House Speaker John Boehner famously said that he thought the Republicans got 98% of what they wanted in the debt ceiling agreement, crappy as it was. Then, late Friday, Standard & Poor’s announced they had downgraded the U.S. government’s previously unsullied credit rating. God forbid Republicans had gotten 100%, eh?
Ben Hoffman urges us to read the Standard and Poor’s report on why the rating company downgraded U.S. credit.
S&P Explicitly Blames Republicans For Credit Downgrade
by Ben Hoffman
Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.
Obama should have let the Bush tax cuts expire last year, which would have dramatically reduced our deficit. The Republicans held the unemployed hostage and Obama negotiated a bad deal with the domestic terrorists.
Is there more in that report we should read before we get the torches, tar and feathers to meet with our Republican representatives in August town meetings? Would they get the message with polite questions?
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Don’t you know we all are Political Science professors? Just because people use their intelligence to discuss these matters doesn’t mean they’re putting on airs. Just because people use their intelligence to discuss these matters doesn’t mean they’re putting on airs. It’s funny how you resort to name calling, and attempting to diminish the intelligence of those who disagree with you. I do like your use of the word “voracious.”
That’s twice in the space of a few minutes you’ve claimed not to be doing something, and then later on in the very same paragraph gone on to do that very thing.
2. very eager or unremitting in some activity: voracious reading
Okay now you’re dinging someone on something in which, according to the reference material, he knows exactly what he’s doing, because you disagree with his politics. Nice. Classy.
LikeLike
G
You take one sentence out of the entire post, and focus on that. If we were face to face, that would be called selective hearing. Context is key to understanding what someone is saying. Yes, a lot of people on this entire planet think they can trust other people for truth instead of finding it for themselves, Democrats or Republican alike. You tell me the Democratic equivalence to Glen Beck and his followers.
LikeLike
Why should I explain what the GOP in congress is doing? I don’t agree with half of it. I am just trying to say that one party is not 100% correct on anything. Stop bringing up talking points and asking how I explain it? I don’t know man. I can’t explain it. Every single issue is not black or white.
I could find a GOP talking point and post it on here, but I like to think for myself. All I know, is that most politicians in office now are insincere, and only really care about reelection. You have to be dense to believe the Democrats have all the answers, and the GOP are wrong about everything, or the opposite.
I know who to blame for everything in our country going wrong, and it is people who blindly follow a party, and defend everything they do. Get off the sidelines and stop cheering on your party.
LikeLike
“G’s starting to get it. We’ve got about four or five people here, plus the proprietor, who put on airs pretending to be cheerleaders and voracious readers and deep-thinkers, but all they’re really doing is cheerleading for the democrats who’ve made the problems in the first place.” – Morgan Freeberg
Don’t you know we all are Political Science professors? Just because people use their intelligence to discuss these matters doesn’t mean they’re putting on airs. It’s funny how you resort to name calling, and attempting to diminish the intelligence of those who disagree with you. I do like your use of the word “voracious.” It lends a lot more credibility to the thoughts you’ve materialized on this blog.
LikeLike
To quote
“They are idiots who feed off Americans who don’t educate themselves on the issues.”
The same could be said for many democrats. You are doing it again.
LikeLike
Housing market is the example of a deregulated market allowing to go on without supervision (A GOP moot point). The Housing Market crash occurred during the reign of GW, and that is a problem that all of Washington had their hands in. Just like the .COM bust, and the many busts before that.
Nobody is saying that all Democrats are right, and all Republicans are wrong. I don’t really feel cheerleading is going on (except for the person trying to convince us the Tea Party is a revolutionary concept that is full of such lovely ideals). I think, as the national approval polls have shown, that people are tired of the GOP and their divisive tactics. I don’t claim to be anything, I’ll vote for a Republican as long as he runs on a platform I agree with. However, I do admit that I will never agree with anything Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, or any of that sort say. They are idiots who feed off Americans who don’t educate themselves on the issues.
Yes, the tax loopholes are where a lot of big money makers keep their profits. President Obama suggested we close some of them during the debt talks, and the GOP responded like they always do, “NO NEW TAXES.” By closing the loopholes and by increasing taxes, we strengthen our economy. I just read a report that both houses of Congress are looking to propose a bill that will provide companies a “tax holiday” that will allow them to transfer funds into their American bank accounts for the discounted rate of 25% (it’s normally 35%). The GOP (and the businesses themselves) was pushing earlier in the year and last year for it to be 5.25%. In 2004, Bush proposed the 5.25% repatriation tax holiday, which is no surprise to me.
I would like G or Morgan to explain how that makes sense.
LikeLike
G’s starting to get it. We’ve got about four or five people here, plus the proprietor, who put on airs pretending to be cheerleaders and voracious readers and deep-thinkers, but all they’re really doing is cheerleading for the democrats who’ve made the problems in the first place.
Serious question I’ll just toss out for anybody. As usual, it comes from taking the bad idea seriously, and absurd contradictions result, to wit: Let’s just say we have a revenue problem with our government that is bigger (or more easily solved) than any silly spending problem. Let’s say Michael Moore’s right, there’s a vast abundance of wealth in the form of private property that should be turned into a public resource by way of higher taxes so the rich people stop getting away with murder and are forced to “pay their fair share.” Let’s assume further when we raise the taxes, their behavior will be unaltered, and they’ll just take it up the chute. Granting ALL of that.
There seems to be a bipartisan agreement that the real problem with taxing the rich, isn’t quite so much with the rates, it’s more like the so-called “loopholes.” Someone was tossing out the example of BOfA and Wells Fargo paying no taxes at all. So the problem that continues to come up, is that those with the resources to do so, hire the best lawyers and accountants and get away with paying (what someone else defines as) their fair share…
Why then is the hue & cry not to close the loopholes? Why then is there all this fuss and bother about raising the rates? Even a child could see, that would just sting the people who have enough wherewithal to be liable…and, over the long run, people who make substantially less than that…while those who are able to exploit the so-called loopholes, will continue exploiting them.
This is where you face facts and agree it’s a big, complicated universe, in which not all problems are solved by loading the Republicans into a rocket and firing it into the sun. (And then boasting about this perfect society you’ve built that is “tolerant” and “works for everybody.”) This is where you have to admit G is right, and you’ve just been cheerleading while pretending to be thinking. That is, assuming you’re not the cheerleaders I’ve been claiming you are.
LikeLike
You are right, I am wrong. Democrats are right about everything, and Republicans are wrong about everything. I just didn’t get it before. Now I see.
How did we get into this crisis in the first place? Does anyone remember what happened with the housing market?
James – you are nothing but a fan who roots for his team no matter what. The more fans we have, the worse our country gets. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!
LikeLike
Oh and G, here’s something for you to read. Educate yourself a bit please:
The left column is things the Republicans want to cut. The right column is things they want to keep.
My personal favorite is their desire to keep the tax loophole that lets hedgefund managers pay a scant 15% tax rate. That costs the government, just from the 25 richest hedge fund managers, nearly 7 billion dollars a year. Because somehow in the Republican mindset the 25 richest hedge fund managers can’t live on just over 600 million dollars each, they need at least 850 million dollars a year each.
but that supplemental nutrition program for poor families and the low income heating and energy assistance programs..those have to go.
LikeLike
G writes:
His tax cuts, I won’t say whether it was a good idea or bad idea, but it was bad timing. I understand why he did that, because in the past, cutting taxes increased consumer spending and brought more revenue into the government
Oh really? When was the last time cutting taxes on the rich increased consumer spending and brought more revenue into the government? Because Reagan tried that same exact thing and ended up having to raise taxes 12 times because of the deficit he created.
I can’t honestly think of the last time cutting taxes on the rich somehow magically brought more revenue into the government. Its never happened in my near 40 years.
LikeLike
G writes:
Yeah, the Iraq war cost us a lot of money. The tax cuts cost us a lot of money. So by tripling that amount, it makes it right. So out of control spending is countered by out of control spending?
This right here is the problem. How long are we going to keep passing the buck around? We need solutions. If your house catches on fire, do you spend all your time figuring out who started it, or do you start putting the fire out?
And you have evidence that shows that he tripled the amount right? Because from the figures I’ve seen…it was Bush that tripled what Obama has spent, not the other way around.
As for your fire anaology…that only works if there isn’t someone standing there throwing matches on the blaze. Because I have yet to see the Republicans take any responsibility for their, as you say, out of control spending. Because taking responsibility for their out of control spending would require them to get rid of the tax cuts, end the wars, cut the military and end corporate welfare. They flat out refuse to do it. They would rather the country burn then do that.
I have no problems with spendings cuts, G, I just don’t think they should be solely on the backs of the middle class and the poor. Also you have yet to answer this question: If the middle class and the poor aren’t spending, the rich aren’t spending, the businesses aren’t spending exactly how is the economy going to grow if the government engages in a fit of austerity?
Again, the problem with the stimulus package wasn’t that it was money spent..its that it was money spent on the wrong things and not spent in a sufficient enough amount.
Before you think I’m contradicting myself when i say I have no problem with spending cuts and yet take the tack above I just did..I’m not. There are certain cuts we should do now and the rest should wait til the economy is back on its feet. You want to increase the economy? That requires consumer demand. you create consumer demand by putting money in the hands of those who don’t have it..the middle class and the poor. You sure as hell don’t do that by cutting things like unemployment benefits.
But as it stands massive cutting of government spending right now is only going to suck money out of the economy and make it worse.
As for your statement about “this is whats wrong” well sorry until you somehow magically get the Republicans to knock off the hyperpartisanship and uncompromising bullshit I am not inclined to do anything but kick them in the ass as much as possible. I’m not interested in one sided surrender. So until you get them to act like rational adults willing to compromise your contention of “Can’t we all just get along?” is bullshit. If you somehow get them to the table and willing to knock off the hyperpartisanship and uncompromising bullshit then I will be perfectly content to do the same. But at this moment for the last few years the Democrats problem hasn’t been playing too nice with the Republicans…their problem is not having enough balls to stand up to them.
I am so sick and tired of your sides (meaning the middle) falling prey to false equivalancies that I could barf. Especially since the right has gone so far to the righ that they’ve managed to drag the middle into the right side of the political spectrum so that now “moderates” seem more like conservatives of yesteryear and liberals are occupying the position that moderates used to hold.
And even now they still don’t actually want to deal with the deficit. THe Paul Ryan plan for Medicare is a perfect example. He wants to privatize, in other words eviscerate, medicare. And what does he want to do with the money from that? Does he want to pay down the deficit? No. He wants to use it to give the rich another trillion dollar tax cut.
So until they put up…kindly shut up.
LikeLike
His tax cuts, I won’t say whether it was a good idea or bad idea, but it was bad timing. I understand why he did that, because in the past, cutting taxes increased consumer spending and brought more revenue into the government. So, in his defense he did something that had worked in the past.
Actually, it worked when he did it too.
LikeLike
@Pangolin
So all Republicans are liars, and all Democrats are honest? Is that the point you are trying to get across. You cannot condemn an entire party because one of their members lied about something.
LikeLike
Jim,
I couldn’t agree with you more. I think when you get into any political debate, a lot of people attack whoever doesn’t agree with them. The are extremes at both sides of the table, so no “party” is more to blame than the other.
For the record, I feel that I need to state that I am not a conservative, and I am not a liberal. Socially, I tend to think liberals have their heads on straight in that aspect. Fiscally, I tend to agree more with conservative views.
I felt the need to address this, because in the future, when I make a comment on here, criticizing one party, I don’t want to be attacked as a “teabagger idiot” or a “liberal moron.” I like to look at issues as an individual, and not a member of a party.
LikeLike
Good afternoon, G…
Welcome aboard!
I want to agree with your statement that most (all ?) politicians lie. President Obama has lied. Nancy Pelosi has lied. John Boehner has lied. Mitch McConnell has lied.
So we’re on the same page there.
What I have to disagree with is your definition of a lie, based on the examples you cited.
The statements by President Obama and Congressman Frank were not lies. They were errors. There is a difference. In some respects, the error may be more troubling than a lie because it may (or may not) betray a lack of erudtion and thoughtful analysis. In this case, they took their best shot and were wrong. Not lying.
If I say, “gold will be at two grand an ounce when the market opens Monday” and gold is only at 1900, I will have made an errant prediction.
If, however, I say…”John Boehner is secretly attempting to corner the market on gold”…when there is evidence that he is not, then I have lied.
I hope that helps!
Jim
LikeLike
Republican lies are well documented in this thread and in thousands of posts, threads, comments and scientific papers across the internet. I don’t have enough lifetime left to detail them since the lies will continue to be generated.
LikeLike
Hello there, Bennett!
Great to have you contributing on Ed’s wonderful blog. (I love it here!)
In your post, you said…
“In regrads to “Liberals” being intolerant, I’ve never been to a liberal rally where someone gets their head stomped in for protesting the event.”
Speaking as a very liberal American, I certainly HAVE seen it. And it disgusts me. I am proud of my liberal beliefs and I literally HATE the beliefs and views of people like our friend, Morgan. But if anyone threatened him with violence…and I were in the room…I would protect him. They would have to get past me first. Not because I agree with Morgan (or whoever the Tea Partier of the moment is) but because his right to speak is as precious as my own.
Liberals, of all people, must jealously defend the right of other Americans to free speech and free opinion…even when those opinions are un-American and in the best interest of the privileged few, over against the rest of us.
What I have also observed — and what I think you will totally agree with — is that there are virtually no conservatives (speaking of modern conservatives, not their saner forebears) who feel the same way about liberals. I have attended a number of Tea Party rallies, abortion protests, anti-gay protests and Republican party rallies where the level of hate and vitriol is beyond anything I have ever experienced on my side of the political spectrum.
I have personally been threatened with death, physical assault, spit on and otherwise harassed by Tea Partiers and other conservative demonstrators. So I agree with you — they behave very badly and do so en masse.
To be fair, yes…I have witnessed liberal hate speech against conservatives and even against former Republican Presidents. And it sickens me. But we’re talking maybe one or two signs and I can think of one punch thrown. And if you go back to the late 60’s and early 70’s, at least half the political violence and terrorism in this country came from the left.
But since then? Well, if it was 50/50 then (and people may disagree with that) — then today, the level of vitriol, incidents of violence and terrorism run about 99/1 conservative to liberal.
If anyone likes, I am sure Ed or Nick or I can compile a list.
You’re right — but I wanted to make sure to say openly and plainly to our conservative friends: As long as you offer your opinion peacefully and do not foment violence or armed revolt, I will defend your right to that expression with my whole being.
Surely my conservative friends are willing to say the same to my side of the debate?
LikeLike
@Pangolin
What is the Tea Party lying about? and the GOP? I am sure there members of each of these things who have lied about something. To claim that an entire party is lying, is for lack of a better word, hogwash. All politicians lie. For example:
“If we pass this Stimulus package, unemployment will not rise above 9%” -President Barak Obama
“Fanny and Freddy are not at any financial risk”
-(D) Barney Frank
So because two Democrats lied, does that mean everyone who is a democrat is a lying idiot?
LikeLike
Call my crazy, but did you say we didn’t spend enough money? How does a country that can barely pay their debts, not spend enough money?
And, I will not sit here and defend Bush over Iraq, because I completely agree that the war was way too expensive and a bad idea.
His tax cuts, I won’t say whether it was a good idea or bad idea, but it was bad timing. I understand why he did that, because in the past, cutting taxes increased consumer spending and brought more revenue into the government. So, in his defense he did something that had worked in the past.
LikeLike
The biggest problem in the U.S. today isn’t unemployment, it isn’t debt and it isn’t cimate change or peak oil. Those are all very big problems.
The biggest problem today is that a very large, politically active faction, cannot agree to use a factual reality to make decisions.
The Teabaggers and their Republican clones LIE. They lie about every issue because to them the facts are just means of papering over their emotional condition.
You have to pay taxes. You don’t get to always have your great-white-daddy-figure in power. The environment imposes conditions that you cannot escape. Deal with it.
LikeLike
The U.S. debt hasn’t “tripled” in the last three years. It was $11 trillion when Obama took office and it’s about $14.6 trillion now. That’s an increase of about 33%, which was primarily from the Bush tax cuts, the Obama tax cuts, the two wars, reduced revenues due to high unemployment, increased unemployment benefit payouts, and about $400 billion a year to pay the interest on the debt.
LikeLike
Yeah, the Iraq war cost us a lot of money. The tax cuts cost us a lot of money. So by tripling that amount, it makes it right. So out of control spending is countered by out of control spending?
This right here is the problem. How long are we going to keep passing the buck around? We need solutions. If your house catches on fire, do you spend all your time figuring out who started it, or do you start putting the fire out?
LikeLike
To quote:
We could go back and forth all day. I am not right wing at all first of all. Second of all, just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t make them stupid. Bush spent way too much money, and that was what libs were bitching about then
If you want to claim that Bush spent too much money..then bother to be less of a puppet yourself and acknowledge that what he spent too much money was the wars, and the tax cuts. And oh wait…what do the Republicans still want to do? Give out tax cuts to the rich.
If they were really so worried about the deficit they’d be willing to cut corporate welfare, end the wars, cut the military and end the tax cuts and close the tax loopholes.
and yet..they’re not. They flat out refuse to put any of that on the cutting board. Nothing they’ve proposed would do anything to get us out of this recession.
And again..exactly how do you think the economy is going to grow if noone is spending any money? Because the last time we tried to get out of a recession/depression by cutting government spending..the depression in question got worse.
So it isn’t that Obama spent money thats the problem…its that the money was spent on the wrong thing and not enough of it.
Oh and by the way..it wasn’t that Bush was spending money that we liberals were bitching. It was that he was spending it on a stupid war, and equally stupid tax cuts to people who hardly needed more money.
LikeLike
“Obama triples the national debt in three years”
That can’t be due to the Iraq war, could it? I forgot Obama started that. The Bush Tax cuts? They should be called the Obama tax cuts according to you. The national debt wouldn’t be so high if there were revenue increases. Housing crisis, forgot Obama was the one who deregulated the housing market, and allowed sub prime lenders to literally rape the market. The unemployment rate, Obama’s fault. Let us just blame Obama because it truly is his socialist ways that has mired our country. It’s not like GW was the only president in the history of our country to be absent from the White House as much as he was. If he was employed anywhere else, he would have gotten fired. Not to mention being the first president to declare war on a country with the approval of congress. Sound familiar? The same thing the GOP was trying to litigate Obama for doing.
LikeLike
I love how people reiterate things they hear. You don’t want to tax the rich because they create jobs. However, the last report I read told us that companies were stockpiling profits and NOT creating jobs. Or how GE earned $5.1 Billion here in their US operations, and they paid a whopping $0. All that rhetoric is a fairy tale. The rich are not interested in creating jobs. They are interested in keeping their MONEY. Any other viewpoint would be irrational, and of somewhat questionable rationality.
In regrads to “Liberals” being intolerant, I’ve never been to a liberal rally where someone gets their head stomped in for protesting the event. In fact, I’ve never been to a liberal rally, because I don’t classify myself as liberal. I don’t just vote for Democrats. I actually read what platforms candidates are running on, and I make up my mind in an educated manner. Another reason I do not classify myself as a Tea Partier, because I actually think about what they are saying and temper that with history and what I feel is right.
Personal responsibility – that is why they do not want to raise the taxes of the richest americans because they feel the middle and lower classes are RESPONSIBLE for taking on their debt burden (because the rich are so merciful to give us jobs).
Passionate about their country and sick of the corruption – So they stomped on a woman’s head at a Rand Paul rally to show how passionate they were about ridding their country of political corruption.
People keeping more of what they earn – Do you like roads? Do your children enjoy being educated? Do you like the fact that you can call people with guns when you feel like you are in danger? Who needs help after natural disasters such as Katrina and 9-11? Better not get used to this, because the truth is taxes fuel our way of life and our expectations of the services we deserve.
Less tax loopholes – The GOP has no interest in closing tax loopholes because to them this is raising taxes, and read their lips, “NO NEW TAXES.” The GOP showed their true colors during the debt talks, they wanted to slash spending, period. Democrats wanted to do what the Credit Agencies were asking for by pairing spending cuts with an increase in revenue (i.e. taxes). That’s what the ambitious Cantor walked out on the talks about, tax increases. Remember when S&P said we downgraded the US and then gave a reason? They said the spending cuts weren’t enough due to the fact there was no proposed INCREASE in revenues. President Obama was actually trying to do what they requested, and the best Republicans could do is to sherk responsibility and have Obama do it by himself (i.e. the first McConnell proposal).
I’m done with the list. This is a pipedream. This is the same as the cops who beat Rodney King saying they’re not racist. Actions speak louder than words, so you and your friends might say these things when you get together to bash liberals, but we all know it’s BS. I do educate myself, and not in the same way that you might. I actually try to view politics from the Tea Party viewpoint, but I can’t rationally see how they are going to help our country. So you want to decrease the federal government’s power, and increase the power of the states? That sounds familiar. Same song and dance that has been going on for decades and decades. You can put lipstick on a donkey, but it doesn’t make it a quarterhorse.
I am biased against the Tea Party, because every time I ask them to clarify their position I get the same ol’ same ol’. Sure thing, Obama is a socialist. Sure thing, our country is being destroyed by Obama. Sure thing, we need to let old people live off canned beans and go to free clinics. Sure thing, Sarah Palin needs to be the next president. Blah, blah, blah, blah, and blah.
LikeLike
Sorry Teabaggers, but the Bush tax cuts and the Bush wars are the absolute source of the current deficits and most of the current debt.
If the Bush presidency had maintained the tax policies of the Clinton administration and raised taxes to cover the wars we wouldn’t be bitching about the debt.
The pearl-clutching concern about the debt is a LIE. It DID NOT EXIST in 2006, 2007 and 2008. It certainly was no concern when the Teabaggers threatened to throw hundreds of thousands of out-of-work americans into the street with no benefits if the Bush tax cuts were not extended.
You’re concerns, evidenced by your actions start and stop with “I’VE GOT MINE _CK YOU.”
LikeLike
To Quote:
“Oh you mean like the Republicans promises that cutting taxes to the rich would create jobs, bring economic prosperity to everyone and not result in a new deficit? Which never happened and yet you and your fellow right wingers are stupid enough to claim that is what we need to do again?”
We could go back and forth all day. I am not right wing at all first of all. Second of all, just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t make them stupid. Bush spent way too much money, and that was what libs were bitching about then. Now, when Obama triples that debt in 3 years of being in office, you claim that’s good? Don’t be so partisan. Learn to think for yourself puppet.
LikeLike
..tell me..when the people aren’t spending, when the rich aren’t spending and when the businesses aren’t spending exactly how do you grow an economy if the government also stops spending?
My gosh, I have to admit I never looked at it that way. You’re absolutely right. We need our government to spend money it doesn’t have, to drive up its debts sky high to such an extent none of the rest of us would dare dream if we were accountable to such debts. We need the politicians to show the fearlessness one only shows around debt when one…isn’t…ultimately…personally…responsible?
Duh, hey, waitaminnit. Who ultimately has to pay that anyway?
LikeLike
To quote:
Remember, the Stimulus Package that we “needed” because he promised that if we passed it, unemployment would not rise above 9%?
Oh you mean like the Republicans promises that cutting taxes to the rich would create jobs, bring economic prosperity to everyone and not result in a new deficit? Which never happened and yet you and your fellow right wingers are stupid enough to claim that is what we need to do again?
As for your claim..tell me..when the people aren’t spending, when the rich aren’t spending and when the businesses aren’t spending exactly how do you grow an economy if the government also stops spending?
LikeLike
I like the stark contrast. “Got any evidence?” I asked.
No, you responded. “And how dare you ask for any.”
If you disagree, offer some evidence.
LikeLike
Ed,
When you play the “got any evidence?” card, it’s customary to spew a few “buffer” paragraphs above it to provide some insulation from your most recent wild, crazy, reckless hyperbole. Otherwise, you look like exactly what you are, which in your case is the last thing you want.
LikeLike
Don’t play stupid. The Tea Party Caucus in the House has plenty of votes, enough to derail Speaker Boehner’s good attempts to make deals to prevent our troubles.
He did no such thing. There was no action he promised to ruin the nation’s credit, no spending he promised to stop, and of course, no spending he could have made without it. I thought he caved on too much — we needed a stimulus much larger than the one we got — but the negotiations on the deal were nothing like the last round.
In fact, again, the kill-America-firsters demanded the crippling extension of the Bush tax cuts. Alas, Obama caved on that.
It was no promise, it was a hope — and it was based on the claims of Republicans that the tax cuts would generate jobs, contrary to every economic theory in history.
We shouldn’t have trusted Tea Partiers then, and now we know they do not have the benefits of the nation in their goals.
Are you really that neophyte in this stuff? Obama’s budget plan was on the table in February. Wise stewardship of our nation’s finances required simply that we pass a debt ceiling increase with no more or less partisanship that was offered Ronald Reagan, or George Bush. Never before had that nation-saving device been taken hostage.
As someone noted, the day after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the Dow fell 684 points. The day after the Tea Party credit downgrade, it fell 634 points. If a foreign nation did to us what the Tea Party did, we’d consider it an act of war.
You defend the hostage taking? Oy.
LikeLike
How did the tea party hold anything hostage? They have no vote in congress. The president held the country’s finances hostage when he passed the stimulus package. Remember, the Stimulus Package that we “needed” because he promised that if we passed it, unemployment would not rise above 9%?
Or, during the debt ceiling debate. You know, the one where Obama didn’t bring a plan to the table. Did you miss this Ed?
LikeLike
Can you give examples of how “the current system” makes business growth difficult, especially from a federal view?
Can you explain when in history there have not been incentives to hire lobbyists?
Since cap-and-trade worked well for SO2 and NOx pollution — and still does — can you explain why you think it wouldn’t work for other pollutants?
LikeLike
I got tossed from a Tea Party gathering around Dallas. Stumbled into it, they were discussing, first, how much they wanted to get back to the Constitution which — they claimed — our nation had departed from; and second, how they were going to resist the census of 2010. With a question I pointed out that the census is required by the Constitution.
Such anger! Such vitriol!
Common sense? Rational? Got any evidence of that? In the most recent episode, the Tea Party took our nation’s finances hostage and threatened to keep us from paying bills we have plenty of ability to pay, in order to . . . stop the spending of the Bush Administration. The Tea Party successfully forced a downgrade in the credit rating George Washington and Alexander Hamilton fought to establish.
Common sense? Rational? Informed by anything other than the chants of a drunken mob? Again, please, got any evidence?
LikeLike
What a joke. Come on people. We have got to stop placing blame on whoever we disagree with. My parents taught me to take responsibility for my actions when I was a kid.
Every bad thing that has happened during the Obama presidency, has been blamed on the Republicans, The Tea Party, and now the S&P. Does anyone else see this trend? Is Obama going to run for reelection on the platform of, “My first term was the GOP’s fault?”
LikeLike
I can argue with the tenets of your “movement.”
You say “personal responsibility” when you mean “no charity” and “no mercy” for your fellow citizens.
London in flames…awkward time for you to be going there…
You say “people keeping more of what they earn” as you ignore the fact that the government and infrastructure of the U.S. has given you an inheritance that exceeds by far what you could have done with your own labor without it. Pay your damn taxes already.
Public debt through the roof, unmaintainable and unsustainable, the nation’s debt rating downgraded…
You say “Less (no) tax loopholes” yet mysteriously that has never been tabled by the GOP. Yes you are the same people.
I personally know that is not the case. What’re you talking about?
You say “a fair and easy to understand tax code” when you mean “less taxes for the very rich than the very poor.” Why are capital gains taxed less than labor? Why do payroll taxes stop at $107k.
Because to the extent that’s true, which isn’t much (I could actually do a lot of labor without paying federal income taxes) — it makes sense. Tell me, what’s the dollar amount of what we’re missing because capital gains is taxed less than you think it should be? What’s the dollar amount of what we’re missing because payroll taxes stop when you think they should keep going?
And something I’ve been wondering…what’s all this passion about higher taxes? You don’t give a rip about the debt. Someone’s going to have to be asking for the debt ceiling to be raised again in a year and a half and you’ll be right back here, swearing up a blue streak about whoever has the…um…audacity to lay down some conditions before raising it again and again. So the nation’s debt is nothing but a number to you, why care about how high someone’s taxes are when you’re not the one paying them?
You say “an end to federal tax incentives choosing winners and losers” when there’s not a GOP or “Tea Party” congressman in the congress that doesn’t have his/her own pork list.
Okay now that’s just weird. Are you trying to say the democrats don’t have their own pork lists?
Please substantiate this claim. You must have a list of GOP and Tea Party congressmen; let’s evaluate it to see if it’s exhaustive. And you must have a list of pork projects by each name.
It’s up to you. You made the claim. [citation needed].
LikeLike
Sorry Mr Griffith, I just can’t buy the “we’re just reasonable americans” baloney from Teabaggers. Maybe because of these people, maybe it’s the demonization of school teachers or the EPA, maybe it’s the never ending tirade of climate change denial.
You claim liberal democrats are intolerant while they are a coalition of every people on the planet while every Tea Party meeting is white as copy paper. You claim we’re close minded when Teabaggers deny the solid science of climate change that goes back to John Tyndall’s discovery of the “greenhouse effect” in 1863.
I can argue with the tenets of your “movement.”
You say “personal responsibility” when you mean “no charity” and “no mercy” for your fellow citizens.
You say “people keeping more of what they earn” as you ignore the fact that the government and infrastructure of the U.S. has given you an inheritance that exceeds by far what you could have done with your own labor without it. Pay your damn taxes already.
You say “Less (no) tax loopholes” yet mysteriously that has never been tabled by the GOP. Yes you are the same people.
You say “a fair and easy to understand tax code” when you mean “less taxes for the very rich than the very poor.” Why are capital gains taxed less than labor? Why do payroll taxes stop at $107k.
You say “an end to federal tax incentives choosing winners and losers” when there’s not a GOP or “Tea Party” congressman in the congress that doesn’t have his/her own pork list.
I’ll slow down my hate when you stop your lies.
LikeLike
Sigh… this, unfortunately is exactly what we are up against. The narrative.
The Tea Party is a movement. Not a party. It is a movement of common sense, rational Americans who are tired of too much federal government in people’s lives. Not any government, too much government.
I’ve never met people more intolerant, more close minded, more hateful, than those who claim to be liberal democrats. If you truly get to know those in the mainstream of the Tea Party movement, and if you actually stop for a moment to listen to them, you will learn that they are a lot like you. Passionate about their country and sick of the corruption in our government and in our corporations. The difference is, we see the government as the thing we need to control first to help control the corruption since it is government that is manipulated the easiest.
The problem is, too many people first fall victim to the narrative that the career politicians on the Left and the media say about the Tea Party, and then point at opinions of the establishment of the Republican Party as proof to nay-say against the movement. Of course established Republicans are trying to speak for the movement because they know it is coming for them first. Who can argue against the tenets of the movement? Personal responsibility rather than government responsibility. People keeping more of what they earn rather than less. Less (no) tax loopholes. A fair and easy to understand tax code. And an end to federal tax incentives choosing winners and losers.
Please slow down your hate and educate yourselves. Either you are guilty of not truly researching what the Tea Party movement is about, or you are one of the establishment.
LikeLike
It would be one thing, Grif, if you and your tea party/Republicans were willing to sit down, act like rational adults and compromise.
Cracks me up that right after this, is a whole bunch of saber-rattling codswallop and “us-versus-them” nonsense making it thoroughly clear that if anyone thinks the two parties are driving toward a common goal, or are supposed to, James K. is not among those people!
So you’re a democrat shill James. Your parents must be so proud. Hey here’s an idea for a campaign slogan for next year: “Vote for us! Create jobs, by punishing the people who are supposed to be providing them.” And then let the rest of us vote on it. Good luck.
LikeLike
Grif writes:
I am not aware of very many people that want businesses to go unregulated, just less regulated. The system we have in place now not only makes it more difficult for businesses to grow, it is grossly unfair. The current system encourages lobbyists to bribe, I mean lobby, politicians to create stricter regulations on their competitors. Where do you think the idea of cap-and-trade came from? To protect the environment?
The problem is that the “not very many people” that want businesses to go unregulated are…wait for it…exactly the ones in charge of your party. Or they’re the ones paying for your party.
What? A coal mining company should be allowed to blow the top off a mountain and shove the debris down into the river valley below that just happens to provide the water to the towns nearby?
Then there’s the Senate Republicans trying to strip the enforcment powers of the EPA. The Republicans attempt to block any more species being added to the endangered list, etc
It would be one thing, Grif, if you and your tea party/Republicans were willing to sit down, act like rational adults and compromise.
But no..your party’s idea of compromise is that we give you guys everything you want and you guys give up exactly nothing. That’s not compromise..that’s one sided surrender and I ain’t interested in surrendering.
Your party is so perfectly mimicing the Whigs from 160 years ago that it’s not even funny anymore.
And whats even more hilarious is that your party is about to, within the next 10 years, run into the brick wall that is shifting demographics. By 2020 you’ll lose Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida and well..lose any chance of ever having California. And does your party realize that? No..your party sits there and acts like last years election not only put you guys back in power but put you guys solely in power and that we democrats are your bitches.
So get your party back to the middle, Grif, before your party disintegrates at your feet.
LikeLike
A lot of those Tea Party folks could not even spell “Debt Ceiling”…
LikeLike
I am not aware of very many people that want businesses to go unregulated, just less regulated. The system we have in place now not only makes it more difficult for businesses to grow, it is grossly unfair. The current system encourages lobbyists to bribe, I mean lobby, politicians to create stricter regulations on their competitors. Where do you think the idea of cap-and-trade came from? To protect the environment?
LikeLike
Pangolin, I agree 100%. I’m always reminded of Dr. Diamonds book Collapse when I hear people say our economy needs deregulation. I agree that deregulation today is something different than say deregulation during the Western Expansion and Gold Rush. However, some people believe that corporations have the best intentions for their labor force, and the consumers purchasing their services. I, on the other hand, believe that corporations are slaves to their share value. Businesses are only concerned with the welfare of their consumers when their consumers become educated about anything harmful within the product, or it will give them access to a larger market share. Allowing a market to grow unsurpervised only creates a kill or be killed atmosphere, where the consumers usually end up losing. However, if someone believes in regulation, then that makes them a socialist and intrinsically very un-american. If you asked individuals from the part of the country I live, then you would learn that it was Obama who introduced Socialism to this country, and that he will single handedly destroy our country.
LikeLike
bennetalbatross81_ The phrase “there’s a trout in the milk” became common at a time when farmers selling at local markets were known to dip a pail into the well to stretch their product.
The nasty slaughterhouse conditions listed in Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” were if anything underestimated. I, myself, have seen salmon go through a canning factory that had been in a boat’s hold so long that some of them would fall in two when you picked them up. Presumably those lots were sold to asian markets but who in the cannery really knew where they went?
Capitalism without regulation is pretty nasty stuff.
LikeLike
Agreed. Ben Hoffman is a jerk.
LikeLike
Pangolin, I agree. However, I think that blame for this has to be shared by every politician. The GOP held everyone captive with their refusal to pair deficit reduction with revenue increases. However, the debt ceiling should have been addressed long before they began to get serious about it. Conservative Democrats were scared to vote for what was right because they were trying to save their own seats, which is funny in that quite a few of them lost their seats anyway. The debt ceiling would have been an easy pass had it been addressed when they held the majority in the house and senate (if conservative Democrats weren’t concerned with their own survival).
In regards to your free market comment: I agree. No successful market has ever been “lassez faire.” The markets that have been were full of unscrupulous people doing whatever they could to get the most money out of their product. Unregulated markets put danger on everything all in the name for a few more dollars.
LikeLike
Shortly after reading Mark Twain’s recently published autobiography; I came to the realization that the situation he faced, and wrote about in his autobiography, in the late 1880s through 1912 is the same one we face today. We are surrounded by hyper-partisanship; the two prime political parties are more divided than ever, to not be one-hundred percent in agreement with the dogma of a party is to be branded a DINO or RINO, damned for your own thoughts.
Twain faced the same issues with the presidential election of 1884 and the contest between James G. Blaine the republican candidate and Grover Cleveland, the democrat. Blaine was well known for his corruption. Blaine was one of the dominant Republican leaders of the late 19th century, and champion of the “Half-Breed” faction of the GOP. Nicknamed “The Continental Liar from the State of Maine,” “Slippery Jim,” and “The Magnetic Man,” he was a magnetic speaker in an era that prized oratory, and a man of charisma.
Twain and a number of other prominent men of the era, could no longer stomach the partisanship nor could they support a person whom they considered untrustworthy and fraudulent. Further they determined that what was needed was for these men of influence to publically make a show of voting for the best candidate or policy regardless of the party.
Twain and these others became known as Mugwumps. It was said by their detractors they had their mug on one side of the fence and their wump on the other. History has portrayed Mugwumps as traitors to the cause. Finally, Twains autobiography, written contemporaneously sheds a different view from the men that were the Mugwumps of their day.
Twain said, “ “We, the Mugwumps, a little company made up of the unenslaved of both parties, the very best men to be found in the two great parties – that was our idea of it… Our principles were high, and very definite. We were not a party; we had no candidates; we had no axes to grind. Our vote laid upon the man we cast it for no obligation of any kind. By our rule, we could not ask for office; we could not accept office. When voting it was our duty to vote for the best man, regardless of party name. We had no other creed. Vote for the best man-that was creed enough!”
This concept has resonated with me as what is necessary today. We all need to start to vote for the best person, the best idea, the best policy. We are a nation founded “of the people, by the people and for the people” yet we have allowed our political psyche to be coopted and captured by collectivist views. We are often damned if we dare to disagree with even the most minor points. Today we need to again become Mugwumps. There is a good site http://www.mugwump.co (yes this is CO not COM). You can find out more.
LikeLike
Morgan, that fairy-tale, free-market story that conservatives tell each other is crap. It doesn’t even work at the farmers market level where all too often stall spaces are limited, prices are inflated even where it means discarding edible foods, there are hidden subsidies and taxes applied and cronyism has as much to do with who profits as who produces the most or best product.
Un-taxed, unregulated “free” markets that you worship have NEVER been present in the U.S. Look at the history of Shay’s Rebellion where a bunch of revolutionary war veterans decided they could go without paying their taxes and debts. They LOST. Taxes, tariffs and social welfare programs have been present in U.S. governance for hundreds of years because they work. Deal with it.
Barack Obama did not go into a closed room and write all the legislation of the past two years Congress did. All of that legislation had to get past a significant faction of conservative Democrats in congress and the Senate that had no intention of allowing him free rein.
Liberals talk to conservatives like they are children because they behave like children. They have to have facts pointed out to them again and again and still they will deny them. Your rude insults do not change facts. Your denials do not change facts. Your fantasies do not change facts.
Deal in facts or step away from the table.
LikeLike
More of the same from Pang and James: Everyone has to agree with the liberal agenda or else they’re stupid. And more of the hyper-theatrical Alan Alda controlled sissy-rage I was talking about.
These “aggressively non-threatening NPR male” temper tantrums seem to happen consistently after liberal plans have imploded, I notice. Yeah…King Barry The First passes the wonderful stimulus and health care and cash-fer-clunkers…unemployment up, dollar value down, credit rating down, debt up, all the numbers we want down are up, all the numbers we want up are down. So out comes the Matt Damon Alan Alda effeminate-male pussy rage. So predictable. And, we need a tariff.
Fine folks, I’ll explain it one MORE time…then you can really thunder away at how evil and stupid people like me are…
If you sell something to me freely for five dollars, then it has to be worth more than five dollars to me, and the five dollars has to be worth more to you than the thing you’re selling. Both of those have to be true, or else the sale doesn’t go. Unless, that is, one of us, or both, are mistaken…in which case, you have that lovely force you liberals like so much, Natural Selection, acting upon us. Whoever’s made a mistake by conducting this unfortunate transaction, has incrementally diminished his influence in the marketplace by doing a bad deal.
So the natural outcome of this is that wealth must be created. If we both know what we’re doing, we both win. If neither one of us knows what we’re doing, we remove ourselves from the “gene pool.”
With Barry and His pals deciding where the “stimulus” is going to get spent, you don’t have this…yeah, I know I know, Barry’s Brain Trust is the smartest bunch of folks to walk the planet and if I don’t acknowledge that immediately I’m demonstrating my cluelessness. Well, look: Even geniuses make mistakes, especially when they try to micro-manage details. Well, with a free market, you don’t have much micro-managing. Not if it leads to disaster, you don’t; the stakeholders are involved, so either they say “Hey, this doesn’t work, let’s stop doing it” or they spend themselves into oblivion. Removing themselves from the gene pool.
Unless, that is, you have government bailing them out. In which case, you get disasters like what we had two years ago…which liberals will then blame on capitalism. So the lesson is pretty consistent: Micro-managing leads to disaster, free markets lead to success, and liberals will always insist all suffering comes from capitalism and the only way to prosperity is to make some rules.
That and, when it works out the other way, they’ll act like little, angry, pussy Alan Aldas on their little blog threads.
The one “tweet” I saw out of this disaster I liked the best was “Know who else inherited an economy from George Bush? Rick Perry!” Hehe.
LikeLike
Tea Party Republicans should nominate William Randolph Hearst for president!
Because he owned a large acreage of timber and considerable stock in paper mills, Mr. Hearst rallied for paper to be made from tree-pulp – which I can only assumed helped expediate the climate changed we experience today.
Prior to Hearst, paper was made from hemp-pulp, which is cheaper to process. Yes, it was Mr. Hearst who influenced America to line his pocket by makin hemp illegal, and using Yellow Journalism to scare American about the “ill” affects of marijuana.
I am surprised that the Tea Party doesn’t take his wealth building expample by making ethanol illegal and scaring Americans about the “ill” affects of eating corn!
Legalize marijuana and tax it!!!
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
What we need is a higher tariff. Isn’t that always the way it goes. The fix is less freedom — that will make life perfect._Morgan
Exactly how is a tariff protecting the US economy equalling less freedom in your world?
Despite what your precious Teapartiers think, Morgan, the Boston Tea party wasn’t actually over taxes. And I don’t remember anywhere in the US Constitution where it says that someone shall enjoy a tax/tariff free life.
Because for damn sure your “lower the taxes” mantra isn’t doing a damn thing…other then screwing up the economy, screwing the middle class and the poor and letting the rich steal the money from the middle class and the poor. Oh and bringing the United States to its knees.
Which is more important to you, Morgan? Your antitax ideology or your job?
Because sooner or later, Morgan, in your party’s system you can kiss your job goodbye.
LikeLike
What we need is a higher tariff. Isn’t that always the way it goes. The fix is less freedom — that will make life perfect._Morgan
This from the conservative faction that advocates life sentences, even the death penalty, for possession of common plant materials that were legal and in widespread use in George Washington’s day. I’ll buy that conservatives are the “party of freedom” as soon as conservative states tear down their Gulag prisons
You might also consider that tariffs were a major so. Not holding my breath. urce of U.S. federal government revenue for the first hundred-fifty years of our nation’s history. Unrestricted access to the manufactured goods of Europe would have devastated developing U.S. industry even with all shipping done by sail power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history
Facts; still opaque to the conservative mind.
LikeLike
Does anybody here know what a tariff is and how nations use them to protect their own economies? Is anybody in favor of reducing their own wages to the average hourly pay of China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh or Sudan?
It’s always the other guy whose job it’s ok to export. The other guy who is supposed to accept a minimum wage drop. The other guy to whom we advocate removing his access to food, clothing, shelter and health care.
When the other guy starts looking at you like a mortal enemy don’t complain. You are.
LikeLike
I have to say, if I had this kind of exchange with a conservative I’d whack him upside the head and tell him “quit arguing like a prog.”
I state exactly what was said…word for word…and — isn’t this exactly what conservatives say about liberals.
1. I get called a dirty name — the perpetually-angry Alan Alda act;
2. My point is stupid, when it isn’t even my point;
3. I get fed the “I didn’t say A what I said was B” line…during such time I definitively prove I simply copied what someone else said, word for word.
And the frosting on the cake, 4. What we need is a higher tariff. Isn’t that always the way it goes. The fix is less freedom — that will make life perfect.
LikeLike
Flakey said:
the money will remain there to avoid American taxes.
I said: Hmm…so companies are moving jobs overseas to avoid American taxes.
I must confess, I do lack the mental sophistication and manual dexterity to slice the point that thinly. You probably do too. When I’m restating what you said on a word for word basis, how am I introducing a new point?
LikeLike
“Go back and read again, it wasn’t my claim. Genius.”
it was 100% your claim, no one elses. James had it right.
LikeLike
“Hmm…so companies are moving jobs overseas to avoid American taxes. Hmm.
So the solution is to raise taxes? I suppose that gives the primitive mind a satisfying feeling of “that’ll show ‘em”…but how exactly does that alter the outcome for the better?”
The money does stay overseas because of tax, but less taxation is not the original purpose of investing the money overseas in the first place.
No they are moving overseas because of far lower operating costs. Where did I even suggest raising the tax though on businesses? I quite clearly said tax cuts do not produce growth in America any more.
Carry on though Morgan, ignore the main point of my posts, and keep making straw man arguments out of one line from them.
LikeLike
So clearly, dimwit, your claim is idiotic.
This must be the “new tone” for which the President was asking…
Go back and read again, it wasn’t my claim. Genius.
LikeLike
Hmm…so companies are moving jobs overseas to avoid American taxes. Hmm.”_ Morgan
Most companies already pay no taxes and still ship jobs overseas. So clearly, dimwit, your claim is idiotic.
LikeLike
Oh and by the way, Grif, if you and yours were really so worried about lowering businesses costs here, instead of seeking to use it as an excuse to screw the middle class and the poor, you wouldn’t object to a single payer government run health care or a public option.
Because it seems to me that lowering the health costs of businesses would save them a lot of money.
Of course they still wouldn’t invest that money in creating jobs. After all..when the Republicans screwed the FAA the government wasn’t collecting the ticket tax. And what did the airlines do? They raised the fares so they could pocket that money instead of passing it on to their customers.
You create jobs by increasing consumer demand. You increase consumer demand that putting money in the hands of the middle class and the poor. You do not create jobs by putting money in the hands of the rich and businesses because all they do is pocket it and use it to give their executives ever bigger salaries. Oh and by the way..considering quite a lot of US companies are sitting on veritable fortunes and not creating jobs with that money..and considering your party cut their taxes before and they didn’t create jobs…what in God’s name are you smoking that makes you think that cutting their taxes again would make them create jobs?
Wells Fargo pays no federal income tax. You see them adding lots of jobs?
Boeing pays no federal income tax. How many jobs have they added?
Same with Capital One, Yahoo, GE, ExxonMobil, Chevron, GoldmanSachs, Citigroup, ConcoPhillips and Carnival Cruise lines.
In fact according to the GAO 66% of companies in the United States pay no federal income tax. And yet we still have 10% unemployment, no economic prosperity (unless you’re already rich) and a double dip recession.
So perhaps its time to try something new, yes? Like, just for a suggestion, telling them if they don’t start hiring that we will jack their taxes through the roof and not just the taxes on the businesses but also on the executives. You know..a little more stick rather then carrot which clearly doesn’t work. Because, hey, I figure since you seem to think that the middle class and the poor should take a pay cut then you should have absolutely no problem in slashing the pay of the executives, yes?
Because your party’s tax cuts just under 10 years ago was promised to “create jobs, economic prosperity for everyone and not create a deficit.” And oh look…it created no jobs, no economic prosperity unless you’re already rich and not only recreated the deficit but is, along with the two wars, responsible for over half of it.
And then there is your claim that the tea party/Republicans are interested in the middle class. That’s quite interesting considering just last year they blocked a tax cut to the middle class.
LikeLike
Dude, give it up already. California’s liberal. Arguing it is just silly. Yes it’s had some Republican governors, oh my, what a horror. But it’s a left-wing crap-fest.
Ed, what is it with this site of yours? There seems to be some radioactive glow that compels people to bring up points that are entirely accurate, but entirely irrelevant.
LikeLike
“Pangolin, just a few decades back, most of these “Tea Party” people would have been Dixiecrats.”_ Ellie
You mean the people that vote their skin color over their economic, moral or security interests. The racists.
“The Tea Party is a true movement. The unnamed movement began when Bush allowed the bailout and the first stimulus.”_ S. Griffith
You’re asking people to believe that seven years and nine months into the massively irresponsible deficit financing by the Bush Presidency a number of dyed-in-the-wool Republicans spontaneously decided that budget deficits were THE WORST THING EVER and worthy of political protest. (but not worthy of cuts to the Pentagon or farm subsidies) Then you’re asking us to believe that the GOP/Fox News/Limbaugh noise machine all decided that any meeting of twelve “Tea Party” “activists” (read: republican staffers) demanded national attention. Without any coordination whatsoever.
Throw a carrot in that and you’ve got a compost pile.
“Hmm…so companies are moving jobs overseas to avoid American taxes. Hmm.”_ Morgan
The solution to that is to raise tariffs. A solution used with a vengeance by the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and several other major sources of U.S. imports. “Free Trade” is a load of hogwash and always has been.
Your ignorance of California politics is probably deliberate as “liberal” California has had Republican governors for all but four years since 1983 along with a conservative anti-tax initiative added to the states constitution that makes it close to impossible to raise taxes. A typical conservative tactic; creating a mess and blaming it on liberals.
As to Morgan’s embedded video. Usually that’s a get-yer-own-blog violation and cause for banning by blog owners. That’s pure leaching off somebody else’s reader base to make an unconnected point.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Grif writes:
S. Griffith says: Lowering the minimum wage would decrease unemployment tremendously.
Oh yes..lets lower the wages that the people get and increase employment…of course you’re blithely ignoring that what drives employment is consumer demand and if the people have less money to spend that means there’s less consumer demand so ergo…less jobs.
But if you really want to lower someone’s wages then I’m sure you’ll agree that top executives at companies should have their wages lowered and then the companies can use the money from that to employ more people right?
Grif writes:
I see a lot of good in medicaid and medicare, but they will need to be reformed if they are going to remain solvent. Social Security needs to reform as well, but the concept of it’s existence is not without merit. Over 30 countries in
Yeah except the Republicans don’t want to “reform” social security, medicare and medicaid. They want to kill it. And as for your little bit that people who use the term “teabagger” aren’t to be taken seriously..again I remeind you that it was your precious Tea Party that used the term first. And you’re right…Teabaggers aren’t to be taken seriously. Anyone who calls themselves a “Tea partier” is not to be taken seriously. You’re all Republicans, be honest enough to admit it and quit pretending you’re not.
Grif: You must be in college, because only a kid would be so worried about who is right, and not really get too caught up in what is right.
I’ve been out of college 16 years now nearly. And here’s the deal…you’re not right. Your idea is stupid at the base. If you want to send your kids to a private school that is your choice and your right..but that doesn’t include my tax money. So pay for it yourself. Because sorry, this Catholic happens to like the separation of church and state and sending tax money to a religious school blows that concept to hell and back. Then there is the US Supreme Court decision in Lemon vs Kurtzman that says:
In 1971, the Supreme Court decided Lemon v. Kurtzman which created three tests for determining whether a particular government act or policy unconstitutionally promotes religion. The Lemon test says that in order to be constitutional, a policy must:
Have a non-religious purpose;
Not end up promoting or favoring any set of religious beliefs; and
Not overly involve the government with religion
Have fun trying to argue that tax money going to a private religious school somehow passes those tests.
Private schools “seem” better then public schools because private schools, unlike public schools, get to pick and choose who goes there and if a failing student goes to a private school that private school can kick that student out and therefor preserve their supposed better academic record. Then there is the fact that my state’s constitution forbids tax money going to private schools.
Grif writes:
If we want to keep businesses here, we should not tax them so heavily.
First off quite a lot of businesses don’t pay any taxes period. Secondly, you are never going to lower their taxes enough so that they’d keep jobs here. What you do, Grif, is raise their taxes sky high if they ship jobs overseas. But no…your party actively protected the tax breaks that they get for shipping jobs overseas. I can prove you wrong real easily. Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark all have far higher taxes on the rich and businesses then the United States. And their economies are all far better then the United States. Meaning, Grif, you make it more expensive for them to ship jobs overseas. As for your “lets cut the minimum wage” bulls—…yeah thank you for proving beyond a doubt that you’re willing to screw the poor and the middle class oh “we don’t want to destroy the middle class” tea partier.
Lowering taxes doesn’t improve the economy. We have from 2001-2011 to show that.
Your party’s economic policies is what crashed the economy in the bloody first place, Grif. And you want to continue with the same stupid policies that crashed the economy because you’ve deluded yourself into thinking that if you do the same thing often enough you will end up with a different result. We have cut taxes on businesses and the rich by more then two thirds…we have cut their taxes more then enough.
If you have nothing new or intelligent to say then go away, your “answers” aren’t answers..they’re what caused the problem.
LikeLike
Sure you can make Government cuts, and decrease taxes, but do not expect the added wealth to be reinvested in America, it will be used for the emerging production countries, and the money will remain there to avoid American taxes.
Hmm…so companies are moving jobs overseas to avoid American taxes. Hmm.
So the solution is to raise taxes? I suppose that gives the primitive mind a satisfying feeling of “that’ll show ’em”…but how exactly does that alter the outcome for the better?
Reagan administration would be first exhibit. Clinton budget balancing agreement would be exhibit number 2. Recent history.
Eisenhower administration probably didn’t get all they hoped from high tax rates, but got enough.
Points for my side. Clinton managed to get the budget balanced after We The People got tired of his far-left shenanigans and hobbled him with a Republican Congress. Reagan cut taxes, got more revenue. Eisenhower “probably didn’t get all they hoped for from high tax rates”…isn’t that the way it always goes? Check out California. Check out all the big cities with liberals running them. Read their newspapers. Oh Noes!!! Budget shortfall! It appears on the front page, just as often as the newspaper’s name, sometimes moreso.
When I have to pay more for something, I buy less of it, and that includes the things I “need.” Charge me enough and I’ll find a way not to need them. Everything we tax, falls into this. Rewards & punishments change human behavior. It’s like the wind and the tides, it’s something that simply is.
LikeLike
“It saves us as consumers money and allows citizens of other countries to earn money and sometimes spend it on American goods and services.”
Very seldom sometimes now a days. Listing objects in my room :-
Computer – Japanese
monitor – German
cell phone – Taiwan
T.V. – South Korea
Alarm clock – China
X-box 360 – China
Not one of the electronic items in my room is from the states.
This is what I can not understand from these arguments. Why people no longer recognise America is no longer “the” manufacturing powerhouse it once was, it is just one of several now.
Sure you can make Government cuts, and decrease taxes, but do not expect the added wealth to be reinvested in America, it will be used for the emerging production countries, and the money will remain there to avoid American taxes. So the companies will get richer, but the Government, and the average American will get worse off.
LikeLike
Pangolin, just a few decades back, most of these “Tea Party” people would have been Dixiecrats.
LikeLike
S. Griffith says: Lowering the minimum wage would decrease unemployment tremendously.
And that would be because….there are millions of us out here who are waiting with breath bated to be offered a job that would earn just about enough to feed a goldfish?
Oh, I forgot. Companies can always find places to outsource work so they don’t have to pay anything close to a living wage because fewer American jobs are better for the economy.
Someone still has to clean the toilets at your local mall. You can’t outsource that.
LikeLike
Pangolin, that is an interesting theory on the 2010 elections that the liberals boycotted. There may be a little truth there, but I am guessing that many of those who voted for Obama that didn’t vote in 2010 vote more on emotion than ideology.
The Tea Party is a true movement. The unnamed movement began when Bush allowed the bailout and the first stimulus. It is part of the Republican Party because the last time it was not within it, we got Ross Perot splitting the conservative vote. This time, the movement is fighting within the Republican Party first. There is some old money siding with the Tea Party and there is some political in-fighting and attempted manipulation taking place on controlling the direction of the movement. More so, there is a broad attempt by many to label the Tea Party as something other than they are and paint a narrative about us that is not accurate. It is obviously working simply going by the opinions you all have here. Although these things are going to happen, you are burying your head in the sand if you deny the grassroots element of the movement.
LikeLike
Can we quit pretending that there is such a thing as the “Tea Party” and admit that it’s the old reprobate Republican Party with a coat of whitewash. They were republicans before 2008. They still vote with, caucus with, and toe the line of the GOP leadership. They’re the same people voting the same policies.
The “Tea Party” was organized after Obama’s election because the GOP at that time had presided over the worst economic disaster since 1929. It was a whitewash with few actual members showing up at events but heavily promoted and covered by Fox News and therefore other major news organizations.
Before 2008 and since 2008 progressives have frequently held public events 2x to 10x the attendance of pathetic “Tea Party” conventions and have been virtually or totally ignored.
The “Tea Party” was able to gain seats in Congress in 2010 by running within the GOP or unopposed by the GOP and with massive financial support from traditional GOP donors.
Significantly in the 2010 elections was a massive boycott of elections by the Democrats progressive base due mostly to the betrayal of Barack Obama on social programs, ending the wars, and pushing through a private-insurance health-care scheme with no public option. Public commitment to progressive values, particularly taxing the rich, remains strong.
There is NO TEA PARTY. It’s a GOP whitewash.
LikeLike
Scrooge, if you are an AGW believer, then I respect your choice of religion, even if it is not one I subscribe to.
:)
LikeLike
OK I had to laugh when marco rubio was mentioned. I live in fl and last election gave us a gov that only wants to destroy jobs and whose favorite saying before running for office was I plead the fifth amendment. I like most Americans argue politics like a sport but I do know a bit about science. Any politician that denies the science of AGW is either lying or incompetent. So you have a choice with rubio. I don’t like to think a senator of th US would want to lie so I give him the benefit of doubt and just call him incompetent.
LikeLike
Jim, I don’t get offended by the term “tea baggers”, I just do not take people seriously who use it. I’m glad it is out there because it helps me identify who not to take seriously and saves me time.
Check out Marco Rubio on youtube and listen to him in his own words. He is a pretty good representative of the movement. You have the Ron Paul Libertarian element which have some radical ideas, but I’m glad they are in the debate. They make some good points that need to be considered, but not necessarily agreed with. His son, Rand Paul, is a water down version and represents the movement well. Many of the government agencies do need downsized or eliminated. Our government has too much redundancy and wastes a lot of money that way.
As far as taking jobs offshore, it truly is a global economy. My wife is from an Asian country and I have in-laws who work at call centers for American companies. It saves us as consumers money and allows citizens of other countries to earn money and sometimes spend it on American goods and services. If we want to keep businesses here, we should not tax them so heavily. Lowering the minimum wage would decrease unemployment tremendously. Also, my company has been having trouble keeping people working because many want to just go back on unemployment. We keep trying to hire, but nobody seems to want to work. Another unintended consequence of government’s help.
LikeLike
On a personal level, I would prefer education be kept more at the state level, but there is something to be said that it would benefit wealthier states if they help supplement the education of poorer states for the greater good. It will still provide a better education for all at a lower cost, so it is a win-win from our current system. Plus, I figure that a national voucher program is much more likely to pass than a total abolition of our current one. So, call it a compromise from the outset.
You must be in college, because only a kid would be so worried about who is right, and not really get too caught up in what is right.
LikeLike
James Kessler, you epitomize what is wrong with the debate. Too high on emotion, too low on rationale. Some people on “my side” are guilty of that as well. You allow a narrative to be formed about someone and you can’t allow your thoughts to deviate from it.
There are idiots on both sides of the debate, but you will point at one from the Tea Party side and say “See!” as if that justifies all your misconceptions.
I see a lot of good in medicaid and medicare, but they will need to be reformed if they are going to remain solvent. Social Security needs to reform as well, but the concept of it’s existence is not without merit. Over 30 countries in the world have fully or partially privatized their own social security programs. Many have followed the Chilean model. Many people who identify themselves as Tea Party will agree with me on these issues. Some will not, but we have a broad tent. I think we can mostly agree that we need to stop our government from constantly spending the money that comes into all the different trust funds under the government’s control. One-third of our debt is money owed to these programs that has been spent otherwise.
With our progressive tax system, if we take away the loopholes as we should, then the rich will certainly be paying more in taxes. Tax cuts will benefit those who actually pay taxes. Of course tax cuts will favor the rich the most since they pay the most taxes. I’m okay with that and I’m not rich.
LikeLike
Oh Jim, you forgot they want to get rid of all environmental protections and want to reinstitute child labor too.
LikeLike
Morgan: I think anyone who uses the words “rich masters” in political discussion, is not to be taken seriously.
Well it sure isn’t the middle class and the poor that the Republicans are listening to, Morgan. At every turn the republicans kiss the asses of the rich and sell out the middle class and the poor. So how exactly is what I said not accurate?
But I think anyone who claims to be a member of the Tea party in political discussion is not to be taken seriously.
And you yourself are not to be taken seriously either.
LikeLike
Hey there, S.G.
I really like a lot of the ideas you’ve put forth. Are these really being put in the fore by any of the major tea party organizations? Because the only thing I hear them saying on Fox News, talk radio and online is that we should..
*Privatize of abolish Social Security
*Dramatically cut or privatize Medicare
*Abolish or dramatically cut Medicaid
*Eliminate social safety net programs
*Abolish the Departments of Eduction, Energy, EPA, Interior, Labor and some even suggest abolishing the Department of Commerce.
*Privatize other federal agencies
*Eliminating the minimum wage
Basically, get government small enough to fit in a bathtub and then drown it.
Am I listening to the wrong people? I attended several tea party rallies in Indiana and Virginia during the health care debate. What I witnessed was disturbing, to say the least.
I am particularly with you on the issue of loopholes. A number of mega-corporations have paid no taxes and some even realize a net gain…for what? Laying off workers, polluting the planet and offshoring jobs.
To the extent that liberals have not gone harder and faster after loopholes, you may color me disgusted. Personally, I would make it a federal crime to bank offshore more than ten thousand dollars of personal wealth with a higher number for corporations. These Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts have to go. And if you offshore jobs without creating new ones here at home, there should be a heavy penalty.
I wish I heard this sort of thing from the Tea Party and from the anarcho-Republicans on the Hill. Pretty much, however, all I hear are calls for the preservation of tax cuts for the fabulously wealthy and cries of Socialism.
Oh — on the “tea bag” moniker — I go back and forth. To the extent that it has prurient ramifications, I can understand why anyone would be offended. But given the mailing of thousands of tea bags to Congress and the wearing of thousands more on hats and clothing, I am not gonna sweat it.
Cheers!
LikeLike
Oh and by the way, Grif, I thought the “tea party” was all for states rights?
Okay then explain to me how exactly your little national voucher plan is not a violation of this section of the Minnesota state Constitution:
Sec. 2. Prohibition as to aiding sectarian school. In no case shall any public money or property be appropriated or used for the support of schools wherein the distinctive doctrines, creeds or tenets of any particular Christian or other religious sect are promulgated or taught.
That would be Section 2 of Article 13 which can be found at:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cco/rules/mncon/mncon.htm
LikeLike
I think anyone who uses the words “rich masters” in political discussion, is not to be taken seriously.
LikeLike
Grif writes:
Oil subsidies are on the table. I’ll drink to that, Scrooge.
Not according to your own party, Grif.
LikeLike
To quote:
Call me prejudice, but my experiences tell me that anyone who utilizes the term “tea baggers” in a political discussion is not to be taken seriously.
The Tea Party is comprised largely of the working middle class. To say those of us who identify with the Tea Party movement want to abolish the middle class is absurd, and to say we are pawns of the Koch brothers does nothing but diminish any other point you attempt to make.
My experience tells me that anyone who uses the term “tea bagger” in order to describe themselves, and lets remember…your tea party used that term first before they found out what it means, is asking for it.
Secondly my experience tells me that anyone who thinks the tea party movement is in any way shape or form related to the Boston Tea Party is severely ignorant.
Thirdly my experience tells me that anyone who believes that the tea party is a populist groundswell of anti-government spending from the middle class as opposed to a manufactured strawman created by the Republican leadership and their rich masters is also severely ignorant. In short, the tea party was created by the Republicans and their rich masters so they could con the people into believing that they changed and that they gave a damn about the middle class and the poor. The Tea party is not a “myriad of different views” it is a right wing archconservative group that has somehow managed to hijack the Republican party.
As for choice in education…you mean like the choice that already exists? Because sorry..I don’t want my tax money being used to pay for your kids religious education. You want to send your kids to a private school? Then do so on your own dime. But if you think that private schools, most of whom are religious, should start getting my tax money like the public schools then those private schools are going to abide by the same exact rules that those public schools have to deal with. That means, among other things, you can kiss that religious education goodbye. And you can kiss the teaching of “creationism/intelligent design” goodbye. And you can kiss school prayer goodbye. And you can kiss private schools kicking out students to prop up their supposed educational achievement record goodbye. Or you can realize there is already parent choice when it comes to education and you can quit trying to argue that my tax money should go to religious education and the farce that tends to be private school achievement.
To quote:
The politicians who have allowed this are the established career politicians on both sides of the aisle. When tax reform is looked at, the 1986 Reagan-Bradley tax reform might be something to consider. For tackling the debt, Obama’s own commission (which he ignored their suggestions), the Simpson – Bowles commission made some strong recommendations that need to be looked at again.
Yeah how about your side agrees to get rid of all those tax loopholes that you, in a fit of honesty, agree favor the rich. THen you can get rid of those tax cuts that favor the rich. Then you can agree to drop the wars. Becuase those three things make up more then half the defict. According to the CBO if we simply got rid of Bush’s tax cuts the deficit would be gone within 7 years. As for cutting 10% of the government employee rolls…you want to add several hundred thousand people to the unemployed rolls in the middle of a recession in which there is a near 10% unemployment rate?
Exactly what makes you think that’s a good idea?
Oh and one more thing. You and your fellow teabaggers, and sorry I’m going to continue to use that term until your precious “Teaparty” starts acting like rational adults instead of mealymouthed childish fools willing to crash the country for their precious ideology, can also agree that the companies that pay no federal income taxes, such as Boeing and Wells Fargo, should have their asses hauled up the nearest flagpole and that your party should have its head removed for continuing to allow US companies to ship jobs overseas and get a tax break for it. And that your party should have its head handed to it for trying to get rid of social security, medicare and medicaid. Especially since your party wants to use the money from those three programs to give another trillion dollar tax cut to the rich. I would very much like it if you and your fellow so called “middle class” in the tea party bothered to realize how much your Republican party leadership and your tea party leadership and their rich masters is trying to screw you over. Because sorry..the Republican party and the Tea Party leadership is indeed trying to destroy the middle class….whether you realize it or not.
And thats not even going into the racism and general ignorance that so infects the “Tea party” movement. If you’re wondering as to what I mean by the “general ignorance” i’m talking about, for example, those of you who carry signs saying things like “Keep the Government out of Medicare.”
And before you complain about my using the term “teabagger” considering that the term I really want to use is a seven letter word that starts with F and describes a political philosophy that your side of the political spectrum is increasingly coming to represent…you’re getting off light.
LikeLike
Oil subsidies are on the table. I’ll drink to that, Scrooge. And I would never punch a person for exercising his or her 1st Amendment right. When we are able to cut through the noise, we find we all have much more in common than we originally were led to believe.
Check out my blog sometime.
Peace.
LikeLike
Fair enough S Griffith. I just wanted you to know where I was coming from. Now include oil subsidies along with those ethanol subsidies and we can talk. But DON’T hold america hostage while you want to advance your agenda. Oh good lord I’ve had three martini’s. It from a bottle I’ve had for six months so don’t think I do this all the time. Friends arw visiting. And forgive me for not using my real name. I have been on the internet since the beginning and there is way to much “evidence” out there. I don’t say anything here I wouldn’t say to your face as long as you don’t punch me in the nose.
LikeLike
I’ll respond to everyone in one post, randomly.
Call me prejudice, but my experiences tell me that anyone who utilizes the term “tea baggers” in a political discussion is not to be taken seriously.
The Tea Party is comprised largely of the working middle class. To say those of us who identify with the Tea Party movement want to abolish the middle class is absurd, and to say we are pawns of the Koch brothers does nothing but diminish any other point you attempt to make.
There is some truth that governments typically need to run a deficit during recessions in order to help the economy, but it coincides with lower marginal tax rates.
There seems to be a lot of misinformation out there, so I will attempt to clear some things up. The Tea Party movement consists of a lot differing ideas, so I can’t speak for the whole movement, but I think a majority of them would agree with my own views.
I think families should have free choice in education and there should be a national voucher program like that in Sweden. The military could spend money much more efficiently and afford cuts without risking our national defense. There are tons of subsidies that could be ended, both domestic (ethanol for example) and foreign.
I think we need to remove the myriad of tax loopholes and simplify our tax code. The existing loopholes grant unfair advantage to the rich. They pay lobbyists to create the loopholes and hire lawyers to take advantage of them. The politicians who have allowed this are the established career politicians on both sides of the aisle. When tax reform is looked at, the 1986 Reagan-Bradley tax reform might be something to consider. For tackling the debt, Obama’s own commission (which he ignored their suggestions), the Simpson – Bowles commission made some strong recommendations that need to be looked at again. Especially the part that called for a 10% reduction in the federal government’s workforce.
God bless you too, Jim.
LikeLike
Yeah sometimes Scrooge gets upset and gets obnoxious. What bothers me is what I’m typing now is after two gin martinis and now I may sound reasonable. But anyway I am one of the lucky ones that grew up with parents from the greatest generation that provided a good education for their children. They understood where McCarthyism would lead and put a stop to it. I hope I spelled that right. So understand I have a personal hatred for anyone that wants to destroy the middle class like the tea party wants to do just because their overlords the Koch brothers tell them to.
LikeLike
To quote:
Gotta stop raising it at some point. Can’t borrow our way ou of debt.
And yet your side won’t cut the military, won’t end the wars, wont get rid of corporate welfare, won’t end the tax loopholes and tax cuts.
So we should take your side as serious when it complains about too much deficit when your side is not at all willing to put anything of its own on the chopping block?
Put up or shut up.
LikeLike
Well, Griff, can you prove what Scrooge said wrong?
And as for the tax cuts..well we have a huge deficit. Can you honestly argue that tax hikes on the rich and spending cuts would not solve the deficit faster?
LikeLike
HI there, S. Griffith!
Welcome aboard!
I don’t know if I should take Scrooge seriously, but I share his views. There is more than ample historic precedent for what he is saying.
With regard to the issue at hand, tax increases alone aren’t sufficient to solve the problem. And your analysis of the circular nature of the “crisis” mentality is not without merit. Though I am not a big fan of Bill Clinton’s, I think what he said of affirmative action can be applied to the question of government spending and government programs. He said these things needs to “mended, not ended”.
There is a mental defect or disconnect on both the left (and I am a leftie) and on the right that nearly always gravitates toward all or nothing thinking and false choices. That sort of behavior and thought ill-serves a nation founded on compromise and concord. Ed and I were dialoguing about this in another thread. Whatever happened to Howard Baker and Howard Metzenbaum hammering out some sort of amicable agreement? I hate to think it is so, but that ship seems to have left the port.
Government programs do solve problems. Most of the time. But conservatives are not wrong to insist that there must be a healthy tension and skepticism surrounding any spending. But that’s just it. The anarch-conservatives of our present era are not saying that at all. Their answer to every question, every problem (aside from war) is — privatize or abolish entirely. (I know some of them claim they just want these matters handled at the state level, but that’s just too clever by half. Because when that has happened, these same characters then start to kvetch and moan about “instrusive, top-down government” in Indianapolis or Columbus or Madison or wherever. It’s a shell game they play quite well, but it’s intellectually and morally bankrupt. The money HAS to come from somewhere.)
The question is…if a government program (education, national parks, WIC, the FAA, whatever) is NOT the answer…what is?
I am still waiting to hear a single anarcho-conservative offer something. Or admit that they are, in fact, not as conservative as they are anarchist.
And that anarchism concept dovetalls quite aptly with Scrooge’s comment, don’t you think?
Have a great night, SG and God bless…
Jim
LikeLike
It is true that Ben Hoffman offers little commentary. I read the statement by S&P and it was a waste of time. It seemed more sideline political analysis than anything else. Ben took what he wanted out of it and blames those who were against tax increases, but S&P basically just repeated all the reasons that have been bantered about regarding our debt and each side can claim some.
The problem with our government is there always seems to be a “crisis” that they need to “fix”. Too much government that later leads to a subsequent “crisis” that requires more government to “fix” causing another “crisis” and the cycle never seems to end. We’ve been erring on the side of too much government for too many years now. I’ll run the risk of too little government for a while myself.
By the way, people like scrooge really make me laugh. Do people like that even want to be taken seriously?
LikeLike
The problem seems to be the GOP is now run by the John Birch Society, the tea baggers, or whatever name the nutters want to go by now. The people that want to destroy social security, education, medicare, the military, and anything else that made this a great country. They simply believe whatever their leaders tell them to. They want the future generations to be uneducated so they fit in with their feudalistic society and their grandchildren not know enough to spit on their graves. S and P should be worried because the nuts in the GOP don’t seem to know the difference between debt ceiling and budget.
LikeLike
We’re not really talking tax rates. We’re talking loopholes.
Reagan administration would be first exhibit. Clinton budget balancing agreement would be exhibit number 2. Recent history.
Eisenhower administration probably didn’t get all they hoped from high tax rates, but got enough.
Let’s assume that the figures lie, Morgan, that the tax cuts only did half what they promised. What’s that amount?
How would that not have provided a huge dent in deficits, had it be collected instead?
Your argument is fundamentally incorrect. You’re claiming that tax cuts don’t provide the cash to taxpayers that is claimed, and so eliminating those breaks won’t raise as much, either — or that high-income tax payers always figure some way to evade taxes.
Either way you go on that, it says that we don’t need the tax breaks.
As history shows, we sure do need the revenue.
LikeLike
Sure can. Donald Trump’s done it several times. Alexander Hamilton set our nation on a path to economic supremacy exactly by doing that. So did George Marshall, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower. So did Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich.
The key is to use borrowed money to increase capacity, create new jobs, stimulate consumer demand, and thereby increase the pie from which taxes come to pay down the debt.
And if you look at the videos, Keynes said a key is to store up money in good times to carry through the bad. Bush blew our rainy day funds.
We must borrow, if we are to survive, now. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling doesn’t cut spending, either — the debt ceiling raise is just a pledge of intention to pay the bills. That’s why S&P is so concerned that conservatives refused to budge. Refusing to pay the mortgage means more of a credit downgrade than struggling to pay it. Bad intentions and stiffing the bank make the lenders nervous, you know?
It is certain that tax cuts won’t make jobs, and that cutting spending won’t pay the bills.
We’re not broke. We have idle people, but much need for them to work. Refusing to let them work is stupid, and destructive.
LikeLike
S. Griffith: Hoffman offers only minor comments. The bulk of his post was from the Wall Street Journal, and from the press release from Standard & Poor’s.
You’re not engaging in typical Tea Party bait-and-switch, are you? The issue is not what Hoffman said, but what Standard and Poor’s said. S&P said the bitter politics — and we know who started that — caused the downgrade, and cause skepticism for the future.
What are the odds that the Tea Party member (I hesitate to call it a “arm” or “leg”) of the Republican Party will work to make sure the government works well in this current crisis? The chances are two, fat and slim. Right?
The problem is those who think government should be passive in crises, especially economic crises, and who will work to hobble government so it must be. Fifth column al Quaeda? Quislings? Soviet sympathizers? — what possibly could motivate someone to be so destructive to their own nation?
LikeLike
Gotta stop raising it at some point. Can’t borrow our way ou of debt.
LikeLike
[…] Hoffman (hat tip to Ed Darrell): [President Barack] Obama should have let the Bush tax cuts expire last year, which would have […]
LikeLike
…which would have dramatically reduced our deficit.
Historical precedent, please? Can you provide a list of occasions on which tax rates were raised, and as a direct result of this the revenues increased to the extent anticipated by those who demanded the tax increase?
LikeLike
The usual hysteria, cherry picking and distortions, and outright lies out f you.
Form the linked WSJ article the contias the S & P statement:
The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to ‘AA’ within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.
AND
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.
So you see, the rating decision was not abut the Bush tax cuts. You are taking an ancillary point abut their projections and attempting to fob it off as a primary cause. It is no such thing, and it is particularly dishonest of you to posit this for you full well know that if there had been no resistance to Obama they would have not only raised the debt ceiling but raised taxes and increased spending. This obvious truth makes your “argument” even more specious.
Containing spending is the issue, as these quotes clearly show. You should go and actually read the source of what you post before you fly off into one of your psuedo-intellectual rant r narcissistic rages.
But what is really outrageous s the claim thqt “98% f Republicans want a dowgrade”. You know that this is not true. You know it is just the other way around, that 98% f the GP are mortified by the just outrageous spending and political games of the Democrats.
This vile libel you make here is beyond you usual intellectual faults and shortcomings. This is highly immoral. You are a liar.
The Democrats and Obama own this!,/> The country knows it; why do you not know it? Stop acting like a child. Stop blaming other people for your mistakes.
LikeLike
Ben Hoffman is the last person you want to use as a source for information. He is more interested in name calling than intellectual conversation. He has a narrow world view, only searches out information that backs it up, and avoids any information that is contrary to it. He epitomizes the challenges facing our country at the individual level.
LikeLike