Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-07-2011, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,840,100 times
Reputation: 7118

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
Hehehe... blame the Tea Party... The Democrats must be losing it... first, the Tea party is a "fringe" group... second, the Tea Party is a small minority compared to everything else... now its, all the Tea Party's fault... Its so weird to start blaming a fringe, small group for the troubles of a nation... Do Democrats actually "man-up" to any blame or do they use other groups as a scapegoat so nobody blames them... please... any more transparency and we be in the middle of a fog...
They are just flailing about.

Their problem is the TP IS the American people, as more and more move toward fiscal conservatism and progressive ideas are proven to be horrible policy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-07-2011, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Colorado
6,666 posts, read 9,221,570 times
Reputation: 8634
LOL. Time is still in business?

I remember when their person of the year was 'you.'

LAME!

I'll say it again: I don't see what's wrong with the Tea Party. They want to CUT government spending. Even if 'revenue' were to increase from higher taxes, I don't trust our representatives enough to actually use the extra revenue to pay down debt. They would probably just spend more if they had more revenue available.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 05:26 PM
 
Location: The middle of nowhere Arkansas
3,325 posts, read 3,161,378 times
Reputation: 1015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Just got my Time Magazine yesterday. Sheesh, they were pretty relentlessly down on the Tea Party's approach. And last week they interviewed Alan Simpson (former Wyoming Senator) who said we need to raise revenues, the Norquist pledge is ridiculous, and that he not want to be in today's congress, which is much more about screwing the other side than getting anything done for the people. I have always found TIME to be pretty moderate, and if they represent a moderate, informed viewpoint, it does not look good for the TP.

A great graph in Fareed Zacharia's article. He shows that when Reagan entered office, tax revenue was about 20% of GDP, which he managed to lower to 18%. However, his average expenditure was over 22% of GDP. And onward until Clinton's second term, when revenues briefly eclipsed expenditures. When Obama hit office and the recession hit, spending went to 24%, while revenues dropped to 15% of GDP. The American economy is like the student with $100k in student loan debt working at Wal-mart. He may pay it off, but it will take 30 years or so.

Let's say we split the difference and cut spending to 19.5% of GDP with revenue rising to 19.5% of GDP. Better yet, revenue should go to 20% and spending should eventually drop to 18% until we pay off the debt. This would be very close to Reagan's ideal, and very close to what Clinton accomplished. There is simply no way we can pay down the debt with revenues at 15% of GDP, unless we slash spending to, say, 13% of GDP. It will obviously take compromise in this topic, and the GOP/Tea Party cut only scenario just does not hold water. Yet, a sensible approach to this is now considered socialist heresy. Why can't we just return to the approaches we used in the 1980s-1990s?

S&P, Time, Simpson-Bowles, Gang of 6, and Obama have all put forward various approaches to this, yet the conservative branch keeps clinging to a nonstarter, cut only approach.
Please provide an example of mr obama's plan to fix the budget deficit. While you are at it why don't you provide a link to the national budget developed and passed by the democratic congress under mr obama.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 05:28 PM
 
Location: Maine
22,864 posts, read 28,131,911 times
Reputation: 31073
I'm curious: Has anyone actually read the full text of S&P's statement?

Have a look: S&P | United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' Due To Political Risks, Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative | Americas

You'll quickly note that what most of the media is claiming S&P said is, in fact, not what S&P said. To sum it up:

It isn't that the U.S. doesn't have the funds to pay its debts. It's that U.S. political leadership doesn't have the will to do it: "Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options."

In other words, the debt ceiling agreement did what Congress always does: Put off the hard decisions until later.

But who bears the most responsibility for this intractibility --- at least according to S&P?

"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

So Standard & Poor's --- hardly a bastion of bleeding heart liberalism --- says it right there: Republican intractibility is to blame.

At first Congressional Republican behavior was just frustrating. Then it became laughable. Now it's downright scary, and I'm beginning to wonder if they are keeping the economy in the toilet on purpose. The lessons of Carter and Bush I are not lost on them: When the economy is bad, it is VERY hard for incumbent Presidents to win elections.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the Republicans don't really want the economy to improve --- until after the next election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,054 posts, read 18,236,495 times
Reputation: 3826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
I'm curious: Has anyone actually read the full text of S&P's statement?

Have a look: S&P | United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' Due To Political Risks, Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative | Americas

You'll quickly note that what most of the media is claiming S&P said is, in fact, not what S&P said. To sum it up:

It isn't that the U.S. doesn't have the funds to pay its debts. It's that U.S. political leadership doesn't have the will to do it: "Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options."

In other words, the debt ceiling agreement did what Congress always does: Put off the hard decisions until later.

But who bears the most responsibility for this intractibility --- at least according to S&P?

"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

So Standard & Poor's --- hardly a bastion of bleeding heart liberalism --- says it right there: Republican intractibility is to blame.

At first Congressional Republican behavior was just frustrating. Then it became laughable. Now it's downright scary, and I'm beginning to wonder if they are keeping the economy in the toilet on purpose. The lessons of Carter and Bush I are not lost on them: When the economy is bad, it is VERY hard for incumbent Presidents to win elections.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the Republicans don't really want the economy to improve --- until after the next election.
Nah, both parties are to blame. Both parties thought compromise was the way to go. Compromise got us AA+

Quote:
Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,840,100 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
I'm curious: Has anyone actually read the full text of S&P's statement?
Obviously, YOU haven't, as I pointed out in the other thread where you copy and pasted the exact response.

That is against the TOS I believe.

Here, let me help you;

http://www.city-data.com/forum/20357943-post615.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 05:32 PM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,730,179 times
Reputation: 7019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
I'm curious: Has anyone actually read the full text of S&P's statement?

Have a look: S&P | United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' Due To Political Risks, Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative | Americas

You'll quickly note that what most of the media is claiming S&P said is, in fact, not what S&P said. To sum it up:

It isn't that the U.S. doesn't have the funds to pay its debts. It's that U.S. political leadership doesn't have the will to do it: "Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options."

In other words, the debt ceiling agreement did what Congress always does: Put off the hard decisions until later.

But who bears the most responsibility for this intractibility --- at least according to S&P?

"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

So Standard & Poor's --- hardly a bastion of bleeding heart liberalism --- says it right there: Republican intractibility is to blame.

At first Congressional Republican behavior was just frustrating. Then it became laughable. Now it's downright scary, and I'm beginning to wonder if they are keeping the economy in the toilet on purpose. The lessons of Carter and Bush I are not lost on them: When the economy is bad, it is VERY hard for incumbent Presidents to win elections.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the Republicans don't really want the economy to improve --- until after the next election.
Yes, they have been shown this and the red bolded many times over the past couple days, and like the typical sheeple that they are, they refuse to admit that it actually says what it says. Their lives would collapse if they could not lie and blame Democrats and liberals for all the world's problems. Cognitive dissonance is a scary thing, but it dominates the Republican and Conservative mentality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,840,100 times
Reputation: 7118
No, it's because you aren't actually reading the report and the reason for the downgrade.

Here, read the first 6 bullet points;

http://www.standardandpoors.com/rati...=1245316529563
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,715 posts, read 31,060,078 times
Reputation: 9270
The game of chicken played over the debt ceiling should have been played 10-20 years ago. But they didn't have the guts to do it. If it had been played, our debt would be gone or on a downward trajectory.

It is painful and ugly to see play out like it did, but it needed to happen. The Tea Party movement provided the backbone missing before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2011, 05:42 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
14,317 posts, read 22,319,692 times
Reputation: 18436
Default Excellent post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Just got my Time Magazine yesterday. Sheesh, they were pretty relentlessly down on the Tea Party's approach. And last week they interviewed Alan Simpson (former Wyoming Senator) who said we need to raise revenues, the Norquist pledge is ridiculous, and that he not want to be in today's congress, which is much more about screwing the other side than getting anything done for the people. I have always found TIME to be pretty moderate, and if they represent a moderate, informed viewpoint, it does not look good for the TP.

A great graph in Fareed Zacharia's article. He shows that when Reagan entered office, tax revenue was about 20% of GDP, which he managed to lower to 18%. However, his average expenditure was over 22% of GDP. And onward until Clinton's second term, when revenues briefly eclipsed expenditures. When Obama hit office and the recession hit, spending went to 24%, while revenues dropped to 15% of GDP. The American economy is like the student with $100k in student loan debt working at Wal-mart. He may pay it off, but it will take 30 years or so.

Let's say we split the difference and cut spending to 19.5% of GDP with revenue rising to 19.5% of GDP. Better yet, revenue should go to 20% and spending should eventually drop to 18% until we pay off the debt. This would be very close to Reagan's ideal, and very close to what Clinton accomplished. There is simply no way we can pay down the debt with revenues at 15% of GDP, unless we slash spending to, say, 13% of GDP. It will obviously take compromise in this topic, and the GOP/Tea Party cut only scenario just does not hold water. Yet, a sensible approach to this is now considered socialist heresy. Why can't we just return to the approaches we used in the 1980s-1990s?

S&P, Time, Simpson-Bowles, Gang of 6, and Obama have all put forward various approaches to this, yet the conservative branch keeps clinging to a nonstarter, cut only approach.
It is great to be on the superior side of this argument. No matter how the Conservatives try to spin it, more people are repulsed by the presence of the tea party than are not. Overwhelmingly so. This ultimately is a negative reflection on the GOP. The cut-only approach as a way to address a post-Bush economy is beyond idiotic. The economic direction of this country cannot be impacted by a segment of this country that supported the worst man to reside in the oval office in history: Bush. Bush was clueless on the economy.

I expect the voters to express their disdain for the baggers and the GOP next year by lining up to kick those incompetents out of office. The well-being of the economy and the country is at stake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:11 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top