Late yesterday, the judge (the S&P) issued a verdict on the status of the case involving the US economy, and exonerating the accused defendants (the Tea Party) of all charges leveled by the plaintiffs (the WH, both parties of Congress, and the media). Said accusations? That any repercussions of the debt ceilings debate – aka national credit ratings, general Armageddon, and all ensuing fallout – were primarily the responsibility … aka *blame*… of the grassroots, unorganized and unofficial movement referred to, generically, as the “Tea Party”. These accusations, without founding in any logical other than political demonization, were based on supposed influence on Congressional members, attempting to use the need for a debt ceiling increase, as the correct moment for also negotiating a path to fiscal responsibility.
Needless to say, fiscally minded tea party types were not rewarded with any action by Congress to control spending… gifted with only a patchwork promise to spend $2 trillion less than the projected $9 trillion over the next decade. So it becomes the height of irony that anyone can suggest the tea party had any significant effect on the negotiations. Instead, it came down to the age old party battles… the Dems wanting to raise taxes and ignore Medicare and Social Security reform, and the GOP wanting to cut spending, not raise taxes, and also ignore Medicare and Social Security reform.
Neither of these positions accurately reflect the Tea Party’s insistence that we can no longer ignore the entitlements, that no amount of tax increases will muster up to snuff for continued Congressional spending, and that attempting to draw more blood from the taxpayer turnips in this recession is foolhardy. Additionally, fiscal conservatives are fully aware that the size of government… hopefully worthless and effectual thousands of federal agencies and not our Constitutionally mandated military… needed to be reduced in size, streamlined in efficiency, or just outright eliminated.
Were any of these points even acknowledged, let alone addressed, in the political farce that played out before our eyes these past weeks? Of course not. And perhaps the one plan that may have had a shot at achieving what was necessary – the Connie Mack “Penny Plan” – has received little press or attention from the bigwigs who hold the nation’s fate in their less than adept hands. A plan that even liberal Lanny Davis said was worthy of a another look.
Unlike our current debt ceiling system, it’s very responsible in the process to consider budget when raising the national credit card limit. And the US debt ceiling process is unusual compared to other developed countries, “…since the U.S. debt ceiling process moves independently of the general budgeting process.”
That the authority to borrow remains so disconnected to budgetary constraints and considerations, as well as economic growth, in America is, IMHO, seriously flawed in and of itself. Other countries address their debt ceilings in ways that draw more attention to out of control fiscal spending. But the American way is, in some ways, backwards. First Congress spends, then ups the debt ceiling to pay for their spending….
As a Feb 2011 GAO study on the US debt ceiling, as compared to other nations process, notes:
The United States is unusual among the countries we reviewed in using the authorization of additional borrowing authority as an occasion to draw attention to past fiscal policy decisions. Other countries that we reviewed generally use fiscal rules or targets to increase attention to or control over fiscal policy decisions that lead to an increase in debt. Fiscal rules generally refer to permanent or multiyear constraints on fiscal policy through simple numerical limits on budgetary aggregates. For example, Switzerland has adopted a constitutional “debt brake” that places a limit on expenditures that is equal to the expected revenue for the year adjusted to reflect the country’s place in the current business cycle. Differences between estimated and actual numbers are recorded in a separate account that must by law be reduced if it reaches a certain level. Germany has adopted a “golden rule” limiting net borrowing to the amount of investment spending. Germany also approved a constitutional amendment in 2009 requiring that structural deficits not exceed 0.35 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—or very close to balance.
~~~The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay bills incurred. The decisions that create the need to borrow are made separately from—and generally earlier than—the decision about the debt limit. Debates surrounding the debt limit may raise awareness about the federal government’s current debt trajectory and also provide Congress with an opportunity to debate the fiscal policy decisions driving that trajectory. However, since this debate generally occurs after tax and spending decisions have been enacted into law, Congress has a narrower range of options to effect an immediate change to fiscal policy decisions and hence to federal debt.
Aside from this disconnect between spending first, then increasing the national credit card limit, it was also disingenuous of any of the negotiating parties… Obama, or either party leaders in Congress… to assume confidence that raising the debt ceiling, without considering the out of control spending, would be sufficient to maintain a good credit rating by the global agencies.
As I had mentioned in my July 14th rant against this political farce the WH and both political parties were subjecting us to, our national credit ratings were never based just on whether a debt ceiling was raised, but what measures the elected ones were going to take to get the out of control spending and debt under control down line.
Even Moody’s had warned the WH and Congress that the credit ratings outlook did not rest solely on simply raising the debt ceiling. Therefore it was no surprise to anyone paying attention that the Standard & Poor rating agency, as predicted, lowered the US credit rating from AAA to AA+ on Friday. Apparently, the only ones *not* paying attention were those with the power to negotiate.
What was the most telling point was S&P specifically noted that the guilt lies with the WH, and both political parties of Congress… the only authorities that had the power to:
1: address entitlements reform, but didn’t… and
2: fell way short of reining in spending and debt with the minimal S&P felt necessary.
We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.
We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.
Standard & Poor (S&P)… …. is one of the most widely followed indices of large-cap American stocks when monitoring the markets, and one of the quintessential organizations known for their global credit rating prowess. They had delayed their opinion following the debt ceiling lackluster finale. But what is most interesting is that they felt it was fruitless to even wait to see what the so called “super” committee would come up with for additional remedies to reign in spending, and attempt to extract yet more revenue to support their spending habits from a private sector mired in stagnant economic growth.
Needless to say, all the guilty parties – Congress, both parties – are using the predictable event of credit deterioration to escalate the fingerpointing for political purposes. For the Democrats, Senate Leader Harry Reid insists the S&P was proof positive they were right in insisting for higher taxes. Not to be outdone, House Speaker returns fire, saying it was the fault of the Democrats, refusing to halt the spending binge.
Of course, it didn’t bode well for Boehner that it was only days before where he claimed he got 98% of what he wanted out of the deal… Obviously what Boehner “wanted” was never going to be enough to maintain the US credit rating, despite multiple warnings from sundry agents.
With conservative leaders like this, what’s a taxpayer to do? How can it be that we mere, dumb citizens knew that the deal was never enough, and these high paid elected ones did not? It was also disconcerting that GOP hopefuls, for the most part, either hid in the closet or headed for the hills… afraid to take a leadership position of any note.
Then comes along Obama, livid with S&P at daring to lower the US credit rating at such a delicate time in his political career. It didn’t take long before he sent out his mouthpieces to challenge S&P’s analysis itself… and obviously happened upon an Obama supporter who claims the agency’s analysis was flawed, but was sticking to it’s guns….
…. All off the record, of course. How extremely convenient. Just enough to float a rumor, and hope for public scrutiny and humiliation for S&P. What Alinsky Rules for Radicals number was that again?
S&P’s John Chambers made the talking heads rounds, pointing out that the WH indignation and attempts made not an iota of difference because it still came down to the very same facts….that the GDP to debt ratio will rise over the next decade because Congress… all parties… refuse to address what is needed.
John Chambers, head of sovereign ratings for S&P, skirted the criticism in a CNN interview Friday night.
“It doesn’t make a material difference — it doesn’t change the fact that your debt-to-GDP ratio … will continue to rise over the next decade,” he told “AC360.”In July, S&P placed the United States’ rating on “CreditWatch with negative implications” as the debt ceiling debate devolved into partisan bickering.
To avoid a downgrade, S&P said the United States needed to not only raise the debt ceiling, but also develop a “credible” plan to tackle the nation’s long-term debt. Chambers said the slowness at raising the debt ceiling and the political infighting led to the move.
“That is what put things over the brink,” he said.
In announcing the downgrade, S&P cited “political risks, rising debt burden; outlook negative.”
“The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics,” the agency said.
Every word spoken exonerates the Tea Party and fiscal conservatives demand that Congress address the national spending and debt problem… all of which revolves primarily around entitlements that are taking the nation over the fiscal cliff. It turns out the grassroots movement was correct, and the elected ones were those who thought they could pull a fast one.
Now they can only shoot political bullets at each other for their folly. Small consolation for the real losers, as I originally predicted in mid July…. the American taxpayers of all political affiliations.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
@John (#29): The problem with not being a conservative on this blog is that one is hit by a blizzard of arguments, not from a single person, but by several to many people at once. No sooner do you (meaning me) try to answer one comment than you are hit, from several directions, from several people with other comments.
The sort of debate which I find productive is to focus on a single issue and discuss this with a single person, until both me and the other guy can explore the issue in depth and at least come to understand the other’s position accurately. I don’t like “speed debate,” with 3 or 4 people at once.
I started this wanting to simply to comment on Mata’s headline, which is a gross distortion of the “S&P verdict.”
As so often happens, it quickly spiraled out of control and beyond my ability to address, without putting my life on hold for several days, working through all the issues with all the people.
I write this simply to state that I did read your comments and I appreciate both the quality of thought and polite tone. I wish that we could pick out a single issue at a time (e.g. effects of energy regulation on consumer costs, or whatever) and just make our respective points and then, at a later time, take up something else. But these discussions can’t be controlled.
@thamster (#43):
There are conservative blogs which are far more intolerant than this one. This blog has the usual cadre of resident cranks that you’ll find anywhere, but there are quite a few very thoughtful and polite people, also. I learn a lot from spending time here, both from other people and also from the research it takes to answer criticisms. So it’s time well spent, although it can become an overly consuming diversion, unless one is willing to let it go when it gets out of hand, given that you’ll never get the last word, as you are so badly outnumbered.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
You do seem to be suffering here thamsters… I guess all these words and comments just jumble up in your mind, yes?
Here’s a few facts for you. The Tea Party is a grassroots movement, not an “official party” with “members”, as your kindred spirit, @Ivan, attempted to suggest. A “caucus” is not a party.
And the Tea Party can have no “members” because there is no place to register to be a member. If you suggest there is a registration/membership list of the Tea Party, as there exists for Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian etal… do feel free to provide a link.
This brings us to the reality that the TP is simply a movement of people of all political stripes. Then you decide to point to a “caucus” to justify that there are “Tea Party members”…. members which I again remind you cannot exist because there is no “membership”…. in Congress. And what is a “caucus”?
You suggest that the TP grassroots movement, with no official party, had an undue influence on the debt ceiling debate and, thereby by effect, a final vote on S.365, the Budget Control Act of 2011. Well that’s damned interesting, because fiscal conservatives weren’t even thrilled with the lackadaisical $4T deal, let along this joke of final compromise bill passed.
So let’s see how much “influence” those “tea party members” of a movement that has no membership roster actually had.
There are 60 House representatives that caucus for Tea Party.
The House vote on S.365 had 66 Republicans voting nay to the great compromise for nothing…. and a package that was guaranteed to lead to downgrades because of warnings by the credit agencies that debt reduction had to be meaningful and notable.
Of those 66 Republicans voting nay, only 26 of them were GOPers that caucused with the Tea Party caucus. More than half of those people you think belong as a member to an organization that has no membership betrayed the core principles of the grassroots movement…. a principle that would have met the acceptability of S&P and retained the US AAA rating.
On the other hand, voting right along side of those evil 26 Tea Party “members” (in your limited scope of membership and official’dom), was 95 Democrats. In fact, your House party members were evenly split… half for and half against with 95 each way. Three members of your party took the Obama way out, and voted present… i.e. didn’t vote. Perhaps they are trying to bolster their creditials for the office of POTUS in the future.. who knows.
Tell me, did the Tea Party movement exercise undue influence over your party as well? So much so that almost 4 times more of your lib/prog party voted against the final compromise than did those evil Tea Party “members’? /sarc
As S&P says, both political parties are at fault, and the TP’s influence -hoping for something that at least met the muster of S&P it turns out – were simply discarded by those, who you say are supposedly “representing” them in the House, as distant rumblings barely heard.
Ignored? heh… Didn’t need to bring it up since it was just added documented failure of leadership and action by this bozo-in-chief temporary occupant of the Oval Office.
But let’s correct your starry eyed wonderment at “duh one”…. they weren’t “Obama’s ideas”. They were the recommendations of a commission that he formed. The same commission, who’s ideas he flatly refused to implement, and disbanded them with nary a tip of his baseball cap.
There was the Bowles-Simpson plan, which advocated IRS tax reform and entitlement reform. There was the Ryan budget plan which advocated IRS tax reform and entitlement reform. And then there was the Obama Feb budget which not only had faulty math, but added $9 tril to the debt in 10 years.
If you have selective short term recall of the Debt Ceiling political farce… a joke played by both parties and this POTUS on all of we citizens collectively… there are ample timelines easily available with a simple search, such as this one from C-SPAN.
Since the GOP ran trembling from the Ryan plan and entitlement reform, and Obama and the Senate Dems flatly refused to support the Boehner plan which – despite not implementing entitlement reforms – might have been enough to save the AAA rating, we are left with the “taxpayer loses all” results of the Great Compromise. And entitlement reform was big in the agency’s warnings because it makes up 2/3rds of US spending, and is only growing daily.
Oh yes, BTW… I’m with Hard Right. Never claimed to be civil. When someone enters this forum with cogent and substantiated arguments, and not just patented talking points, I’m generally civil. However I’m not one to suffer fools… of which both you and nobiggovduh serve as fine examples.
Not at all. The S&P verdict of why the US LONG TERM debt was downgraded was the refusal of Congress to get together on debt reduction… which requires entitlement reform. This puts S&P squarely in the ranks of the TP in their beliefs about the future of the US economy.
What is a gross distortion is your interpretation that the S&P chastised the GOP more than the Dems. That, Larry, is pure partisan desperation.
@ thamster
I’m heading out the door to have this put on bumper stickers. I’m thinking Obama should change “Yes we can!” to “Facts doesn’t matter!” Hell, the whold DNC should pick up this charge.
@ Aye
Stealing it. Don’t know what I’m going to do with it, but I’m stealing it. I’ll make sure you get credit in very fine print. 😉
BTW, another little tidbit that disses those intent on giving Dems and Obama a pass on the S&P decision, and pointing their fingers at the “Tea Party” movement.
To show you just how little influence the movement had on their GOP representatives, The Hill documents that the Tea Party caucus virtually ignored the debt ceiling debate.
INRE the assumption that there is an “outsized” influence by the grassroots movement over the debate, one can only shake one’s head in amazement.
If the supposed “caucus” who is to hear their responses sits out the debate, doesn’t mention in it meetings…. nay even meet with any regularity… and the final Great Compromise doesn’t even come close to what the TP movement – AND S&P – wanted, just how much influence was there?
Exactly none. The TP is ignored, but always around to be a lib/prog political scapegoat. They have been exonerated by the S&P, who put the blame squarely on both parties and this POTUS, and suggested avenues more closely aligned to the TP’s desires… those who had the power to do what was necessary, and chose not to.
@mata (#59):
S&P did “chastise the GOP more than the Dems.” Both parties were blamed for gridlock, but the specific example given was the GOP digging in not to allow for any tax increases, while no specific mention was made of Dem intransigence in with regard to spending cuts.
Once again, what S&P wanted was $4 trillion in DEFICIT reduction. They did not call for $4T in SPENDING reduction.
It is obvious that Boehner and McConnell and the GOP rank and file would have gone along with some tax increases (under the cover of loophole closures and tax code restructuring), absent the Tea Party. What do you think Boehner was referring to when he said that he “stuck out [his] neck a mile?”
The long term deficit is a long term problem. The short term economy is a short term problem. The explosive rise in debt:GDP ratio resulted from a recession which threatened to become a depression. This was a true emergency. Both GOP and Dems supported massive bailout and stimulus programs. The Dem stimulus was greater than that proposed by the Republicans by $200 billion. Not chump change, but not what it’s been made out to be, and a drop in the bucket, with regard to our debt.
In any even, debt:GDP is projected to stabilize just above 1.0. It was much higher than that after WWII, and the USA didn’t turn into Greece. The way our country addressed the problem was with high tax rates, along with lots of government spending (Marshall Plan, GI Bill, Interstate Highway System, Great Society, Apollo program, Vietnam War). Despite all the spending, we paid the debt ratio down to near 0.3. Until we tried the crazy experiment of cutting taxes, on the grounds that this would unchain so much economic activity that the tax cuts wouldn’t lose money for the treasury and necessitate increased borrowing. A reasonable theory at the time (as was Marxism, for that manner). But now completely discredited by the real world results (just as Marxism was discredited by real world results). Supply side economics. The Laffer Curve. George HW Bush (a much underrated man) got it right. Voodoo economics.
Anyway, the long term debt is not an emergency and the long term threat is overblown. S&P didn’t downgrade because they thought the US was going broke, but because the US political system was gridlocked, with the specific mention made of the GOP being unwilling to compromise on much needed tax increases. There’s little doubt that the GOP’s position was because the individual members have all been frightened by the power of the Tea Party, given the results of the 2010 primary season.
So the claim that S&P found the Tea Party “innocent” is simply not true. S&P did no such thing.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Oh fer heavens sake, Larry. You really cling to the imaginary here. Quoteth the S&P from their press release:
Allow me to point out two things:
1: Even with the Bush tax policies remaining in place, or not – which the S&P examined both potentials – the downgrade was still warranted because the debt/GDP ratio was still rising because debt reduction… most especially related to entitlement reform… wasn’t happening for the US. The only difference was it wasn’t rising as fast. But still rising was enough to warrant the downgrade. And remember, that was including raising taxes not only on the wealth for the $40 bil annual estimates, but also on those under $250K for the other $231.5 bil annually.
May I remind you that Obama has never supported getting extra tax revenues from that sector of taxpayers? Therefore, Obama is always holding out for $40 bil annually.
2: I’m not sure what this hang up you have to increasing revenue is. You seem to think it can only be accomplished thru tax increases, much the same way as when I type the word “r-e-f-o-r-m”, you see the see the word “c-u-t-s”. Just as they are two different words, increasing revenue has many different avenues for accomplishing that end.
One avenue is via IRS reform, which was suggested both by the debt commission and the Ryan plan… both of which where shunned by this POTUS and the Dem Party.
Another avenue of increased revenue is decreasing the costs of spending… i.e taking an axe… er, chainsaw… to the sundry federal agencies, subagencies and their sub sub agencies. This means downsizing, streamlining or outright eliminating redundant or worthless federal positions. What is not paid out to them and their pensions is increased revenue.
Additionally, these employees are thrown into the private sector where they will generate new private sector income… which is increased revenue… and not be recycling the private sector revenue only.
Newsflash. Boehner and Obama had agreed on a revenue increase of $400 bil when Obama backed out demanding $800 bil instead. Obama refuses to consider the other avenues of increased revenue, and always seeks to implement that extra $40 bil a year from the evil “wealthy”.
Therefore your statement that the GOP is more at fault for not agreeing to revenue increases, and that is the fault of the TP is unjustified. The S&P did not care how the deficit reduction, (and I never said $4T and cuts, so quit putting words into my mouth) was achieved. It could have been accomplished by IRS reform, reduction in the size of government, and entitlement reform.
Your heroes, and POTUS, reject entitlements and most definitely reduction in the size of government. Therefore they dig in their heels as mostly using just increased taxes as the only way to increase revenue.
The GOP rejects tax increases, and suggests … and agreed to… other methods of raising revenue. However they also slithered away from entitlement reform.
Again, this is your imagination because you, like your party faithfuly, see only one way to increase revenues… to raise taxes. This is your limitation in mental deduction, not mine.
Hey!
Somebody scraped our coke snorter-in-chief off the floor and put him out there to read the teleprompter.
He was an hour late.
PS,
I wonder why Obama chose the ping-pong dual teleprompter set up?
There’s no audience in the room.
He should have spoke to the teleprompter in front of the camera.
@nobiggovduh:
@Carl:
The Federal EPA does not do anything in states with compliant EPA organizations except give them the funds to exist. There is not any overlap.
You really should read what you post. Your claim above is all the more reason to eliminate the Federal EPA. Every State EPA must comply with the Federal EPA thus by YOUR post the Federal EPA does NOTHING!!! Thus you make my case.
@Aye:
Really? You’re going to use editorials (which are personal opinions), and opinions from a REPUBLICAN senator (Rob Portman) as ‘proof’ Obama rejected the commission’s proposals?
I was hoping for a link to a quote or an article with Obama stating he REJECTS the proposals of the commission, as you boldly claimed. You may as well link to a right-wing blog proclaiming ‘Obama is a communist!’ as proof that Obama is a communist.
Regarding your second reply, Larry answered it pretty well in his follow-up. To add anymore to it would be going in circles.
@thamster:
Dood!
There are four…count ’em…FOUR source citations there. One of them happens to be a quote from Portman. That doesn’t make it invalid when the facts back what he said. Dumbazz.
All of them agree that Precedent Downgrade rejected the proposals from the fiscal commission.
Hell, even his Chief of Staff is in there stating that the recommendations were ignored.
So, now that I’ve provided you with the source citations that you requested, and have completely destroyed your argument to the contrary, kindly link the proposals put forward in writing by Precedent Downgrade which reflect his support of the fiscal commission’s recommendations.
Also, regarding my second response, Larry has not yet been able to successfully dissemble my argument so your reliance on what he has put forward is laughable.
@MataHarley:
Wow, you ability to forget what you wrote is astonishing. Let me remind you:
“There are no Congressional “tea party” people”
Which is the point that I noted you contradicted yourself on.
Then later you wrote:
“There are 60 House representatives that caucus for Tea Party.”
Are there or are there not? Were they exonerated (which implies there ARE Tea Party people in Congress) or not? You can’t have it both ways.
“To show you just how little influence the movement had on their GOP representatives, The Hill documents that the Tea Party caucus virtually ignored the debt ceiling debate.”
Again, cherry-picking your data and completely contradicted by actual events:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/debt-ceiling-debate-heats-tea-party-hell-raising/story?id=13597695
“Our message has not only been no, but hell no” to raising the debt limit, Amy Kremer (of Tea Party Express) told ABC News.
“When someone enters this forum with cogent and substantiated arguments, and not just patented talking points, I’m generally civil.”
Right… that must be why you responded to Larry’s non-personal and ‘substantiated arguments’ with ‘Ah, the smell of desperation.’ Very civil.
“However I’m not one to suffer fools… of which both you and nobiggovduh serve as fine examples.”
Your constant name calling and hominem attacks do not cover up the fact that your arguments are often contradictory, and based on selectively posting barely relevant opinion pieces that weakly (if you draw tenuous conclusions) support your ill-thought-out logic. In fact, you often respond to posts in which you were unable to offer counter-arguments with insults. Who’s the real fool here?
@Aye:
“There are four…count ‘em…FOUR source citations there. One of them happens to be a quote from Portman. That doesn’t make it invalid when the facts back what he said.”
Four ‘sources’; 3 of which are opinions (two from editorials, one from a political opponent), and one from a news talk host trying to frame a question for her guest (by the way, the guest’s answer argued against your assertion). If you don’t understand why those are bad sources, you may want to look up some journalism guidelines. Here’s a start (from wiki) – “Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.”
“Dumbazz.”
Oh, your argument hold so much more weight now that you used that logic. Brilliant.
@thamster:
Let me get this straight now…you’re criticizing my sources…and then using Wiki to back up your opinion?
Oh, that’s rich. But then, the irony would likely be lost on you. No wonder you earned the Dumbazz moniker.
But I understand how it is for you. I’ve presented the facts you asked for — I even have Chief of Staff Daley in the mix — and, since you can’t possibly explain away the validity of what the sources are saying with any sort of fact, the only option you have left is to desperately flail away at the messenger.
The facts are plain on this one. Precedent Downgrade formed the fiscal commission, then rejected what they had to say and moved forward with his own ideas.
If you’ve got any source material to rebuff what I’ve stated here, ie specific policy proposals in writing which embrace the recommendations, then feel free to present it.
Absent said source material, your arguments to the contrary are moot.
There is no contradiction were you to possess a modicum of reading comprehension. The tea party exists as a grassroots of citizen/taxpayers, no membership, movement.
There are no tea party Congress representatives. There are only those who caucus to “hear” their voice…. as even the so called “founder” of that bogus little feel-good, do nothing caucus, Michelle Bachmann, said above. And, as you can see, the elected ones don’t caucus much, and sit on the sidelines INRE the large issues near and dear to the grassroots movement’s heart. They met once in Feb, and again in June. Hardly indicates concern or focus on the TP citizen voice.
With “caucus ears” like this, it’s next to having no representation at all. Considering that only 26 “caucus” jokes held true to the TP principles… along with 95 of your own Dems (which doesn’t seem to bother you, and you studiously avoid commenting on)… I’d say that no one gave a flying fart about what the TP says except to let them play the scapegoat for political theatre.
Ah yes… power hungry mongrel Amy who insists she can speak for a non membership grassroots movement, including that they’d vote for Romney. What a joke she is. Well, braintrust, allow me to point out that Amy Kremer is not an elected official, was not invited to the two pathetic “caucus” meetings (where the debt ceiling debate was virtually ignored), and has no power to vote, to veto, or affect fiscal policy.
So what’s your point again, Mr. brilliant?
This indicates the tea party… which is a grassroots movement, and are the ones being fingerpointed by those like you and your ilk for blame… has no representation in Congress, no influence since their largest issue is ignored, no vote, no say and no authority to effect fiscal policy. That all lies in the hands of Congress and the WH.
Your problem is you simply don’t know how to separate opportunist, vote pandering Congress members from a grassroots movement, and think there are tea party “members”. As I’ve pointed out, that is impossible.
You’re a newbie here. Larry and I have a long standing history here. But thank you for letting us know that you are so hypersensitive to criticism… to someone else to boot.. as to consider a phrase like “the smell of desperation” as an uncivil comment. Hide thick as colonial era parchment paper, you got.
sigh… fish in a barrel.
Let’s see…. the commission released their findings back in early Dec. Obama totally ignored them, and produced a budget 2.5 months later that included zip of their suggestions. This is documented both in the LA Times, as well as CNN Money.
Well… considering the POTUS must produce a budget by federal law each year by the first week in February, don’t you find it odd that he included zip from his own debt commission? I’d say that was REJECTION #1.
After Obama’s budget didn’t fare so well under CBO scrutiny, and was received with deadpan enthusiasm, he attempted a “re-do” in April with a “speech”, where he.. supposedly “embraced” the commission’s suggestions. A little late for that, considering his formal budget would have been the proper moment for that, don’t you think?
Oh wait… you don’t think. Forget I asked that.
Problem is Obama’s “speech” was so vague, that it was impossible for the CBO to score.
That’s some mighty fine “leadership”… long after the budget submission moment. Not to mention how convenient the CBO couldn’t even attach fiscal analysis to such vague babble. So as opposed to an outright rejection, as he did by not including their proposals in his formal budget, he merely tried to put a bandaid on his arrogance by paying honorary lip service without providing any specifics.
I’d say that wasn’t a rejection… I’ll give you that. It was a desperate (or is that “uncivil” to you again?) attempt at a shuck and jive for political purposes.
Interesting… newbie thinks he’s got a history on everyone with his first appearance. LOL Actually, I even answer fools like you with a response. Archives are available at your fingertips with my authored posts for years. I’m just less kind in those responses when speaking with bottom feeders.
As I said, I don’t suffer fools, of which you’re continually proving yourself to be. Your points are red herrings, and desperate (or, again, is that a word where your personal urban dictionary says it means “uncivil” ?) attempts at straw men.
BTW, Mr. braintrust… Allow me to point out your game playing that you say/do above. What was Chambers’s full quote in that? You know.. the sentence that precedes that one sentence, plus the one that followed? Oh yes…
When you’re capable of reading full paragraphs, and not just nouns and verbs in a single sentence, what Chambers’ said becomes crystal clear. There had to be a definitive plan to lower the debt/deficit that would favorably compare with other Euro nations (who have done so) and were going to be showing a reduction of debt/GDP by 2015.
The WH and Congress could not only not accomplish that task, nor would any of the plans put forth actually do it within that time, their political farce was merely the kick over the cliff.
At the risk of being again “uncivil” to a hypersensitive bottom feeder, that you portray Chambers single sentence, taken out of a thoroughly congruous explanation, as the sole reason for the downgrade is the smell of desperation. If you aren’t “desperate” for partisan redemption, the only explanation for your game playing is that you are, as Aye points out, a “dumbazz”. So far, you haven’t proven him wrong.
@Aye:
“Let me get this straight now…you’re criticizing my sources…and then using Wiki to back up your opinion?”
Uh, those are wiki guidelines, which are surprisingly very strict and well written, and not a wiki article. Incidentally not using editorials as sources is journalism 101. You don’t know that? And I’m the ‘dumbazz’?
“If you’ve got any source material to rebuff what I’ve stated here, ie specific policy proposals in writing which embrace the recommendations, then feel free to present it.”
Oh I see. I must present ‘specific’ policy proposals, but you can produce ‘opinions’ stating that if Obama didn’t incorporate commission suggestions in his budget, this is absolute proof that he ‘rejects them’ (your assertion), as though there are no other circumstances in which the proposals can be considered.
Again, not going to play that game – changing the rules and standards as they fit at your leisure.
Wow… I sure love the smell of nepalm… er, desperation… in the morning.
I see. So ignoring the debt commission’s proposals, and *not* incorporating them into the Presidential budget , constitutes Obama’s “acceptance” (for the definition challenged, the opposite of “rejection”) of those suggestions now?
The only one playing games thamster is you. You tried to play gotcha and that blew up in your face. You haven’t been able to prove one thing you’ve claimed, and have lied repeatedly.
The sad thing is you seem to think you are “winning.” Charlie Sheen will be your other name around here besides dumb*ss. If you had even two brain cells to rub together you’d understand just how badly you are embarrassing yourself. Being a typical bigotted leftist, you haven’t a clue…about anything.
@MataHarley:
I just love the way you ‘debate’ by either changing the argument (attacking the strawman) or calling names, and completely disregarding your own contradictions by redefining what the ‘Tea Party’ is. It’s really breath-taking, if only for the lack of coherency in argument.
In any case, it must nice. Taking credit for the Tea Party for the positives (‘we push Obama for spending cuts!’, and disavowing any connections (‘holding up the agreement? That’s not us!) when things turn bad.
I never claimed Chamber’s quote was the ONLY reason for the downgrade (there you go again changing the argument). I brought it up because you refuse to acknowledge political infighting (led by the Tea Party representatives) were a major cause of the downgrade, even though you posted the quote yourself. Again, cherry-picking bits and pieces to support your pre-drawn conclusion that the Tea Party had nothing to do with the debacle.
By the way, I leave you with this from the S&P report:
“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.”
Still going to say the Tea Party (and their obstinate insistence on no taxes – Boehner and McConnell were willing to at least consider it) had no part to play in the credit downgrade? Or are you going to redefine the Tea Party’s position to squirm your way out of this one?
@MataHarley:
“Wow… I sure love the smell of nepalm… er, desperation… in the morning.”
You already used that line… twice. At least come up with some new insults if you’re going to debate with insults.
“So ignoring the debt commission’s proposals, and *not* incorporating them into the Presidential budget , constitutes Obama’s “acceptance” (for the definition challenged, the opposite of “rejection”) of those suggestions now?”
Uh, he did in April. How is that a ‘rejection’?
By the way, it was Aye who claimed they were rejected by Obama. Nothing was said about ‘acceptance’ by me. You inserted that yourself.
So much for paying attention… and reading comprehension.
Just using your own tactics. 🙂
@Hard Right:
Hard Right, if I’m ignoring you, it’s because you keep throwing all these insults and accusations without using any sorts of backup or evidence, or even rational arguments. Go ahead, I’ll continue to ignore.
I believe the “redefining” has all been on your part, and probably we might classify you as a naive innocent… being led down the merry path of dementia…. by our resident purveyor of hatred for all, Ivan.
The Tea Party is, and has always been, an undocumented, non membership grassroots movement. It has never been a Congressional respresentative group, and at best a piss poor attempt at a “caucus”… which has no power either. I did not represent it as a Congressional power in my post, nor in any of the comments. That onus of English language inferior abilities belongs to you.
Again, this falls back on your inability to comprehend simple reading. The TP grassroots movement held firm to deficit reduction… whether it be via entitlement reform, IRS reform and/or cuts as a combo. Oddly enough, that’s exactly what the S&P wanted to see. This puts the TP and the S&P squarely in the same corner of the boxing ring.
You truly are a victim of the public education system, aren’t you, thamster?
My entire post is about how the party infighting, as well as their refusal to do what was necessary to reduction the deficit… BOTH PARTIES… were to blame. You, however, decide to insert “led by the tea party representatives”
What eff’in TP “representatives”? Exactly how many times do I have to point out to you that there are NO.. ZIP… NADA… ZERO (like the POTUS) “representatives in Congress that are TP? There are only opportunists that ride a grassroots movement’s coattails to get elected… just like Obama did on the anti-war crowd.
Just as Obama has betrayed the anti-war crowd, those that got election with TP votes were betrayed. That, Mr. 8th grade reading ability, is the crux of the entire post.
duh
I’m not sure how many time it needs to be pointed out to you that the TP want’s deficit/debt reduction, entitlement and IRS reform, and that S&P did not care whether the increased revenue was accomplished by a combination of all of these… as long as it came up with some plan to do so.
Apparently, being a hard core leftie, with little ability to comprehend the simplest of things, you are unfamiliar with what fiscal conservatives see as necessary. Without reform of entitlements, and IRS reform, there is no debt/deficit reduction. Unfortunately both parties in Congress refuse to relinquish their rigor mortis death grip on the nation’s cookie jar.
That’s the difference between you and I. I see where both parties are failing the citizens. You seem to be suffering under the delusion you and your’s are perfection. Such an attitude, peppered with the latest talking points and insistence on placing blame anywhere other than where it should lie, prohibits cogent and worthwhile debate.
Thus… you are a bottom feeder, and a fool.
Dumbazz… perhaps a good new name for you… if you do a search (hint Mr. Code champ, use CTL F) and search the word “nepalm”. I used it once.
Desperation? I’ll use that line until you figure it out. Besides, now that I know you consider it “uncivil”, be preapared to hear it a lot.
Go back and read the comment again, dumbazz. If your scroll abilities are as challenged as the rest of your reading and thought processes, I’ll repeat it here…
He rejected it by deliberately not including it in the official budget. When he did “embrace” it, he did so in a way that CBO could not score his proposals.
What would you call that? Inept? Not genuine? Either works for me.
Well, mr. desperate braintrust… he has two choices. He can either “reject” the proposals by his own debt commission (which he did by not including them in the budget), or he can “accept” them. Not really difficult. You either support the proposals, or you don’t.
You want to dance in the grey area inbetween?
Desperate.
heh… nice demonstration of “ignoring” there…
Hint, when you “ignore”, you don’t respond. It’s quite simple really. Well, maybe not for you.
Ah… leaving would be too much to hope for. Such diddling away of precious time on such a worthless endeavor does seem to be the essence of fruitless. I suppose reminding you that a Dem majority Congress (both House and Senate) in December of 2010 passed that same act, and was signed by a Dim POTUS (not a spelling error or typo for “Dem”, BTW). Where’s your indignation for the Dems, dude?
So, allow me to respond with the below from the S&P press release, that you seem to be incable of absorbing en toto. Read slow now. It’s not only a sentence but an entire paragraph. I know that may be hard for you.
Your move, braintrust. I hope it’s only that the sound of the FA saloon doors, swinging shut, beating your tush on the way out.
@mata: You are expending an enormous amount of energy (and bandwidth) to defend an indefensible position, to wit:
This suggests that S&P evaluated the impact of the Tea Party’s role in the GOP insistence in not agreeing to tax increases. S&P did not go into that level of detail; just as S&P didn’t specify any preferred combination of spending cuts and tax increases, although their press release makes it perfectly clear that S&P felt that tax increases should definitely be a component of the “mix.” Rather, one reason for the downgrade, which was specifically spelled out in their press release, was GOP intransigence in not permitting tax increases to be part of the deficit-reduction mix. This was specified in their press release.
Now, you may personally believe that the Tea Party had nothing to do with the GOP’s unwillingness to raise taxes, but S&P didn’t address the forces behind the GOP’s tax position — much less exonerate the Tea Party, as screamed by your blog post headline.
Why don’t you simply (and graciously) concede that your headline was incorrect?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Because it’s not, Larry.
Why don’t you simply (and graciously) concede that there are more ways to increase revenue than raising taxes?
Why don’t you simply (and graciously) concede that the TP and the S&P were asking for the same demonstration by Congress for debt/deficit control?
@thamster:
In #51, the hamster said:
In #52 Aye responded:
In #53 you agreed to my challenge with conditions:
In #55, I provided multiple sources showing that Obie had rejected the fiscal commission recommendations.
Those sources included, but were not limited to, White House Chief of Staff Daley.
Now, after the sources have been presented, you want to reject them not because they are factually invalid, but because they are editorial in nature.
Desperate.
Finally, you want to whine that I am “changing the rules and the standards as it fits at your leisure.”
Desperate.
Clearly the “rules and the standards” have not changed. They were clearly established way back in #52 as shown above.
You’re just wriggling on the hook as the big fish swims ’round you.
Now, Dumbazz, where are the proposals put forward in writing by Precedent Downgrade which reflect his support of the fiscal commission recommendations?
@MataHarley:
“I’m not sure how many time it needs to be pointed out to you that the TP want’s deficit/debt reduction, entitlement and IRS reform,”
Are they or aren’t they, as one of the their core principles, against the idea of raising taxes?
“Apparently, being a hard core leftie”
I’m not a ‘leftie’ but in your simplistic world-view, I guess anybody who doesn’t agree with you is a lefty or commie.
“Desperation”
Yeah, that word. I like how you picked out the other word that you know I’m not referring to and honing in on that (strawman again).
“I’d say that wasn’t a rejection… I’ll give you that.”
“He rejected it by deliberately not including it in the official budget.”
Is it just me, or did you just contradict yourself again? Once again, changing the argument to suit whatever point you’re trying to make at the moment.
“Well, mr. desperate braintrust… he has two choices. He can either “reject” the proposals by his own debt commission (which he did by not including them in the budget), or he can “accept” them. Not really difficult. You either support the proposals, or you don’t.”
Or you can keep then under consideration and incorporate them at the appropriate time, as he’s done. If I’m thinking about buying a car, but haven’t yet, does that mean I rejected buying a car? Do you always see things in such simplistic terms? Black and white? Yes or no? You’re with us or against us? You lack multi-dimensional thinking, and I’m the fool?
By the way, I interpret the insults as an inability to debate coherently, so keep them coming.
@Ayehole:
“where are the proposals put forward in writing by Precedent Downgrade which reflect his support of the fiscal commission recommendations?”
Happy?
Same question to you as to Larry… who also seems to believe the only way there is more private taxpayer revenue to spread around is by raising taxes on a private sector that will be hampered in a recovery (that never happened, as even Krugman now admits…)…
Why don’t you simply (and graciously) admit that increasing revenue is not solely confined to tax increases on the individual’s income? Especially when doing so… across the board including those that Obama opposes doing so (under $250K)… will not muster up enought to effect the S&P rating?
There’s that reading inability again. Two different instances.
Rejection was not including it in the official POTUS Feb budget.
Shuck and jive was the April speech, that was not specific enough to be scored by CBO, and was nothing more than lip service.
Your move, braintrust. Try thinking in paragraphs, and not excepted nouns and verbs.
And you say you’re not a leftist… LOL. There is a difference in mulling over the purchase of a car, and submitting an official POTUS budget. Then, when faced with both CBO and Congressional silence and disapproval, coming back with lip service in a speech.
So far, the only inability to debate coherently has been adequately demonstrated by you. Perhaps the key words in there is “interpreted by me” paraphrased. We’ve already seen your “interpretation” abilities.
Your move, braintrust.
@thamster:
Uh…dood. You’re really not very good at this are you?
Linking to an article that refers to a speech that the unPrecedented made does not a written policy proposal make.
In fact, your cited article clearly states that the referenced speech by The Won was short on specifics and details. Nothing more than shuck and jive lip service as Mata so aptly described it.
So again, Dumbazz, where are the proposals put forward in writing by Precedent Downgrade which reflect his support of the fiscal commission recommendations?
@thamster, get yer own links, Lazy one. I gave you that… gratis. As I pointed out, that is his “embracing” of the debt commission, in unscore’able lip service (aka a speech), three months after rejecting it in his budget.
Your move, braintrust.
@mata: I was making a very specific comment — I’m really not at all up for a general debate on what mixture of spending and taxing is most appropriate, beyond what I’ve already written (earlier). My comment is that, contrary to your headline, S&P did not absolve the Tea Party for contributory blame in exacerbating government gridlock to the point where common sense compromises have now been taken off the table.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, we’ve been here, done that. It’s like running circles with both you and the hamster. We already know you only see tax increases as a possible revenue increase because you don’t support anything else (like entitlement reform). Therefore you are part of the problem.
I already know you believe that S&P didn’t absolve the Tea Party grassroots movement. Can’t help it if you’re wrong. S&P blames Congress, refusing to do the hard stuff that both the TP and S&P were demanding… in any combination… to demonstrate debt/deficit reduction. Again, that’s not my problem. That’s yours.
And that is most telling by your refusal to respond to my question as to why you refuse to admit there are more ways to increase revenue than raising taxes. As long as you remain focused on that narrow tunnel vision, and ignore that the TP and the GOP both did, and would, consider tax reforms and entitlement reforms, we will get nowhere.
@Ayehole:
“Uh…dood. You’re really not very good at this are you?”
LOL I knew this was coming.
“Linking to an article that refers to a speech that the unPrecedented made does not a written policy proposal make.”
Frankly, if you want to see the actual document go dig it up yourself. That’s EXACTLY what I meant by changing rules. You can offer weak opinions as ‘proof’ of your argument that Obama rejected the commission (but nothing quoted to Obama), but I have to provide ‘written policy proposal’ for my argument that Obama accepted the recommendations of the commission.
Do you not see the disparity in the standard levels of the sources?
Typical of the right to stack odds in their favor, then claim ‘fairness’, Ayehole.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, I’m siding with Mata on this, and it’s probably not a big surprise.
Your statements regarding Mata’s headline, without someone reading the rest of the article, would lead that person to believe that Mata is implying that the S&P statements specifically mention, or imply that they have stated that the TEA Party is not responsible for the downgrade. That is misleading, and intellectually dishonest of you.
The first part of Mata’s article;
See that bolded portion? It is in reference to various talking heads and government officials, including people like Kerry, who call this a TEA Party downgrade. Mata is merely pointing out that S&P’s own words contradict those accusations.
S&P’s own words;
Now, you will remember, hopefully, that every plan brought forth by the GOP was threatened with veto by Obama, and stated as “Dead on arrival” by Reid. Some of those plans actually met S&P’s stated requirement of $4 Trillion to avoid a downgrade, yet, Obama and the Dem Senate still shot them down. And one of them even included some tax increases.
Yet, you seem to want to follow Kerry’s lead and lay all the blame for the downgrade on the TEA Party, even though the TEA Party never cobbled together a unified, stated repudiation of any of the plans, and that less than half of the ‘TEA Party caucus’ in congress voted against the “deal” that was accepted.
The fact of the matter is that the blame rests on the shoulders of the GOP, the Democratic Party, and Obama himself. The former for not holding firm on needed spending limitations, and the latter two for doing virtually nothing during the whole debate except for criticizing every other plan brought forth.
We have a dysfunctional Congress, and an overreaching Executive Branch that doesn’t lead.
In short, the S&P report, and subsequent comments from company officials, exonerates the TEA Party against the accusations of the WH, Congressmen like Kerry, and much of the MSM pundits and talking heads. And your answer is to attack Mata, and attempt to confirm those accusations against the TEA Party, when none of the words issued from S&P support your assertion.
@MataHarley:
“Your move, braintrust. ”
Wow, a new line. Tired of ‘desperation’?
I’ll ‘move’ when you stop ducking the questions I posted. I purposely kept them one-line so you can’t miss them.
Once again, explain your contradictions:
On whether Tea Party exist in Congress,
And if Obama rejected the commission, how is it he incorporated their ideas in his April proposal?
Explain the Tea Party’s position on tax increases. Are they for them or against them (there, I kept it simple and two-dimension, just for you.)
“There is a difference in mulling over the purchase of a car, and submitting an official POTUS budget.”
You’re right, one is a simple process, which surprisingly has more than two possibilities. The other is more complex, which for some reason you feel should only involve two choices (reject or accept). Bizarre!
Yo braintrust… all your questions have been responded to. Maybe get an adult to help you read the answers, yes? Or perhaps one of your young cyber friends more adept at the simple tasks… like scroll up… to re’read.
@thamster:
Yo, Dumbazz, as much as you’ve tried to duck, dodge, shuck, and jive there have been no changes to the rules. Nor will I allow you to make any changes.
I laid out the synopsis for you in #85 above.
The standard was clearly established and you plainly agreed to it. Yet, you’re still wriggling.
Scurry along now, and find a link to the written policy proposal that I’ve been asking for since way back in #52.
How nice of you to give the cyber rodent “scroll help” by providing a clickable link, Aye. Maybe you should tell him which button on the mouse to use?
@Aye:
“The standard was clearly established and you plainly agreed to it. Yet, you’re still wriggling.”
LOL as I’ve said over and over, you have yet to show a source showing ‘Obama rejected the commission’s proposal’, only the opinions of several (including a REPUBLICAN) that opinated he did. Opinions are not facts, though it seems in the conservative realm, as long as you repeat something over and over (‘Obama’s a Muslin’), it magically becomes facts. His later incorporation of those proposals (and MataHarley even agreed with this, sort of, that is – before she recanted) showed that he did accept the proposals, just not the ways that conservatives wanted.
It’s hilariously that you feel you can offer such such weak support for your argument, but feel that I must provide more than a reputable newsource version of what happened. That’s not how it works, Ayehole.
On no you don’t, bottom feeder. I did not “recant”, and I will not accept your limited grasp of the English language and basic reading skills to again malign my position and words. Your disabilities are your own, and you will not try to stand on up some hand out you think I gave you. The original comment is there, in full, for anyone else with the 8th ability to read, in my comment #71.
Obama did not “later imcorporate” crap because Obama presented crap in lofty speeches… which the CBO themselves said “we don’t estimate speeches”
If you consider every speech by every politician an “incorporation” of policy, you are even dumber than any of us could fathom.
LOL! I’m sorry, *YOU* provided a “reputable newsource”? Is there no end to your spin and lies? Not to mention erroneously placed self esteem?
What a hoot, bottom feeder.
In the meantime, you can learn to stand on your own. Your sleazy Alinksy tactics of lies and twisting words does not work here.
@MataHarley:
“Yo braintrust… all your questions have been responded to.”
Really? I asked the following in post #83
“Are they or aren’t they (the Tea Pary), as one of the their core principles, against the idea of raising taxes?”
Simple yes or no question. You ‘answered‘ by changing the subject.
I think you’re the one who need some ‘adult’ help in reading…
Scroll up, braintrust. Hint, use CTL F, and search “mataharley” to highlight every one of my comments. Take your shoes off and read…. slow. Every one of your questions have been answered, yet you still continue to ask them over and over, as if it will be a difference response. No subjects changed. Ask me again, and I will again refer you to my comments thoughout this thread. So if you insist upon hitting this brick wall over and over because you’re too dense to get it, then I’ll make it easier on myself and just keep linking to this comment.
As I said, I answer most every response… even from those with as little absorption capabilities as you. And in your case, I’ve answered them to not only you, but Larry and Ivan, more than once..
But I’m only polite to those that aren’t bottom feeders.
@MataHarley:
“I did not “recant”, ”
“The original comment is there, in full, for anyone else with the 8th ability to read, in my comment #71.”
Jesus Christ! I was referring to this:
“I’d say that wasn’t a rejection… I’ll give you that.”
“He rejected it by deliberately not including it in the official budget.”
And you have the gall to accuse me of not reading. Hypocrisy knows no bound.
“*YOU* provided a “reputable newsource”? Is there no end to your spin and lies? Not to mention erroneously placed self esteem?”
Oh I should give you credit. The source came from you actually. Do you still want to question it’s credibility? Really?
And how about staying out of another debate and working on answering your own questions? Still waiting on you to explain whether there are Tea Party members in Congress, not what the Tea Party is/isn’t. *Sign* You’ll probably just change the subject again.
That was your words, not mine, sleaze bucket. Again you must only see occasional words and totally skip paragraphs as part of your reading problems. Not to mention you now desperately resort to combining comments out of context from two completely different threat notes (i.e. #71 and the other from #80), and addressing two completely different events… the budget and the “speech not a policy”. Shall I again repeat what I said – verbatim (look it up, oh challenged one…)?
And, what I said from comment #80:
Of course you should give me credit. Obviously you’re incapable of focusing on a single paragraph, let alone finding out that Obama only “embraced” the debt commission in lofty speeches only, months after refusing to put it in his budget, and not in actual proposed policy. But then, you wouldn’t know the difference between the two, eh? You seriously need a translator.
See my comment #102 which refers you back to comments like #7, 11, 13, 20,28, 30, 38… etal.. and 58, 71, 72, 79,82,88, after you showed up.. Embrace scrolling, bottom feeder. Your laziness now warrants no more attention from me. Start from the beginning, read. Then feel free to wind your way to the saloon exit doors.
@MataHarley:
My words? Those were quoted directly from you. Out of context? They were related to the same false argument (that Obama rejected the commission’s proposal). You claimed that he didn’t reject them, then claimed he did. How is that not recanting?
So besides more personal attacks and claiming you didn’t say what you said, and changing the subject when cornered, do you have anything else?
Look at #101. It linked directly to the question you answered by changing the subject. So your claiming you answered every questions is bogus.
@Ayehole:
Here you go Ayehole. Can’t wait to hear what your excuse is now.
@john:
Her headline said this:
I simply (and accurately) stated that S&P did no such thing. S&P did not “find the Tea Party innocent.” S&P said nothing about the Tea Party. S&P said that they lowered their baseline projections specifically because the GOP wouldn’t go along with tax increases. They didn’t go into the dynamics of the forces within the GOP which were forcing this intransigence. They didn’t specifically blame the Tea Party, nor did they exonerate the Tea Party. Thus, Mata’s headline was not only misleading; it was incorrect. That’s all I said.
You said that I “attacked” Mata. Kindly quote the words I used in this “attack,” and then compare and contrast those with the words which Mata used in attacking me. I never “attacked” her. I said that her headline was incorrect. I stand by this statement.
Moving on to the role of the Tea Party in the downgrade:
You quote thusly:
This is a very long quote, but you leave out the following statement:
Now, the “assumption” to which they were referring above, was their “baseline projections.” This shifting of the baseline downward left their upside scenario below the AAA rating level. That was the specific reason for the downgrade, as stated by S&P.
Now, we need to delve into the reason why “the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenue.”
In the run up to the election of 2010, a number of prominent, veteran, Republican office holders faced Tea Party primary challenges. A number of them lost to Tea Party candidates. And the GOP won a sweeping victory, in the 2010 mid-terms. To deny that the Tea Party has played a prominent role in convincing the GOP leadership and rank and file that they should not compromise with the Democrats would be to deny reality.
Now, S&P didn’t delve into these reasons why the “majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenue.” But they specifically cited this fact as the reason they lowered their “baseline projections.” No, they didn’t specifically find the Tea Party “guilty,” but neither did they specifically “exonerate” the Tea Party, nor was the Tea Party “found innocent!” Surely, you can see that. This was the only point which I was making.
I note that Mata has brought yet another charge against me, to wit:
That’s completely false. How many times have I stated that I’d immediately raise SS retirement age to 70, which would solve a large portion of the problem. The other thing I’d do is to eliminate the cap on annual payroll and self employment taxes (which are highly regressive taxes). If more was needed (e.g. adjusting COLA formula), I’d certainly go along with that, too.
With regard to Medicare, nothing will go further to solve the health care cost crisis (both public AND private) than getting rid of the current system which rewards doctors for doing the most tests, doing the most surgery, giving in-office drugs on the most frequent schedule possible (a huge problem in the horrendously expensive cancer treatment sector), choosing the most expensive drugs (because some doctors effectively run retail pharmacies within their practices), and so on. As I’ve pointed out, a pilot program to do just this is an important component of ObamaCare, and it has a much higher probability of being a paradigm-shifting game-changer than any of the impotent measures proposed in GOP trial balloons.
The point is, I’m hardly opposed to entitlement reforms.
You go on to state:
Let’s consider this. The GOP House could propose and pass anything it wanted, as they had a large majority and only required a simple majority. So they passed measures which consisted solely of spending cuts and did not include tax increases (and can we just call them tax increases and not get hung up in euphemisms. When you close a loophole, it’s a tax increase. When you eliminate a credit or a deduction, it’s a tax increase. When you raise fees, it’s a tax increase. Anything that brings in more revenue is a tax increase, when you define a “tax” as a charge which the government makes to private citizens and corporations to fund government operations. Efficiencies which save money are not revenue enhancers; they are simply efficiencies and spending reductions).
Anyway, the GOP could do this stuff, because that had a big majority and only needed a simple majority. In the Senate, the Democrats had only a slight majority and needed a supermajority. Yes, the GOP came in with proposals of $4T in cuts. But that was as unacceptable to Democrats as it would have been to Republicans, if Nancy Pelosi still had a House Dem majority and passed a bill with $4T in pure tax increases.
With respect to Boehner’s alleged offer to include tax increases, reportedly totaling as much as $0.8T — that was wonderful, and it could have led to a deal which would have totaled $4T in deficit reduction.
To put things in perspective, you have to remember what the various bipartisan groups had proposed (or were talking about):
For starters, the GOP “opening offer” was 100% spending cuts. The effective Dem “opening offer” was a 50/50 balance between spending cuts and taxes.
So how did the bipartisan groups come down?
Bipartisan Policy Center’s report by Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin: 50/50 ratio of spending cuts and tax increases
Bowles-Simpson: Tax increases exceeding $1.2T
Gang of Six: Tax increases exceeding $1.2T
Alleged Boehner offer: Tax increases totaling $0.8T
Alleged Obama counter offer: Tax increases totaling $1.2T
Now, Boehner was allegedly ticked off because he thought he had a deal at $0.8T. But this is the real world and, if you recall, when word was filtering out that Obama was giving up substantive entitlement cuts in return for only $0.8T in taxes, the Democratic base went ballistic on him.
Behind the scenes, the GOP base was going ballistic on Boehner. The Democratic base told Obama that they’d never go along with cutting SS in exchange for only $0.8T in taxes. So he found out what he could probably get his base to accept, and he agreed to Boehner’s spending (including entitlement) cut proposals in exchange for $1.2T in taxes.
The White House claims that this was still negotiable, and implied that they would probably have come down, in order to finally nail down an agreement. But Boehner didn’t return phone calls for 24 hours and then abruptly announced that he was calling off all negotiations. It is 100% obvious that this was in response to blowback from his own base (remember his impassioned/emotional “I stuck my neck out a mile” speech?). I personally think that there is no way in the world that Boehner would have gotten support for even his $0.8T tax increase concession.
Now, why was Boehner incapable of negotiating further, when the two sides were ostensibly so close ($0.8T vs $1.2 T, with the ability to compromise somewhere in between?). We are talking about maybe $0.2T out of a $4T deal. You really don’t think that the primary and general elections of 2010 had anything to do with that?
I don’t give Obama a pass. At this time, I’m seriously considering supporting Mitt Romney, depending on the campaign rhetoric he uses, if he gets the nomination (no way that I’d vote for Palin, Bachmann, Perry; though I’d also consider Huntsman). Obama is a smart man, whom I personally like, but he’s been a disappointment as a true leader. As far as the Democratic congress goes, they are just being typical Democrats. Lost in the woods, without a strong leader, as the Democrats have been for the past 100 years. It’s the Will Rogers saying: “I’m not the member of any organized political party; I’m a Democrat.”
Anyway, back to my original point. S&P did not find the Tea Party innocent. They didn’t exonerate the Tea Party. I personally feel that — absent the Tea Party, Obama and Boehner would have cut a “balanced” deal that the two parties and the country would have supported and the nation (and prospects for the economic future) would have been far better off for it. This is simply a personal opinion and I wouldn’t do as John Kerry did in trying to label this a “Tea Party downgrade.” But this is simply standard political rhetoric, used by both sides.
You say:
I agree.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Merciful heavens… now I “attacked” you? LOL
Wait a minute… shall we revisit the comments, just as you suggested, and examine those “attacks” you accuse me of?
You come in with your first comment, saying my “…screaming headline is a gross misrepresentation” in your first comment #24, then went on to do exactly what I was addressing as the subject of the entire post – that the accusers/plaintiffs (the WH, the Dems and the media) insisting that the “tea party” (the defendants) was doing the scare mongering and the stock markets were reacting to a grassroots movement, and not the WH and both parties of Congress’s inability to demonstrate one genuine attempt to rein in the debt/deficit and reform entitlements. The tea party? Who the heck was out there, talking about armaggedon and catastrophe? It was Obama, himself, almost daily and the Dem leadership. There’s even a few instances of the GOP doing the same.
Since your entire post was nothing more than a reiteration of the very accusations I said were absurd, I came back with that heinous “attack” – as you and your bud, bottom feeder, like to call it – saying it smelled of desperation, and that you were again acting as a human shield for this POTUS. Something you do quite often.
When you asked me what you said wrong, I told you in comment #28. In that comment (where I was quite civil in telling you what you said was wrong), my second heinous (LOL) insult was to suggest you should spend more time listening to the financial news instead of 3rd rate comedians that you link as sources. Because the CEOs and fund managers interviewed on CNBC, Bloomberg and CNN belied your statement.
I addressed you, directly, next in my comment #59, countering your sideline accusation of a “gross interpretation”, and pointed out that was really you, and another act of pure partisan desperation.
Oh my… what a personal “attack”. Desperation, desperation, desperation. Sure gets you and bottom feeder hot under the collar, eh?
You came back in #62 and tried to again say the same thing – the tea party was to blame, that my statement they were innocent of the WH/Congressional political farce was untrue, and that the GOP refused to raise taxes. I responded in #63 that you have limited mental deductions because the GOP had agreed to $800 bil in increased revenues… thus what you were saying was simply untrue. However you only tie increased revenues only to direct individual tax increases, and not necessarily other IRS reforms that also result in increased taxation. As I pointed out, you forever remain fixated on the Bush tax policies only.
That, Larry, is the extent of our conversations until you came back in with your snide comment #83, tersely suggesting I was taking up a lot of bandwidth and I should just “simply (and graciously)” admit I was wrong. Chutzpah. To which I responded, asking two simple questions of you in comment #84.
Other than two more comments… #91 by you, reiterating your position I was wrong, and #92 by me acknowledging that I know you disagree… that’s pretty much the extent of our interaction here. Want to go read them again? All documented here. And I trust your ability to scroll up is superior than to the bottom feeders demonstrated disability.
BTW, I’d like to point out that you’ve never acknowledged those questions, and merely crawled back with some wounded victim “waste of bandwith” hogwash (good for the gander too, yes?) about how I “attacked” you.
?????
Larry, I attacked the bottom feeder, and have no compunction about doing so. Nor do I issue any apologies to that individual, and instead am giving him a real example of how to “ignore” someone. You know I respond to comment’s tones generally in like kind, with a bit of leeway on either side. But oddly enough, you and the bottom feeder suffer from the same affliction… you both pick out various random sentences I make, ignore them in their full context (i.e. my first entire “courtroom metaphor” paragraph of this original post) string them together, and come up with some bizarre interpretation inorder to tell everyone else what I said…. and it’s always wrong. But “attack” you? No. Be equally rude to the hampster, who consistently misinterpreted and twisted information to a way he thought fit his own purposes? You betcha.
Another shared trait – you both parse words as your smug proof… For you, it’s as johngalt points out above. Because the S&P didn’t mention the tea party by name in their press release (and why should they, since what did they have to do with the negotiations?), they could not have pronounced them innocent.
For the bottom feeder, he plays the game that Obama’s official Feb budget, ignoring all the Debt Commission’s suggestions, wasn’t a rejection because he didn’t say he “rejected” it. But then, after even his own Senate unanimously threw that garbage budget out the window for that “non rejection”, he absolved himself of guilt montls later with a lofty speech and vague paragraphs on the WH website… none of which the CBO could score as a proposal in policy. In other words, Obama was backtracking, but not with policy.. just lip service.
Reality is, Obama put forth one plan only in the budget – and that ignored all the Debt Commissions suggestions to do just as the S&P and the fiscal conservatives wanted… debt/deficit reduction and entitlement reforms. You can’t accomplish the former without the latter. And revenue increase is not only accomplished in the form of individual tax increases, but by IRS reform and reduction in the size of a very bloated and waste government. And that includes all the federal agencies that Obama and Pelosi/Reid have created with both O’healthcare and Dodd/Frank.
If you and the thampster are so hypersensitive as to see the phrase – “smell of desperation” – as an attack, then you are as thin skinned as he is. If you use emotions and mistruths to suggest the documentation and links I provided in the original post to support my headline, and then expect me to blow verbal love and kisses your way, you’re reading the wrong FA posts.
I not only don’t suffer fools, I also have no patience with whiny victim types who “grossly exaggerate” the menial as personal “attacks”. So, as with bottom feeder, I’m done with you, too, here. And I’ll leave you with another S&P press release paragraph you choose not to see in your continued partisan attempts here…
No position on the mix that it would take to accomplish what both the S&P and the fiscal conservative tea party grassroots movement want. NO POSITION ON THE MIX. oops…
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
That’s a lot of information trying to defend your position, however, it means very little.
As I said, with the MSM, the WH, and congressional democrats blaming the downgrade on the TEA Party, the report from S&P does “exonerate” them, even if they don’t specifically mention them by name.
Consider this later clarification from Mr. Beers of S&P regarding the downgrade;
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110807/bs_nm/us_crisis_usa_beers
Now, you can sit there and contemplate that a GOP position resistant to tax increases should be one side of the equation, however, S&P doesn’t make that distinction, nor would an impartial observer.
And, what’s more, I’ve already explained to you, countless times, that tax increases, and revenue, are a very, very small part of the actual problem. It’s the spending. It’s always been about the spending. And it will continue to be about the spending.
The TEA Party is NOT responsible for the downgrade, and that was the point of Mata’s entire article.
@mata: I made a mistake. I’m sorry. This concerns John Galt accusing me of “attacking” you, and me telling him to compare and contrast my so-called “attack” with yours. I haven’t read every single message on this thread. I did recall reading the following quote from one of Thamster’s posts:
I honestly thought he was referring to things that you said about me on this thread. I still haven’t gone back and read everything, but I presume that you lobbed those verbal grenades (Thamster) at him and not at me. Wrong presumption. I’m truly not the center of the universe. mea culpa. I’m sorry.
I don’t, however, understand why you and he (Thamster) have to fight at such a personal level. You are very smart and know a lot of things and express yourself very well. He’s obviously smart and knows a lot and expresses himself well. I’d really enjoy the opportunity of just sitting back and watch the two of you have a serious and spirited debate over these issues. But the gutter sniping is just nauseating (it’s why I haven’t been reading all the posts on this thread — life is just too short to waste my time reading playground language).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@MataHarley: You might like to read this article from redstate.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/08/08/what-if-barack-obama-is-right/
It take the view of what if the Whitehouse Arguement is correct. again blaming the Tea Party does not compute.
I accept you apology, and thank you. As I said, I generally respond to comments in similar kind. Those statements. As to the list from the bottom feeder…. and to whom they were addressed and why:
My response to nobiggovduh in #11, where he played your game saying S&P named the GOP as the fault.. not only debunked in the original post, and several posts above…. but also countered by the S&P excerpt where they said they had no position on the mix of entitlement reforms/spending cuts/revenue increases.
That single paragraph upon which you, who wish to blame the TP and/or GOP, rest your evidence that the S&P says it’s all the GOP’s fault has to do with the the Bush tax policy future. In the full context of the press release, it is just another example of uncertainty about US future tax policy and anticipated revenues. That uncertainty, combined with a volatile attitude in Congress/WH (by both parties) and runaway entitlements (which the S&P continues to harp on even post release) is what made them unconvinced the the WH/Congress will ever address significant debt reform. And I assure you, gaining only $40 bil annually from the wealthy, and bypassing the bulk of the $233 bil from those making under $250K annually, is not going to appease the S&P. That wouldn’t make a dent in the debt/deficit reform.
It may, however, make a huge different on revenue growth/collection and business entrepreneurialship.
Again, I will remind you that the S&P doesn’t care what mix of spending cuts/revenue/entitlement reform is as long as debt/deficit reduction is achieved, and both parties and the WH can agree. Since everyone left genuine entitlement reform off the table, it was a failure from day one.
BTW, entitlement reform (which should not be confused with merely delaying the delivery of entitlement benefits… a kicking of the proverbial can) is off the table by the Dems and the WH. Ryan was excoriated for his budget that included it, and that includes publically by a POTUS using the bully pulpit.
The first two were delivered to Ivan in #18, who again viciously lied about my words (and has yet to clean up his lies about my “honor” elsewhere), saying I stated the TP was an official party. The “Idiot” was in comment #20, when he still insisted that there were TP “members” in Congress. Members of what? An email update/alert list? A caucus that met twice in this year, has no policy power, and didn’t even address the debt ceiling debate in those meetings? Or that only 26 of them voted, along with 95 Dems, against this farce of a debt ceiling agreement? Such power of “representation” by such “members”… count me unimpressed. The TP and the S&P wanted the same thing… a demonstration that both parties of Congress and the WH would do meaningful reform and reduction of government spending/size. We all “got nothing”, as the saying goes.
To you, as documented above… heinous, eh??
My comment to johngalt INRE you stating that long term debt wasn’t the problem, but it was the long term debt credit rating that was downgraded. As I said, you might not think it’s a problem, but apparently the S&P does. Another “heinous” insult, eh?
My response #38 to Greg’s “it’s all the GOP’s fault” type comment when he said that the GOP had to learn simple arithmatic for balancing the budget. Oddly enough, his partisan blame on the GOP was countering my comment we were screwed by both parties. Was a great contrast.
Now remember, this was bottom feeder’s first comment on this thread… and including this forum. In it, he decided to include a laundry list of comments, without considering to whom and why they were used. Pile this on to an irritation habit of reiterating your IMHO erronous opinion that this is all the fault of a grassroots movement only born last year. And you wonder why he’s off on the wrong foot with me? As he deteriorated, I matched him.
That you think he “expresses himself well” means you truly didn’t read the thread comments. And that you deliberately ignored his own tone and decided to lay that blame on me instead also means you either didn’t read the comments, or the fact our disagreement here is so deep rooted, you are blinded by bias towards a kindred, and unkind, spirit.
@Carl, hadn’t seen Erik’s post on that, thank you. I did see John Hinderaker’s post on Powerline yesterday as well. I’m not the only one, scratching my head as to how they think they can make the TP mud stick against the wall on this one.
I might disagree with Redstate that the downgrade was not warranteed, even as compared to those in the Eurozone. At least, for now the Eurozone is safe. A few months downline, that can change as well. The Bear market status watch is increasing in both Europe, the Middle East and SE Asia as well. This is a global downturn, and not just the US.
S&P’s comparison to others who retained their AAA rating stemmed from their government’s measures to implement austerity. In other words, they made an effort, and mid decade, the numbers were projected to see a beginning decrease in the GDP/debt. The problem with the US is that there is no decrease in GDP/debt until much further out… if at all. Not to mention the roll of the dice in actually predicting anything real in GDP growth in an economic global turndown.
Thus the error that Obama is pouting about was insignficant. Instead of the projection of 91% of the GDP in 2021, it was like 87% of the GDP that year… still going up and up every year. But I’m sure it makes lots of good propaganda for campaign purposes, and is yet another way to fingerpoint away from the responsibilities of both the WH and Congress. I just don’t happen to agree with their excuses.