after all.

I don't believe the "crisis" is purely about supply.