Obama Announces Deal To Raise Debt Limit, Cut Spending

[Pakboong]

Blaming the tea party dudes though for removing a major governmental option in the revenue side of things though may well be fair and also may well be one reason why the rating went down. It isnt believed that growth or cuts can resolve things on their own (quite a realistic assessment) and tax increases arent an option. In the meantime loiony Ben prints money while keeping interest rates at virtually zero. Reality is nobody at all has a realistic plan as they are all too absolutist in their philosophical economic fantasy lands and those embedded in reality know it although are a tad late and a tad too little in acknowledging it in the ratings companies case

Actually I do not think it is unrealistic to disallow increasing revenues while agreeing to increase debt that in no way helps to increase revenues.

After all you cannot suck blood from a stone.

The ratings were going to go down as it was told from day one if there were not enough cuts to the overspending. They just thumbed their noses at them thinking none would dare to downgrade the US AAA ratings.

They were wrong yet Barack is still in denial during his speech today.

Claiming America always was & always will be AAA

Unfortunately he is not in charge of ratings....Or perhaps fortunately?

As for BS Bernanke....I think many folks still operate under the misguided thought that the FED in FED Reserve means they are the Federal government.

They are not & have had a much bigger role in creating problems than fixing them.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of any foreign coins.

But that has not been the case since 1913

The FED's creation occurred at a secret meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910

Man, I thought the Federal Express was part of the federal goverment, like a special post office or something.

[venturalaw]

I heard the following analogy of the lack of logic in blaming the Tea Party for America's current financial problems:

"Blaming the Tea Party is the same as blaming the person who dialed 911 to report a fire."

They may have dialed 911, but then they stood in the street and blocked the fire trucks from arriving on the scene saying those firetrucks were only good enough to contain the blaze, not put it out. In the end, the firetrucks were allowed in, but much more damage was done in the meantime.

TO quote a rather well known conservative genius, "If Washington's trajectory could be turned as quickly as Tea Partyers wish — while conservatives control only one-half of one of the two political branches — their movement would not be as necessary as it is."

By making the general public aware of the impending doom, which has been forecast by both conservatives and liberals, the Tea Party forced an out of control regime to capitulate. Bottom line - we cannot spend our way out of the problems that have occurred as the result of creating the dependency-model (lack of self-reliance/motivation) heralded by those who worship big government. We are not too far from experiencing firsthand the chaos that has infested the UK.

[bonobo]

I heard the following analogy of the lack of logic in blaming the Tea Party for America's current financial problems:

"Blaming the Tea Party is the same as blaming the person who dialed 911 to report a fire."

They may have dialed 911, but then they stood in the street and blocked the fire trucks from arriving on the scene saying those firetrucks were only good enough to contain the blaze, not put it out. In the end, the firetrucks were allowed in, but much more damage was done in the meantime.

TO quote a rather well known conservative genius, "If Washington's trajectory could be turned as quickly as Tea Partyers wish — while conservatives control only one-half of one of the two political branches — their movement would not be as necessary as it is."

By making the general public aware of the impending doom, which has been forecast by both conservatives and liberals, the Tea Party forced an out of control regime to capitulate. Bottom line - we cannot spend our way out of the problems that have occurred as the result of creating the dependency-model (lack of self-reliance/motivation) heralded by those who worship big government. We are not too far from experiencing firsthand the chaos that has infested the UK.

I cannot stomach most of the top-echelon Tea Partiers (perhaps Bachmann most of all what with her being rather loose with her idea of being truthful, her views on education, her circumventing the law with her charter school, her slavish following of Francis Schaeffer,and so on.) And I think their single-mindedness is harmful as is TP'ers tendency to adopt socially repressive policies and them trumpet them under the Tea Party banner. A few leaders rationally discuss their economic views, but those people seem few and far between.

Despite that, I do appreciate their sounding the clarion call. The system is broken, and it needs to be fixed. However, once they sounded that call, I think they needed to get on board and at least contain the fire. They should not have been an obstacle to the process. I do think the analogy of them calling 911, to their credit, but then blocking access to the fire trucks because they didn't think the trucks were adequate is an apt one.

[chuckd]

I heard the following analogy of the lack of logic in blaming the Tea Party for America's current financial problems:

"Blaming the Tea Party is the same as blaming the person who dialed 911 to report a fire."

They may have dialed 911, but then they stood in the street and blocked the fire trucks from arriving on the scene saying those firetrucks were only good enough to contain the blaze, not put it out. In the end, the firetrucks were allowed in, but much more damage was done in the meantime.

TO quote a rather well known conservative genius, "If Washington's trajectory could be turned as quickly as Tea Partyers wish — while conservatives control only one-half of one of the two political branches — their movement would not be as necessary as it is."

By making the general public aware of the impending doom, which has been forecast by both conservatives and liberals, the Tea Party forced an out of control regime to capitulate. Bottom line - we cannot spend our way out of the problems that have occurred as the result of creating the dependency-model (lack of self-reliance/motivation) heralded by those who worship big government. We are not too far from experiencing firsthand the chaos that has infested the UK.

I cannot stomach most of the top-echelon Tea Partiers (perhaps Bachmann most of all what with her being rather loose with her idea of being truthful, her views on education, her circumventing the law with her charter school, her slavish following of Francis Schaeffer,and so on.) And I think their single-mindedness is harmful as is TP'ers tendency to adopt socially repressive policies and them trumpet them under the Tea Party banner. A few leaders rationally discuss their economic views, but those people seem few and far between.

Despite that, I do appreciate their sounding the clarion call. The system is broken, and it needs to be fixed. However, once they sounded that call, I think they needed to get on board and at least contain the fire. They should not have been an obstacle to the process. I do think the analogy of them calling 911, to their credit, but then blocking access to the fire trucks because they didn't think the trucks were adequate is an apt one.

The Tea Party supporters in Congress voted against the final bill passed by Congress to raise the debt ceiling.

While they may have delayed it a few days, gotten 'revenue' (higher taxes) taken off the table and had a very minimal affect on the debt, they really had no affect on the outcome of the law that was passed. It was passed over their 'no' votes. They are less than 10% of the 535.

The trucks got through by driving over them.

[koheesti]

It seems to me the government had it set up much better in 1944 with the corporate tax burdens reversed.

Corp tax was a higher percentage then because millions and millions were overseas fighting the war.

[koheesti]

I heard the following analogy of the lack of logic in blaming the Tea Party for America's current financial problems:

"Blaming the Tea Party is the same as blaming the person who dialed 911 to report a fire."

They may have dialed 911, but then they stood in the street and blocked the fire trucks from arriving on the scene saying those firetrucks were only good enough to contain the blaze, not put it out. In the end, the firetrucks were allowed in, but much more damage was done in the meantime.

Those looked like petrol trucks to me.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Apparently there is at least one person in the world who agrees with me.

ANDREW SULLIVAN, “How Obama Can Win The Fall”: “[T]he crucial fight -- presaged by the debt ceiling nonsense -- is still to be had in the next few months. This was a skirmish on which the president's ideological opponents exhausted their heaviest leverage. Now, both sides are equal, and my worry is that Obama, advised by the same people who thought it was wise to duck the debt issue head on in the SOTU and budget, will let the Congress take (or not take) the lead again. Yes, the Congress needs to do this. But there is also an obvious way for Obama to use his bully pulpit to push the Super-Committee toward success. There's a way to fuse his core messages: that he wants long-term fiscal reform that is balanced; that we can get past the red-blue culture war through pragmatism; and that we can and must restore confidence in the economy now.

“The answer is tax reform. It's clear that the GOP is resistant to any raising of taxes of the sort that is scheduled to occur in December 2012. And Obama, for reasons to do with keeping demand alive at all in this period, has conceded the logic that raising anyone's tax rates in a de facto recession is risky. So change the subject to a positive proposal: Reagan-style tax reform that is revenue positive. In my view, Obama should focus on this in stump speech after stump speech in the fall.” http://bit.ly/pFuII0

Accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative - just maybe we can get out of the destructive political spiral we find ourselves in. And lets see, how about some constructive leadership on both sides!

[Jingthing]

Yes, I like tax reform as described and have said so many times.

However, right now, GROWTH is more important than debt reduction, or things overall will get much worse, if you can imagine that.

The tea party agenda, ignorant as it is, doesn't get this. Their entire agenda is starving growth now when it is needed more than ever.

America’s debt is not its biggest problem

The debt crisis as it crests ultimately gives way to these growth-inhibiting, spending-contractionary secular forces. Having run up our credit card to keep on spending, we have reached market-enforced limits that force deleveraging. It is not the debt, however, but the lack of global aggregate demand that is at the heart of the crisis. As the entire world strives to put its own people to work before other nations do, policymakers constructively lower interest rates and delay sovereign, corporate and household defaults to provide breathing room. Fiscally, however, an anti-Keynesian, budget-balancing immediacy imparts a constrictive noose around whatever demand remains alive and kicking. Washington hassles over debt ceilings instead of job creation in the mistaken belief that a balanced budget will produce a balanced economy. It will not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americas-debt-is-not-its-biggest-problem/2011/08/10/gIQAgYvE7I_story.html

[BuckarooBanzai]

Yes, I like tax reform as described and have said so many times.

However, right now, GROWTH is more important than debt reduction, or things overall will get much worse, if you can imagine that.

The tea party agenda, ignorant as it is, doesn't get this. Their entire agenda is starving growth now when it is needed more than ever.

America’s debt is not its biggest problem

The debt crisis as it crests ultimately gives way to these growth-inhibiting, spending-contractionary secular forces. Having run up our credit card to keep on spending, we have reached market-enforced limits that force deleveraging. It is not the debt, however, but the lack of global aggregate demand that is at the heart of the crisis. As the entire world strives to put its own people to work before other nations do, policymakers constructively lower interest rates and delay sovereign, corporate and household defaults to provide breathing room. Fiscally, however, an anti-Keynesian, budget-balancing immediacy imparts a constrictive noose around whatever demand remains alive and kicking. Washington hassles over debt ceilings instead of job creation in the mistaken belief that a balanced budget will produce a balanced economy. It will not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americas-debt-is-not-its-biggest-problem/2011/08/10/gIQAgYvE7I_story.html

I fully agree that tax reform is just a small part of the answer but I do think it is a tangible step in the right direction. As mentioned in a previous post - businesses at this point in time have a disincentive to hiring people and this could be reversed with some changes to the tax code. It is also something that the two parties could conceivably work together on.

I think the great majority of people have opened their eyes to the damaging approach to governance that the tea party represents - perhaps their 15 minutes of fame is over. We will see. Anyone not supporting improvements to the economy and job creation is not going to last long. The progressive republican base will fight back before they see their party destroyed by a myopic faction in their midst.

There needs to be a grass roots movement by all to reduce the polarization in politics and get back to a more centrist majority. The current approach is clearly not working.

Most can agree that compromise is a necessary component to our political system.

[Jingthing]

I agree, polling strongly shows the vast majority want compromise. The tea party does not. Sadly, as long as they remain so stubborn, and really that's their whole brand, ignorant destructive, yes nihilistic stubbornness, reducing crippling polarization is impossible. They will never compromise; how are we supposed to deal with a movement like that? Look at the damage they have already done as a minority of republicans in one branch of government. Yes I also blame Obama for being a piss poor negotiator and surprising weak leader, and being more concerned about being reelected than standing up firmly to the nihilists.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

Yes, I like tax reform as described and have said so many times.

However, right now, GROWTH is more important than debt reduction, or things overall will get much worse, if you can imagine that.

The tea party agenda, ignorant as it is, doesn't get this. Their entire agenda is starving growth now when it is needed more than ever.

America’s debt is not its biggest problem

The debt crisis as it crests ultimately gives way to these growth-inhibiting, spending-contractionary secular forces. Having run up our credit card to keep on spending, we have reached market-enforced limits that force deleveraging. It is not the debt, however, but the lack of global aggregate demand that is at the heart of the crisis. As the entire world strives to put its own people to work before other nations do, policymakers constructively lower interest rates and delay sovereign, corporate and household defaults to provide breathing room. Fiscally, however, an anti-Keynesian, budget-balancing immediacy imparts a constrictive noose around whatever demand remains alive and kicking. Washington hassles over debt ceilings instead of job creation in the mistaken belief that a balanced budget will produce a balanced economy. It will not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americas-debt-is-not-its-biggest-problem/2011/08/10/gIQAgYvE7I_story.html

I would think that residents of a few counties in and around Washington, DC, would agree with your position that government spending solves all our woes. At least it does for them.

See the following article...

_______________________________________________________

Arlington has 2nd highest average wages in U.S.

By Tom Jackman

Taken from the article:

The 205,000 people who work in Arlington earn an average of $102,373 a year, the statistics show. Manhattan’s 2.75 million workers average $109,028 per annum. Washington, D.C. was third and Fairfax County, including Fairfax City and Falls Church City, ranked 10th on the list with an average annual pay of $87,540. The list ranked 330 counties or cities with at least 100,000 jobs.

Here’s the list of local interest:

Arlington County: $102,373 (ranked 2nd in U.S.)

Washington, D.C.: $98,246 (ranked 3rd)

Fairfax County: $87,540 (ranked 10th)

Alexandria City: $84,960 (11th)

Montgomery County, Md.: $78,643 (13th)

Loudoun County: $68,311 (36th)

Prince George’s County, Md.: $65,029 (51st)

Prince William County: $57,740 (110th)

By Tom Jackman | 02:03 PM ET, 06/27/2011

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-state-of-nova/post/arlington-has-2nd-highest-paying-average-wages-in-us/2011/06/27/AGFxhinH_blog.html

[Jingthing]

Cost of living and housing is very high there. I am intimately aware of the demographics of DC, and I don't think you addressed my point at all with that.

[koheesti]

WARNING! The following video doesn't touch on politics!

[Scott]

A few off the off-topic, inflammatory posts have been given a free, all expense paid trip to the cyber garbage bin. Next will be a few posters.

If you have nothing to say, then don't post. If you have nothing to do but flame other posters, then go elsewhere.

This topic is very close to be closed. Once everything has been said, they usually deteriorate into personal attacks and I note it's the same posters over and over again; so apparently others have lost interest in the discussion.

[Jingthing]

That video isn't bad, but I have three major points of contention --

1. Government can make judicious cuts as needed, and yes there would be flak, but depending on how intelligent the cuts are, that can be managed.

2. Government can do revenue increases in many creative ways without creating riots in the streets. For example, the tax code reform/restructure as noted (with a sweetener of tax simplification) and doubling the income cap for social security payroll tax. Somehow I can't imagine people making 200K per year starting violent riots.

3. The video acts like it's a done deal that there will be total global financial meltdown in two years. That's absurd. Nobody knows that.

4. Failed to mention potential strategies of government inducing growth, the only realistic way out of the current mess, using Keynesian methods.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Jingthing

[venturalaw]

That video isn't bad, but I have three major points of contention --

1. Government can make judicious cuts as needed, and yes there would be flak, but depending on how intelligent the cuts are, that can be managed.

2. Government can do revenue increases in many creative ways without creating riots in the streets. For example, the tax code reform/restructure as noted (with a sweetener of tax simplification) and doubling the income cap for social security payroll tax. Somehow I can't imagine people making 200K per year starting violent riots.

3. The video acts like it's a done deal that there will be total global financial meltdown in two years. That's absurd. Nobody knows that.

4. Failed to mention potential strategies of government inducing growth, the only realistic way out of the current mess, using Keynesian methods.

The Keynesian method has never worked. "The one thing you can say for Keynesian stimulus is that it is bi-partisan – it fails for Republicans as effectively as it does for Democrats."

The article - "Continual Keynesian Collapse"

David WeinbergerJune 4, 2011 at 3:13 pm

"Let’s recall that Keynesianism failed to revive the economy from the Great Depression, during which government spending increased throughout the 30s, yet unemployment remained in double-digits; it failed in 2001 when President Bush attempted to stimulate the economy out of recession by putting money in people’s pockets through a series of tax rebates; it failed under President Bush a second time in 2008, when government spent hundreds of billions of dollars; then it failed in 2009 under President Obama, after we spent the largest sum of money in the name of Keynesianism – some $800 billion – in order to revive the economy."

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/04/continual-keynesian-collapse/

[Ulysses G.]

I agree, polling strongly shows the vast majority want compromise. The tea party does not. Sadly, as long as they remain so stubborn, and really that's their whole brand, ignorant destructive, yes nihilistic stubbornness, reducing crippling polarization is impossible. They will never compromise

Something like 25 Tea Party members voted to raise the debt limit. This inaccurate propaganda does not match the facts.

http://johntreed.com/headline/2011/08/10/how-the-tea-party-caucus-members-voted-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling/

[Jingthing]

I agree, polling strongly shows the vast majority want compromise. The tea party does not. Sadly, as long as they remain so stubborn, and really that's their whole brand, ignorant destructive, yes nihilistic stubbornness, reducing crippling polarization is impossible. They will never compromise

Something like 25 Tea Party members voted to raise the debt limit. This inaccurate propaganda does not match the facts.

http://johntreed.com/headline/2011/08/10/how-the-tea-party-caucus-members-voted-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling/

They get 98 percent of what they wanted, and they are still complaining.

[venturalaw]

I agree, polling strongly shows the vast majority want compromise. The tea party does not. Sadly, as long as they remain so stubborn, and really that's their whole brand, ignorant destructive, yes nihilistic stubbornness, reducing crippling polarization is impossible. They will never compromise

Something like 25 Tea Party members voted to raise the debt limit. This inaccurate propaganda does not match the facts.

http://johntreed.com/headline/2011/08/10/how-the-tea-party-caucus-members-voted-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling/

Some will forever continue to ignore the facts/statistics that you posted UG simply because the Tea Party does not support their personal agenda.

[koheesti]

I agree, polling strongly shows the vast majority want compromise. The tea party does not. Sadly, as long as they remain so stubborn, and really that's their whole brand, ignorant destructive, yes nihilistic stubbornness, reducing crippling polarization is impossible. They will never compromise

Something like 25 Tea Party members voted to raise the debt limit. This inaccurate propaganda does not match the facts.

http://johntreed.com...e-debt-ceiling/

Harsh words from their own...

"Generally, the House of Representatives Tea Party caucus members of the House promised not to vote to raise the debt ceiling unless it was accompanied by a balanced budget amendment. There is no balanced-budget amendment. Below is a list of those who reneged on their promise; they are labeled “traitor” and the “no’s” are those who voted against raising the debt ceiling."

[Ulysses G.]

I agree, polling strongly shows the vast majority want compromise. The tea party does not. Sadly, as long as they remain so stubborn, and really that's their whole brand, ignorant destructive, yes nihilistic stubbornness, reducing crippling polarization is impossible. They will never compromise

Something like 25 Tea Party members voted to raise the debt limit. This inaccurate propaganda does not match the facts.

http://johntreed.com/headline/2011/08/10/how-the-tea-party-caucus-members-voted-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling/

They get 98 percent of what they wanted, and they are still complaining.

They wanted to reduce government expenditures to reduce the debt and got very little of that action. That is why they were voted in. No wonder they are complaining.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

Following is a link to an EDITORIAL concerning Obama and the Tea Party as it relates to his and his Party's economic policies.

It says in part this...

______________________________________________________

Morning Jay: The Uses and Abuses of the Tea Party

6:00 AM, AUG 10, 2011 • BY JAY COST

The following facts about the federal budget deficit are, as far as I know, widely accepted:

First. We have a long-term deficit problem that is due to the rising costs of federal entitlements, above all Medicare.

Second. Our current deficit is substantially larger than normal, due to several factors:

- The economic recession, which decreased the amount of tax revenue the federal government collects;

- An increase in government spending, in the form of automatic stabilizers, to mitigate the human toll of the recession;

- An increase in government spending, in the form of Keynesian stimulus, to restart the engine of economic growth;

- The continued weakness of the economy, which has kept tax revenues down and the cost of automatic stabilizers up.

Nowhere on this list do I see anything regarding the Tea Party. So why is this movement now so frequently mentioned as a prime factor in the country’s deficit woes?

Read entire article here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-uses-and-abuses-tea-party_588095.html?page=1

[koheesti]

Following is a link to an EDITORIAL concerning Obama and the Tea Party as it relates to his and his Party's economic policies.

It says in part this...

______________________________________________________

Morning Jay: The Uses and Abuses of the Tea Party

6:00 AM, AUG 10, 2011 • BY JAY COST

The following facts about the federal budget deficit are, as far as I know, widely accepted:

First. We have a long-term deficit problem that is due to the rising costs of federal entitlements, above all Medicare.

Second. Our current deficit is substantially larger than normal, due to several factors:

- The economic recession, which decreased the amount of tax revenue the federal government collects;

- An increase in government spending, in the form of automatic stabilizers, to mitigate the human toll of the recession;

- An increase in government spending, in the form of Keynesian stimulus, to restart the engine of economic growth;

- The continued weakness of the economy, which has kept tax revenues down and the cost of automatic stabilizers up.

Nowhere on this list do I see anything regarding the Tea Party. So why is this movement now so frequently mentioned as a prime factor in the country's deficit woes?

Read entire article here: http://www.weeklysta...095.html?page=1

That's a softball question. The reason is because the Tea Party is a direct threat in the elections. The attacks will only get more relentless.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Nowhere on this list do I see anything regarding the Tea Party. So why is this movement now so frequently mentioned as a prime factor in the country’s deficit woes?

Most everyone agrees with the tea party in that reduction in spending is an absolute requirement. The problem many have with the tea parties methods though is the timing. The recent need to increase the debt limit was to pay for existing debt and was not an approval process for any new spending. To simply say we are not going to pay our bills is not the way to resolve our problems. All our representatives should be working 24/7 on changing the federal budget to reign in spending - but not by threatening those who own our dept.

People are not looking at the tea party as causing our deficit woes but they are looking at the tea party as the primary reason for the downgrading of our debt.

Edited August 11, 2011 by BuckarooBanzai

[Ulysses G.]

People are not looking at the tea party as causing our deficit woes but they are looking at the tea party as the primary reason for the downgrading of our debt.

The democrats refused to cut spending enough to satisfy S&P's demands. That is the primary reason for the downgrading of our debt.

[Jingthing]

People are not looking at the tea party as causing our deficit woes but they are looking at the tea party as the primary reason for the downgrading of our debt.

The democrats refused to cut spending enough to satisfy S&P's demands. That is the primary reason for the downgrading of our debt.

No, sir, sounds like you didn't bother to even READ the report. The primary problem they see is a dysfunctional government, political gridlock that has crippled us, unable to make compromises and do BIG THINGS to approach our economic problems with a balanced approach. NOT ONLY CUTS! Did you get the message? It needs to be a massive, comprehensive plan including cuts, short term incentives, tax reform, entitlement reform, infrastructure investment, the whole bag. Tea party cuts only, which is suicide.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Jingthing

[Steely Dan]

That video isn't bad, but I have three major points of contention --

1. Government can make judicious cuts as needed, and yes there would be flak, but depending on how intelligent the cuts are, that can be managed.

2. Government can do revenue increases in many creative ways without creating riots in the streets. For example, the tax code reform/restructure as noted (with a sweetener of tax simplification) and doubling the income cap for social security payroll tax. Somehow I can't imagine people making 200K per year starting violent riots.

3. The video acts like it's a done deal that there will be total global financial meltdown in two years. That's absurd. Nobody knows that.

4. Failed to mention potential strategies of government inducing growth, the only realistic way out of the current mess, using Keynesian methods.

The Keynesian method has never worked. "The one thing you can say for Keynesian stimulus is that it is bi-partisan – it fails for Republicans as effectively as it does for Democrats."

The article - "Continual Keynesian Collapse"

David WeinbergerJune 4, 2011 at 3:13 pm

"Let’s recall that Keynesianism failed to revive the economy from the Great Depression, during which government spending increased throughout the 30s, yet unemployment remained in double-digits; it failed in 2001 when President Bush attempted to stimulate the economy out of recession by putting money in people’s pockets through a series of tax rebates; it failed under President Bush a second time in 2008, when government spent hundreds of billions of dollars; then it failed in 2009 under President Obama, after we spent the largest sum of money in the name of Keynesianism – some $800 billion – in order to revive the economy."

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/04/continual-keynesian-collapse/

Actually, the bi-partizan failure is not even truly Keynesian any more than Breivik was a 'Christianist'. Keynes advocated governments saving money in times of surplus to be used in order to mitigate recessions by direct government spending using money saved during good times. The sad truth is money has never been saved and money supply (printed) has always exceeded the underlying GDP growth rate, especially in the year leading up to an election. Then the quasi-Keynesians have the brass neck to argue that Austrian school economics would cause greater problems if introduced whilst knowing full well they themselves have caused this. It's like being lost in the dessert and having made a guess which way it is to the Oasis the Keynesians point out that it's too late to turn back and try a different direction.

[Ulysses G.]

People are not looking at the tea party as causing our deficit woes but they are looking at the tea party as the primary reason for the downgrading of our debt.

The democrats refused to cut spending enough to satisfy S&P's demands. That is the primary reason for the downgrading of our debt.

No, sir, sounds like you didn't bother to even READ the report.

They told us how much to cut and we did not do it and it was the democrats who refused.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

People are not looking at the tea party as causing our deficit woes but they are looking at the tea party as the primary reason for the downgrading of our debt.

The democrats refused to cut spending enough to satisfy S&P's demands. That is the primary reason for the downgrading of our debt.

No, sir, sounds like you didn't bother to even READ the report.

They told us how much to cut and we did not do it and it was the democrats who refused.

Cutting that much and NOTHING else was politically impossible, and you know it, everyone knows it. The only path was COMPROMISE and there were big plans on the table, initiated by Obama, but the tea party jammed it. You still don't get it and now it seems you simply refuse to get it. The main criticism from S and P was that the US system is showing serious signs of not be able to make the compromises needed to move towards a solution. Repeat -- politically possible. That's the key. The tea package is without a doubt the most guilty party making things impossible in the recent drama. The vast majority of Americans oppose the tea party's inflexibility now. They came out of the closet for the damage they are willing to inflict for the sake of their misguided unbending ideology.

[Ulysses G.]

The vast majority of democrats.