White House adviser blames tea party for downgrade

[ClownToucher]

A little off topic but one thing I notice about Tea Party is that they are constantly attacked with the most vicious insults. Most lefties do not attack the Tea Party beliefs, they simply spout hateful garbage and call them tea baggers or religious nuts.

[markymark69]

Who cares anyway? These posts are all anonymous. How can you (the general "you", not you specifically Mark) get your panties in a twist over something some anonymous person you have no respect for says online? What's so special about "reps"? You have to be pretty insecure to worry about this ****.*

Every so often there is a tread started to 'petition the mods to ban such and such'. Even when I vehemently disagree with people, it is much easier to place people on ignore.

But there is a definitely bias towards who is banned and not banned. You can call the president a bongo banging porchmonkey...that is ok. Call someone a bigot...thats not ok.

It reminds me when I was at UF..over by the CISE building there used to be a preacher that would argue with students..telling them they were going to hell, etc. Finally one day a student called campus police and the guy was arrested. All the students started cheering. I asked one chick next to me...what if that was you getting arrested for complaining about tuition increases? Suddenly it was put in perspective.

[PSToolman]

Your post is baseless.

How can you say that? Do you deny that we are at a point where nothing can get done, and as a result we were downgraded? Are you so self-absorbed that you think you have all the answers and that we have been downgraded because of everyone else? This is not an authoritarian dictatorship. Your "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude has no place in a representative republic. I believe we'll see tomorrow how Americans really feel about the Tea Party having their heels dug in too deep to compromise in the recall elections.*

[Tekkendo]

A little off topic but one thing I notice about Tea Party is that they are constantly attacked with the most vicious insults. Most lefties do not attack the Tea Party beliefs, they simply spout hateful garbage and call them tea baggers or religious nuts.

Poison pen politics. Demonizing the opponents is their specialty. It is easy to do when you are not guided by moral and ethics.

[Tekkendo]

How can you say that? Do you deny that we are at a point where nothing can get done, and as a result we were downgraded? Are you so self-absorbed that you think you have all the answers and that we have been downgraded because of everyone else? This is not an authoritarian dictatorship. Your "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude has no place in a representative republic. I believe we'll see tomorrow how Americans really feel about the Tea Party having their heels dug in too deep to compromise in the recall elections.*

May be the Democrats should take out the dictionary and learn the true meaning of the word "compromise"? *shrug*

[PSToolman]

Every so often there is a tread started to 'petition the mods to ban such and such'. Even when I vehemently disagree with people, it is much easier to place people on ignore.

But there is a definitely bias towards who is banned and not banned. You can call the president a bongo banging porchmonkey...that is ok. Call someone a bigot...thats not ok.

It reminds me when I was at UF..over by the CISE building there used to be a preacher that would argue with students..telling them they were going to hell, etc. Finally one day a student called campus police and the guy was arrested. All the students started cheering. I asked one chick next to me...what if that was you getting arrested for complaining about tuition increases? Suddenly it was put in perspective.

I hear you. There are a lot of self described "patriots" that have a lot to learn about patriotism.*

Incedently, the next time someone refers to bongos and Obama, remind them that bongos are associated with Cuba, not Kenya or Hawaii.*

[Tekkendo]

Who cares anyway? These posts are all anonymous. How can you (the general "you", not you specifically Mark) get your panties in a twist over something some anonymous person you have no respect for says online? What's so special about "reps"? You have to be pretty insecure to worry about this ****.*

I concur. But I am not surprised.

[209vaughn]

Streetbull asked dukeUSMC to ban me when I called streetbull a bigot. I got a two week ban plus a mod neg. I emailed the forum admin and the ban was lifted.

There is a disturbing trend of banning posters in this forum. You can bash gays, blacks, hispanics, you can make misogynistic statements ad nasaeum, tell people how to stalk women IRL...oddly enough those type of posters are not banned. Criticize a particular poster that leans to the right politically and you are banned.


The sad thing: self-described conservatives on this forum cheer those type of bannings.

Most of the people who "troll" on this thread are generaly speaking 1) atheist, 2) liberal. Neither group which is very enlightened.

[amtharin]

How can you say that?*Do you deny that we are at a point where nothing can get done, and as a result we were downgraded? Are you so self-absorbed that you think you have all the answers and that we have been downgraded because of everyone else? This is not an authoritarian dictatorship. Your "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude has no place in a representative republic. I believe we'll see tomorrow how Americans really feel about the Tea Party having their heels dug in too deep to compromise in the recall elections.*

His comment was directed at the tea party, and it is not based on anything substantial or concrete, just his opinion. (i.e. it's baseless).

[PSToolman]

May be the Democrats should take out the dictionary and learn the true meaning of the word "compromise"? *shrug*

How is a proposal that includes both spending cuts and revenue increases not a compromise? The Tea Party people signed a pledge that they wouldn't raise taxes. They took it to the extreme and stood against eliminating loopholes on American companies importing products they made overseas. Boehner didn't have enough clout to get them on board and was unable to strike a deal. Seems he actually did try to reach a compromise but was a pretty weak leader by that point. I bet he's not Speaker in the next congress.*

[PSToolman]

His comment was directed at the tea party, and it is not based on anything substantial or concrete, just his opinion. (i.e. it's baseless).

Well, I am of the same opinion and have posted my basis for it. Care to address those points?*

[amtharin]

How is a proposal that includes both spending cuts and revenue increases not a compromise? The Tea Party people signed a pledge that they wouldn't raise taxes. They took it to the extreme and stood against eliminating loopholes on American companies importing products they made overseas. Boehner didn't have enough clout to get them on board and was unable to strike a deal. Seems he actually did try to reach a compromise but was a pretty weak leader by that point. I bet he's not Speaker in the next congress.*

How is refusing to make any type of reasonable cuts a compromise??

[aceshin]

May be the Democrats should take out the dictionary and learn the true meaning of the word "compromise"? *shrug*

Compromise: "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands."

Now, when one party gets "98% of what it wanted", that is not compromise. As PStoolman said, refusing to compromise has no place in a democracy. Now, I know you'll insist the democrats weren't compromising, well, assuming that's true we just have to ignore how they agreed to absolutely 0 tax increases.


^Amtharin are you serious right now? While the spending cuts are not what they need to be, that deal was a mutually agreed on, last minute effort. However, the deal consisted of everything the republicans had been demanding (admitted by Boehner) and nothing the Democrats wanted. That is not the definition of a compromise.

http://www.economist.com/node/18928600

[amtharin]

Well, I am of the same opinion and have posted my basis for it. Care to address those points?*

No, I dont care to hear your baseless opinion either.

[amtharin]

Compromise: "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands."

Now, when one party gets "98% of what it wanted", that is not compromise. As PStoolman said, refusing to compromise has no place in a democracy. Now, I know you'll insist the democrats weren't compromising, well, assuming that's true we just have to ignore how they agreed to absolutely 0 tax increases.

The tea party did not get real meaningful cuts, which is what they wanted. So the Dems dug their heels in just as much.

This "98%" stuff is just bullcrap talking points that you obviously fell hook, line, and sinker for. Fact is, the dems never offered the republican/tea party anything meaningful.

[War Machine]

[Tekkendo]

How is a proposal that includes both spending cuts and revenue increases not a compromise? The Tea Party people signed a pledge that they wouldn't raise taxes. They took it to the extreme and stood against eliminating loopholes on American companies importing products they made overseas. Boehner didn't have enough clout to get them on board and was unable to strike a deal. Seems he actually did try to reach a compromise but was a pretty weak leader by that point. I bet he's not Speaker in the next congress.*

B/c that proposal is nothing but smokescreen gimmick? B/c no one believes that Reid actually means to cut $4 trillions? Heck no intelligent person believes the current deal is going to realize any ACTUAL cut. Boehner is not important. It is never about him. This is about fiscal responsibility and solving the out of control spending and debt problem. This is about the Tea Party.

[Tekkendo]

Compromise: "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands."

Now, when one party gets "98% of what it wanted", that is not compromise. As PStoolman said, refusing to compromise has no place in a democracy. Now, I know you'll insist the democrats weren't compromising, well, assuming that's true we just have to ignore how they agreed to absolutely 0 tax increases.

sounds good on paper, except that it isn't true. It is all gimmick and smoke screen. No one believes any material cut is ever going to come from this deal.

[JUSA]

They ban the wierdest people.

Amtharin, Streetbull, and all the other trolls stay.....and Catmando gets kicked?

dumb mods are dumb

Amtharin & Streetbull aren't trolls, though. They're simply very, very partisan. People don't get banned simply for being partisan, hence your own unbanned state of being. Agree with Amtharin or Streetbull (or disagree strongly) but they don't engage in anything beyond what is fairly typical here, aside from only attacking on side of the isle and tending to defend the other.

Catmando is incapable of having a discussion to express his viewpoints. All he can do is make childish personal attacks, which is so sad that he's legit 70 years old and behaves online like that.

Edit: Did Street get Marky banned in the past? That's fairly uncool but still not troll-worthy. Marky himself tends to pick his side to fight for but you gotta give him props for his willingness to debate. Sucks to hear he got mod-negged, it's off-topic but I hate that ****. Mods, like our Government, shouldn't pick winners or losers. Having tasted two mod negs for fairly BS reasons (and being deep deep red because of it), I'm fairly sensitive to this subject.

[War Machine]

A little off topic but one thing I notice about Tea Party is that they are constantly attacked with the most vicious insults. Most lefties do not attack the Tea Party beliefs, they simply spout hateful garbage and call them tea baggers or religious nuts.

Because if they (lefties) actually debate beliefs they lose horribly as facts are typically not there to support them.

Plus you need to check the leftist handbook "Rules for Radicals" (online, don't give money to the guys!):

5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. (In this case there are pressuring the TEA Party and hoping for a reaction, then say "see we told you so")
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

[PSToolman]

No, I dont care to hear your baseless opinion either.

Then why do you keep responding?*

[War Machine]

The Tea Party has legitimate points of concern, but the way they go about things is bad for this country. The political environment is way too polarized and like it or not they are the party primarily responsible for that.

Please explain.

We have a monthly meeting and discuss issues over cookies and bottled water or soda. We raise money to buy that and help with renting the conference room for an evening with T-shirt sales and donations. We let elected officials know how we feel and if we don't see things going for the better, they may not be re-elected. The way we see things better are more personal responsibility (don't look for the government to bail you out) and lower taxes. I have seen young, old, black and white at meetings. Speakers have been both Republican and Democrat.

Contrast that to SCIU thugs beating people up. Black Panthers outside polling places with billy clubs. A 40% increase in spending. A healthcare bill MOST PEPLE DIDN'T WANT. The current trend in "glittering" politicians (who always seem to be republicans...hmmmm....), a person elected to be in charge that answers everything with "I inherited the problem", "the Republican's", and "Bush blah blah blah...." and now the TEA Party is the brunt of the attacks. That doesn't even bring up things like the commercial that portrayed Paul Ryan pushing granny off a cliff.

Now explain how the TEA party is responsible for political polarization?

[PSToolman]

The tea party did not get real meaningful cuts, which is what they wanted. So the Dems dug their heels in just as much.

This "98%" stuff is just bullcrap talking points that you obviously fell hook, line, and sinker for. Fact is, the dems never offered the republican/tea party anything meaningful.

I don't know what that means: "Meaningful". Is that we only cut 2.1 Trillion, or that we didn't make cuts where the Tea Party wants cuts? The monied backers of the movement have a hard-on for Social Security and Medicare and that's all they'll accept. How's this for meaningful? Everything the Tea Party, and the rest of the GOP for that matter, has espoused has killed jobs in this country. Holding back on the stimulus, refusing to close loopholes, calling recess without reauthorizing the FAA. They refused even to stop subsidizing private jets for corporations, yet they won't lift a finger for any of the millions of Americans struggling to find work. If we were to fill every available job in the US today, we'd only cut unemployment from nearly 10% to around 7%, when it should be less than 5%. Why do you want to help kill jobs in the US?*

Here's a tip for the Tea Party: If you wan't to cut Medicare and Social Security so badly, just continue to place roadblocks in front of any legislation for the next five months or so. If congress fails to pass a budget that cuts another Trillion and a half from the deficit, 750 Billion gets cut from domestic spending automatically. Let's see how that strategy will work out for you.

[PSToolman]

B/c that proposal is nothing but smokescreen gimmick? B/c no one believes that Reid actually means to cut $4 trillions? Heck no intelligent person believes the current deal is going to realize any ACTUAL cut. Boehner is not important. It is never about him. This is about fiscal responsibility and solving the out of control spending and debt problem. This is about the Tea Party.

If it were really about fiscal responsibiliy, we'd be talking about the tax codes that are killing jobs in the US, and nobody from the Tea Party, or the rest of the GOP, is talking about that. If the Tea Party were the grass-roots organization they pretend to be, and not financed by global-corporatists, they would be talking more about jobs. We'll never have deficit reduction until we get more Americans working and paying taxes. Cuts alone cannot get us there, and certainly not without creating a huge new class of homeless Americans. But, hey! As long as half of one percent of the US population keeps their loopholes.*

[all pro]

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. Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria (see "Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions," June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government's other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged. http://www.housingwire.com/2011/08/0...-s-debt-rating On April 13,(The Ryan plan) President Barack Obama laid out his Administration’s medium-term fiscal consolidation plan, aimed at reducing the cumulative unified federal deficit by US$4 trillion in 12 years or less. A key component of the Administration’s strategy is to work with Congressional leaders over the next two months to develop a commonly agreed upon program to reach this target. The President’s proposals envision reducing the deficit via both spending cuts and revenue increases. Key members in the U.S. House of Representatives have also advocated fiscal tightening of a similar magnitude, US$4.4 trillion, during the coming 10 years, but via different methods. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan seeks to balance the federal budget by 2040, in part by cutting non-defense spending. The plan also includes significantly reducing the scope of Medicare and Medicaid, while bringing top individual and corporate tax rates lower than those under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. We view President Obama’s and Congressman Ryan’s proposals as the starting point of a process aimed at broader engagement, which could result in substantial and lasting U.S. government fiscal consolidation. That said, we see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties remains wide. We believe there is a significant risk that Congressional negotiations could result in no agreement on a medium-term fiscal strategy until after the fall 2012 Congressional and Presidential elections. If so, the first budget proposal that could include related measures would be Budget 2014 (for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013), and we believe a delay beyond that time is possible. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tex...ook-2011-04-18

[Tekkendo]

If it were really about fiscal responsibiliy, we'd be talking about the tax codes that are killing jobs in the US, and nobody from the Tea Party, or the rest of the GOP, is talking about that. If the Tea Party were the grass-roots organization they pretend to be, and not financed by global-corporatists, they would be talking more about jobs. We'll never have deficit reduction until we get more Americans working and paying taxes. Cuts alone cannot get us there, and certainly not without creating a huge new class of homeless Americans. But, hey! As long as half of one percent of the US population keeps their loopholes.*

How are you going to create jobs by raising taxes and increasing the cost of doing business? You are latched onto a few myth there. 1. You seem to think that outsourcing can be fixed with a change in the tax code, totally ignoring the disparity in labor costs as the main factor. 2. You seem to believe that all the social spending is going all to the needy, totally ignoring the enormous waste, abuse and fraud involved. 3 You also posted that government workers are more efficient allocators of resources, which is patently absurd and flies in the face of reality.

[johnsbod]

Here's the full report: S&P

No, the rating was not lowered because taxes were no raised.

[Enso]

Now explain how the TEA party is responsible for political polarization?

Not by objecting, but by the way they object. *It is possible to have ideals, but then understanding that sometimes compromise for the greater good is ok. *We have massive debt and too much spending. Everyone agrees that needs addressing. However, you can't just stop it over night in an already fragile economy. Government spending = jobs. Economy weak on jobs...don't cut back spending too drastically too soon since the market is already saturated with unemployment. Taking the nation to the brink of default and to the point of having to pay more interest (i.e. spend more money) via credit downgrade because of unwillingness to address how to generate more revenue (which is going to have to come from letting the Bush tax cuts expire like it or not) does not make much sense to me. *We can cut more later on as time passes and the economy digests the present cuts. *The whole point of the charade *seemed more to do with trying to carry this into next years election in an attempt to undermine Obama which is dirty politics and putting politics before the people. *In my book, any one, and I mean anyone, who voted against the debt ceiling compromise needs to go. *We need more cooperation and less fighting. However, it is hard to do with the intentions of others are questioned and hatred/anger gets in the way. And, I say, like it or not...the Tea Party in the primary party responsible for this atm. Republicans and Democrats have their weasels too, but by in far by percent represented...the Tea Party takes the cake.

[johnsbod]

Not by objecting, but by the way they object. *It is possible to have ideals, but then understanding that sometimes compromise for the greater good is ok. *We have massive debt and too much spending. *Everyone agrees that needs addressing. *However, you can't just stop it over night in an already fragile economy. *Government spending = jobs. *Economy weak on jobs...don't cut back spending too drastically too soon since the market is already saturated with unemployment. *Taking the nation to the brink of default and to the point of having to more interest (i.e. spend more money) via*downgrade*because of unwillingness to address how to generate more revenue (which is going to have to come from letting the Bush tax cuts expire) does not make much sense to me. *The whole point of the charade as well seemed more to do with trying to carry this into next years election in an attempt to undermine Obama which is dirty politics and putting politics before the people. *In my book, any one, and I mean anyone, who voted against the debt ceiling compromise needs to go. *We need more cooperation and less fighting. *However, it is hard to do with the intentions of others are questioned and hatred/anger gets in the way. *And, I say, like it or not...the Tea Party in the primary party responsible for this atm. *Republicans and Democrats have their weasels too, but by in far by percent represented...the Tea Party takes the cake.

Actually, quite a few Americans agree that we need a drastic overhaul of government now in order to save the economy and jobs. How does not reforming government waste and corruption in a bad economy help the economy? The Tea Party is doing what they were elected to do.

[Enso]

Actually, quite a few Americans agree that we need a drastic overhaul of government now in order to save the economy and jobs. How does not reforming government waste and corruption in a bad economy help the economy? The Tea Party is doing what they were elected to do.

Well, most people would agree it is better to taper your self down rather than cut straight away. So, cutting spending gradually over time will be easier for the economy to digest. Take it step by step. It seems to me as well Obama could simply say that letting the Bush tax cuts expire is not permanent. That taxes can be lowered once we are in better shape and spending is more in line and the economy stabilzes. The top 1% have the majority of wealth in the nation, and while the increase may not be 'fair' so to speak...it is necessary in the short term. We are in the shape we are in. We have to do what we have to do.