Republicans Dislike the Debt Deal More Than Democrats
This seems kind of surprising to me. Two polls were conducted this week (USA Today/Gallup and CNN/ORC asking people how they felt about the debt ceiling deal. The results of the two surveys were very similar. Here's Huffington Post's summary table.
46 percent of Americans oppose the agreement, while 39 percent favor it. Okay, that part is not much of a surprise.
But I thought it was surprising that Republicans and conservatives are strongly opposed to the deal, and Democrats and liberals favor it.
Does this mean that conservatives really did want to default on the country's loans, even more than liberals wanted to see the rich pay more taxes? Apparently so.
Skipping through this HuffPo piece:
I had been thinking the Republicans got what they wanted and the Democrats compromised too much, but it appears the President and Congressional Democrats did a better job of pleasing their base.
46 percent of Americans oppose the agreement, while 39 percent favor it. Okay, that part is not much of a surprise.
But I thought it was surprising that Republicans and conservatives are strongly opposed to the deal, and Democrats and liberals favor it.
Does this mean that conservatives really did want to default on the country's loans, even more than liberals wanted to see the rich pay more taxes? Apparently so.
Skipping through this HuffPo piece:
Second, and probably more important, even only 17 percent of Americans believe the agreement will help make the economy better, while 41 percent believe it will make the economy worse and 33 percent say it will make no difference.
… the biggest differences appear across party lines. While dismay has been evident among those in President Barack Obama's liberal base, the deal may provoke even more of an intra-party backlash against Republican lawmakers who supported it. Gallup Poll: Republican Base More Dissatisfied With Debt Ceiling Deal Than Democratic Base
I had been thinking the Republicans got what they wanted and the Democrats compromised too much, but it appears the President and Congressional Democrats did a better job of pleasing their base.
posted by JimK at 9:46 AM
85 Comments:
maybe this is the problem:
"US debt shot up $238 billion to reach 100 percent of gross domestic project after the government's debt ceiling was lifted, Treasury figures showed Wednesday.
Treasury borrowing jumped Tuesday, the data showed, immediately after President Barack Obama signed into law an increase in the debt ceiling as the country's spending commitments reached a breaking point and it threatened to default on its debt.
The new borrowing took total public debt to $14.58 trillion, putting it in a league with highly indebted countries like Italy and Belgium.
Treasury had used extraordinary measures to hold under the $14.29 trillion cap since reaching it on May 16, while politicians battled over it and over addressing the country's bloating deficit.
The official limit was hiked $400 billion on Tuesday and will be increased in stages over the next 18 months.
The last time US debt topped the size of its annual economy was in 1947 just after World War II. By 1981 it had fallen to 32.5 percent.
Ratings agencies have warned the country to reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio quickly or facing losing its coveted AAA debt rating.
Moody's said Tuesday that the government needed to stabilize the ratio at 73 percent by 2015 "to ensure that the long-run fiscal trajectory remains compatible with a AAA rating.""
we increased the debt and within hours use up more the half of the credit increase
everyone was talking like we just needed to borrow more to fix our credit rating, but, actually, we need to borrow less
even after the super-committee is done, our debt will be astronomical in ten years and current projections assume we will recover soon economically but, right now, it looks like we are headed for a double-dip recession
we can't afford to go on like this
Here's why this Democrat doesn't like the debt ceiling deal. We tried it before and it failed.
"Just under three quarters of a century ago, a group of conservative economic advisers close to Franklin Roosevelt informed the President that they were worried about the rapid rate of growth in the US economy. Since 1933, when FDR took over at the height of the Great Depression, the economy had been expanding steadily, at an average rate of 14 percent per year. Schooled as most of these advisors were in the tenets of economic orthodoxy (which called for cuts in spending during an economic downturn), and unsure of the effects of the Keynesian-style deficit spending that the administration had been engaged in under the terms of the early New Deal, the President was advised to cut the budget, reduce deficit spending and tighten the money supply as a means to stave off inflation. Heeding their word (and no economist himself), FDR did just that.
The results were an unmitigated disaster.
Thanks to the Administration’s decision to move away from the increasingly Keynesian policies it had been following — policies that saw the unemployment rate fall from a high of 25 percent in 1933 to 14 percent by 1937 -- FDR launched one of the sharpest economic downturns in American history-the so-called "Roosevelt Recession" of 1937-38. In just a few short months, the GDP declined by 13 percent; industrial production by 33 percent; wages by 35 percent and an estimated four million people lost their jobs. No fool, FDR quickly reversed himself and went back to Congress to seek a massive stimulus bill to put people back to work and repair the damage to the Depression-era economy. Within three months growth had returned and the economy was back on track.
FDR only met John Maynard Keynes once during the 1930s, and after their 1934 meeting both men expressed a certain ambivalence about the other (Keynes said FDR did not know much about economics and Roosevelt said with all of his "numbers" Keynes struck him as more of a mathematician than an economist). But the lessons FDR drew from the 1937-38 recession were clear: Cutting federal spending and tightening the money supply in the midst of a deep economic crisis were bad ideas and from this point on his administration pursued economic policies that can only be described as unabashedly Keynesian. FDR may never have publically embraced Keynes’s theories, and in fact preferred to call his subsequent use of massive government borrowing and spending "compensatory fiscal policy," but the two concepts were virtually identical.
Spurred along by this change of heart and by the growing demands to increase defense spending to meet the challenges of World War II, the federal government borrowed 100s of billions of dollars in the late 1930s and early 40s, while at the same time government expenditures -- i.e. stimulus -- reached record levels. By the time the United States was fully engaged in the war, federal spending accounted for more than half of the country’s Gross National Product, business was booming and the scourge of unemployment had all but disappeared.
And what were the long term consequences of all of this borrowing and spending? Economic chaos? A sovereign debt and default crisis? No, what followed was more than three decades of postwar economic expansion and the creation of perhaps the best paid and best educated work-force America had ever seen.
The modern middle class was born."
Cutting spending, rather than spending stimulus funds, will fail again this time and may already be. Has anyone noticed the stock market before and after the budget deal was enacted?
APA: Let Gays Marry
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/04/psychologists.gay.marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
"Just under three quarters of a century ago, a group of conservative economic advisers close to Franklin Roosevelt informed the President that they were worried about the rapid rate of growth in the US economy. Since 1933, when FDR took over at the height of the Great Depression, the economy had been expanding steadily, at an average rate of 14 percent per year."
look, just like now
oh, wait a minute, we've been spending much more heavily than FDR did and economic growth is pathetic
this situation is nothing like that
"And what were the long term consequences of all of this borrowing and spending? Economic chaos? A sovereign debt and default crisis? No, what followed was more than three decades of postwar economic expansion and the creation of perhaps the best paid and best educated work-force America had ever seen."
that's true
and we could do it again if we can get some wicked enemy to devastate the rest of the world so that we have the only industrial capacity to rebuild and supply it
sadly, the rest of the world is growing while we flounder and heavy borrowing is not going to increase our exports significantly
where is the next Hitler when socialists would like to relive a little history?
think about it: when we borrow 40% of every dollar, where is it coming from?
some other country that is doing the opposite
how can that end well?
"SAO PAULO -- The city council of South America's biggest city has adopted legislation calling for a Heterosexual Pride Day to be celebrated on the third Sunday of each December.
The legislation's author, Carlos Apolinario, said the idea for a Heterosexual Pride Day is "not anti-gay but a protest against the privileges the gay community enjoys."
As an example, he mentioned how Sao Paulo's huge gay pride day parade is held every year on Paulista Avenue, one of the main thoroughfares in this city of 20 million people, while the March for Jesus organized by evangelical groups is not allowed on the same avenue.
The Brazilian Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Association criticized the legislation, saying it could provoke homophobic violence.
"How many LGBTs will be attacked because of the message that only heterosexuality makes someone a moral person and a good citizen," the association said in a statement."
so, now, saying heterosexuality is good is a hate crime, right?
let's end this foolishness and move to same sanity
they don't like the debt deal and, yet, though Obama fought it, he isn't getting any appreciation:
"President Obama plans to barnstorm the Midwest later this month in an effort to shift his focus back on the economy and boost his sagging poll numbers after the grueling debt-ceiling fight.
The weeks of sausage-making in Washington during the spending fight took a toll on all involved. Obama's job approval rating sank to 40% last week in Gallup's daily tracking poll -- the lowest score of his term. Congress fared even worse; a CNN/Opinion Research poll showed just 14% of Americans approved of its performance, while 84% disapproved -- the worst score ever recorded.
With the debt deal now law, members of Congress may have done the best possible thing: leave town in a hurry. And soon Obama will take the same course, making what the White House says is a long-scheduled bus tour of the heartland to reengage with the American people."
remember how the liberals mocked Sarah Palin's bus tour?
apparently, it gave Obama some ideas
the funny thing is that every time he goes straight to the public, his approval rating sinks
can an approval rating go below zero?
we may find out
good news:
BH Obama is campaigning on "change" again in this election.
"When I said 'change we can believe in' I didn't say 'change we can believe in tomorrow.' Not change we can believe in next week." President Obama said at a campaign fundraiser in Chicago on Wednesday night."
I think he's on to something.
This will definitely be a change election.
Definitely.
think about it: when we borrow 40% of every dollar, where is it coming from?
Well it sure isn't coming from American citizens who earn the most income and have been enjoying the Bush tax cuts for a decade. Those tax cuts have not created the jobs tax cutters promised would result. The only result so far has been that billionaires like Warren Buffett pay taxes at lower rates than their secretaries do.
and we could do it again if we can get some wicked enemy to devastate the rest of the world so that we have the only industrial capacity to rebuild and supply it
Or we could invest in TVA and CCC type projects to repair our failing infrastructure. I just googled "water main break closes road" without the quotation marks and got 3.49 million hits.
remember how the liberals mocked Sarah Palin's bus tour?
Sure. Why would she go on a bus tour if she was not running for office? Bus tours, and before them whistle-stop tours on trains have long been a method of getting out among the people by campaigners for public office.
*Thinking* Obama got the idea to make a campaign bus tour from Palin is simply wrong.
And then, of course the half governor brought ridicule to herself when she tried to tell the world that Paul Revere set out on his midnight ride to warn the British "the British are coming!" Well, she deserved mocking for that stupidity, especially since Wikipedia had to shut down the Paul Revere page soon thereafter because her fans, who are apparently as igorant of history as she is, tried to make Wikipedia's history lesson match the half governor's mistake.
But back to the story on this thread. Here's something else the USA Today/Gallup poll found as reported at http://www.usatoday.com
"WASHINGTON — The hard-won, last-minute agreement to raise the debt ceiling and cut the deficit gets low ratings from Americans, who by more than 2-1 predict it will make the nation's fragile economy worse rather than better.
In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken hours after the Senate passed and President Obama signed a debt ceiling bill, 41% of people polled said the deal will make the economy worse; 17% say it will make it better. A third predict it won't have much effect."
The stock market has lost 10% of its value in the past 10 days.
This will definitely be a change election.
Definitely.
I couldn't agree more. It will be a big change from 2010 as Americans see how much more harm to the economy has been forced on us all by the tea baggers.
"Well it sure isn't coming from American citizens who earn the most income and have been enjoying the Bush tax cuts for a decade."
Obviously not, you idiot, it's coming from nations like China and Japan who have deferred consumption rather than spend every cent they have and then borrow more for bread and circuses.
Those people who make the "most income" make up the lion's share of the 60% that we don't borrow.
Thanks to Republicans, who have raised the threshhold for taxation repeatedly to help out those who need assistance, about half of all Americans pay no taxes at all.
"Those tax cuts have not created the jobs tax cutters promised would result."
The "tax cuts" have actually been our tax rates for the past 11 years and our economy enjoyed close to full employment for most of that time.
"The only result so far has been that billionaires like Warren Buffett pay taxes at lower rates than their secretaries do."
People like Warren Buffet fund most of our governmental expenses. The absolute amount is more significant than the rate but, heck, let's cut those secretaries' taxes while we're at it.
Next year, under Obamacare, taxes on investment income will be subject to Medicare tax for the first time in history so the people you detest, without cause, already are scheduled to take a tax hit to subsidize the health insurance of others.
"Or we could invest in TVA and CCC type projects to repair our failing infrastructure. I just googled "water main break closes road" without the quotation marks and got 3.49 million hits."
we've already spent trillions on stimulus over the last three years
why it wasn't spent fixing up our infrastructure is a good question for Obama
I know people all over the country have been irritated by traffic delays from wasteful construction projects while important areas were left unfixed
Obama has mismanaged those funds big-time
"Sure. Why would she go on a bus tour if she was not running for office? Bus tours, and before them whistle-stop tours on trains have long been a method of getting out among the people by campaigners for public office."
she is advocate for change and a pretty darn effective, hence the collective liberal nervous breakdown every time she appears in public
how bizarre that you feel only politicians may tour the country and meet people
"*Thinking* Obama got the idea to make a campaign bus tour from Palin is simply wrong."
how simple. how do you know?
"And then, of course the half governor brought ridicule to herself"
have you heard of Joe Biden?
"The stock market has lost 10% of its value in the past 10 days."
yes it did, and one reason people have given up on Obama is that it's clear he hasn't got a clue what to do about it
raise taxes?
yeah, that'll lift the markets
"I couldn't agree more. It will be a big change from 2010 as Americans see how much more harm to the economy has been forced on us all by the tea baggers."
actually, the stock market isn't the economy
did you know that?
I thought I've explained some basic economics to you before
Obviously not, you idiot,
Anon reaches low for yet another personal attack.
Boring!
"*Thinking* Obama got the idea to make a campaign bus tour from Palin is simply wrong."
how simple. how do you know?"
Very simple. I know because I am able to comprehend and remember things I read such as Obama on Pennsylvania bus tour and Obama, Biden plan Midwest bus tour.
I know Obama didn't get the idea for a bus tour from Palin's 2011 bus tour because I remember he conducted a couple of bus tours during the 2008 campaign.
What made you think he did get the idea from Palin? Did you fall for the lying liars over at Fox Nation who have claimed Obama Copies Palin, Plans Bus Tour?
Well, you keep making that same mistake, don't you?
have you heard of Joe Biden?
Yes I have. He's the VP now and Palin isn't.
"I thought I've explained some basic economics to you before"
I don't know how many times I have to tell you, just because you *think* it, doesn't make it so.
Yawn.
I know people all over the country have been irritated by traffic delays from wasteful construction projects while important areas were left unfixed
Obama has mismanaged those funds big-time.
Are those people you know all over the country acquaintances of George Will's too?
So what you are saying here is that you *think* Obama decides how and where each state spends its stimulus money.
Boy, when you're wrong, you are really wrong.
Here, let the Daily Beast explain it to you:
"With their wallets bulging with their federal allowance, the states were allowed to spend $26.6 billion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money however they saw fit.
A new study shows that most states didn’t end up making the most of the windfall. The report by the transportation research group Smart Growth America found that states spent more than a third of the money on building new roads—rather than working on public transportation and fixing up existing roads and bridges. The result of the indiscriminate spending? States missed out on potentially thousands of new jobs—and bridges, roads, and overpasses around the country are still crumbling. Meanwhile, the states that did put dollars toward public transportation were richly rewarded: Each dollar used on transit was 75 percent more effective at putting people to work than a dollar used for highway work.
The government, of course, meant to get the biggest bang for its buck. The stimulus bill forced states to spend their allocated cash quickly, which was intended to get them to fund maintenance needs—“shovel-ready projects”—that had already been identified. Building miles of new roads, on the other hand, requires planning, land acquisition, and other lengthy steps that put fewer workers on the job immediately.
Some states did that. Sue Minter, Vermont’s deputy transportation secretary, says a longstanding “fix-it-first” policy for infrastructure and bipartisan collaboration shaped Vermont’s decisions about how to use the funds. The state spent all of its highway money on system maintenance, with a small amount going to mass transit. (Minter, a Democrat, was a member of the state legislature at the time.) “This shot of money into our economy was very, very significant. It’s part of the reason we have a relatively low unemployment rate,” she says. Only 5.8 percent of Vermont residents are out of work, one of the nation’s lowest rates. State research shows that ARRA funding employed 11,000 people—a small number overall, but a significant one in a small state. Minter says the maintenance was important for keeping economic growth, particularly in tourism, strong.
Other states, however, took a different tack. Arkansas used 81 percent of its money for new projects and none on transit; it also has a higher unemployment rate than Vermont. And unlike other states near the bottom of the list, just 38 percent of its roads are in good condition, according to a report by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, a trade organization."
Now Anon, try to comprehend and retain what you just read. The states decided which projects to fund with their stimulus funds, not Obama.
Bea, you freaking idiot, the stimulus was trillions not 26 billion.
It was mismanaged by BH Obama.
"I know Obama didn't get the idea for a bus tour from Palin's 2011 bus tour because I remember he conducted a couple of bus tours during the 2008 campaign."
oh, that proves it
actually, we all know what buses are
he decided to do it at this time because it was a hit for Palin
"Yes I have. He's the VP now and Palin isn't."
which makes you wonder why you aren't howling about all the verbal gaffes he makes
he is in a pretty high position and should represent us
btw, you may remember how Palin cleaned his clock in the 2008 VP debate
nah, you probably won't
"Are those people you know all over the country acquaintances of George Will's too?"
you should have asked me before lunch
I saw him at the Palm and waved but I would have gone over and asked
"I don’t go for crude language in print but the quality of the national conversation on the debt ceiling was so debased that apologies for a four-letter word may not be necessary.
Depending on one’s viewpoint on deficit spending, the Tea Party types in Congress who took the nation to the brink of default could reasonably be described as misguided ideologues lacking in a grasp of basic mathematics. Or one could, as two New York Times columnists did, compare them to Hezbollah or serial killers. This type of argumentation was the rule, rather than the exception. In the past few days, prominent Democratic officeholders and liberal journalists have called the House Republicans -- these are direct quotes -- “terrorists,” “jihadists,” “carjackers,” “suicide bombers,” “vampires,” “nihilists,” “extremists,” “tyrants,” “extortionists,” and “traitors . . . who want to end life as we know it on this planet.”
From the president on down, Democratic officeholders consistently complained that Republicans have held a gun to their heads. Their words, not mine. “The debt ceiling should not be something that is used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners,” Obama said last month. “We’re being told to make a decision with a gun to our heads,” Rep. Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat, said this week.
Democrats used this kind of language even as they welcomed wounded Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords back on the floor of the House, where she voted for the deficit compromise. After Giffords was grievously wounded in January when she was actually, not metaphorically, shot in the head by a deranged gunman.
Back then, some of the same liberal critics who are now directing hate speech at Tea Partiers over their tax policies excoriated conservatives for fomenting a climate of violence with their rhetoric. Some of them actually blamed Republicans for the violence in Tucson. It turned out the gunman was not a Tea Party type."
"The clichés were as thick as, well, flies on “a Satan sandwich.” At one press conference, the president mixed his metaphors back-to-back, separated only by an unseen verbal comma. “We might as well do it now,” Obama said of a long-term debt ceiling solution. “Pull off the Band-Aid, eat our peas.”
The most annoying phrase in the deficit debate, due to both its vacuity and frequency, was “at the end of the day.” In an interview on Fox News, Rep. Kurt Schrader, a moderate Oregon Democrat, used “at the end of the day” twice in the same sentence. The phrase was so overused that even when employed properly it was hard to follow, as in this sentence in a Huffington Post story: “It appeared to be an admission by Pawlenty that the McConnell plan that he rejected earlier in the day would be the best option at the end of the day.”
But all that would have been tolerable, the unremarkable result of the 24-hour news cycle and frayed nerves during the hot summer months in the capital. Until Emmanuel Cleaver introduced the Satan sandwich to the menu. “This is a Satan sandwich,” he said July 31 of the debt ceiling compromise. “There’s no question about it.”
There were, of course, a lot of questions about it, namely, what the hell was he talking about? The phrase Cleaver was reaching for -- but didn’t use, possibly because he’s a preacher, and maybe because July 31 was a Sunday -- was the self-explanatory “shit sandwich.”
This may have been a disgusting metaphor, but not an original one. Three years ago, then-House Minority Leader John Boehner reached for this very imagery (as well as a euphemistic way to express it) when he described the president’s (that would be George W. Bush’s) financial bailout package as “a crap sandwich.” But he urged his colleagues to eat it anyway.
Cleaver wasn’t so clever. He compounded his rhetorical excess by sticking to his story: Yes, the GOP bill really was satanic, he explained, “because there’s nothing inside this sandwich that the major religions of the world will say deals with protection for the poor, the widows, the children. It’s not in here.”
If you thought this verbal excess might embarrass Democrats, you’d be wrong. When asked about Cleaver’s comment, Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a woman not known for her originality of expression, replied: “It probably is -- with some Satan fries on the side. We were forced into something in order to lift the debt ceiling. That’s never happened before. But nonetheless, it’s something that we have to do.”
“Bitter pill?” asked Diane Sawyer.
“Well, it’s more than bitter pill,” Pelosi replied. “What would be the next stage up from a bitter pill?
Asked if she would deliver Democratic votes for this crap-shit-Satan sandwich, Pelosi answered: “The Democrats are not going to have the country default. I’m not saying they're happy about it. At the end of the day, we’re voting for a bill that has severe cuts in our domestic agenda, that impedes our economic growth.”
That was one view. Another was provided on a site called Satan’s Blog, run by L.D. Ablo (get it?) who accused the Democrats of throwing around words without any “clue of their meaning.” The Dark One, it seems, doesn’t like the debt compromise, either. He wanted to leave things as they are: “I love any policy, any legislation, any person, that supports enslaving people,” L.D Ablo blogged. “And America’s debt is making slaves of all Americans.""
Bea, you freaking idiot, the stimulus was trillions not 26 billion.
Oh thanks, now you've lowered yourself to deliver an insult with an adjective.
Aren't you sick of parroting your right wing lies yet? The entire stimulus package for 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was less than 1 TRILLION dollars.
$288 Billion, which was 37% of the total cost of the ARRA of 2009, was for tax incentives for a variety of things.
Ask Theresa to remind you about the tax rebate she got for installing solar panels on her home.
The part of the ARRA of 2009 designated for "traffic causing" transportation (roads and bridges) projects you are bitching about was $27.5 Billion.
You aren't so uninformed to think the entire Obama stimulus package was for building roads or "TRILLIONS" of dollars are you? The above link labeled "tax incentives" will take you to the Wikipedia page for the ARRA of 2009. You would be well advised to read and try to comprehend it.
I saw him at the Palm and waved
Either that or you were hallucinating again.
And oh yeah, about that supposed talk of terrorists, Palin said, "If we were real domestic terrorists, President Obama would be wanting to pal around with us, wouldn't he?" according to HuffPo:
During an appearance on Fox News' "Hannity" on Tuesday night, Sarah Palin shared her take on a criticism Vice President Joe Biden reportedly directed at the Tea Party earlier this week.
According to Politico, Biden suggested that Tea Party-backed lawmakers "acted like terrorists" in contentious debate over raising the debt ceiling in a meeting with House Democrats.
"If we were real domestic terrorists," Palin explained to host Sean Hannity, "President Obama would be wanting to pal around with us, wouldn't he? He didn't have a problem palling around with Bill Ayers back in the day when he kicked off his political career."
When it comes to harsh rhetoric applied to the Tea Party the former Alaska governor said "enough is enough." She asserted, "I'm not just going to roll over with a sticker plastered on my forehead that says, hit me baby one more time, call me a terrorist again, call me a racist. Those things that Tea Party patriots have been being called over these months. It is unfair, it's hypocritical of the other side doing that. And enough is enough. And I'm going stand up for those fiscally conservative patriotic independent Americans who wants the best for this country.”
After Palin sought to connect Obama to Ayers, a 1960s Weather Underground member, during the 2008 presidential campaign, the AP reported:
No evidence shows they were "pals" or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career.
Asked if likening members of the Tea Party to terrorists is appropriate discourse in the eyes of the president on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, "No, he doesn't and neither does the Vice President." He added, "I think the Vice President spoke to this and made clear he didn't say those words... It was a product of an emotional discussion, very passionately held positions in this debate. But that does not mean this is appropriate and it's not."
"Oh thanks, now you've lowered yourself to deliver an insult with an adjective."
another redefinition:
facts are now "insults"
"You aren't so uninformed to think the entire Obama stimulus package was for building roads or "TRILLIONS" of dollars are you?"
I'm so simple-minded that I believe the trllions in deficit spending by BH Obama could have been used to repair this supposedly fraying infrastructure.
Obama should have made sure of it.
"Either that or you were hallucinating again."
call the Palm and ask them if you don't believe me
"After Palin sought to connect Obama to Ayers, a 1960s Weather Underground member, during the 2008 presidential campaign, the AP reported:
No evidence shows they were "pals" or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career."
another redefinition: someone who host an event launching your career is not necessarily your "pal"
as you futilely try to connect the situations, let's remember that Ayers actually was a terrorist and the Tea Party legislators are not
good job, Barry:
"In July, 117,000 jobs were added in the economy, and the unemployment rate dropped to 9.1 percent from 9.2 percent. But the drop in the unemployment rate should not be celebrated as a signal of strong growth: It came almost entirely from Americans dropping out of the labor force.
As more Americans simply give up looking for work, the employment-to-population ratio fell to 63.9 percent in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' latest snapshot of the U.S. labor market, a new low.
"We're continuing to see very weak growth," said Dean Baker, economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "117,000 new jobs is a really pathetic growth rate. It might be fine if we were at 4.5 percent unemployment, but in the context of 9.1 percent, it's going to take us more than 20 years to get us back to where we used to be."
While July's report inched up job gains from the past two months in revised numbers, May and June job growth still failed to keep up with population gains, stoking fears of a double dip recession for some observers. As Robert Reich, a left-leaning economist and the former U.S. Secretary of Labor, put it in a tweet last night, "If tomorrow's job number is below 125,000, chance of double dip goes up to 50-50."
In a recent address, President Obama said that he plans to now "pivot to jobs." Sound familiar? In his very first address to Congress in February of 2009, the President promised an agenda focused on job creation, a claim he has repeated many times since then.
And yet, in many economists' view, there has been essentially no job recovery at all.
"There is no need for a double dip since we haven't had a recovery yet," said Lawrence Katz, a professor of economics at Harvard University. "The labor market has shown no recovery at all since the supposed end of the recession.""
"get us back to where we used to be."
back where we were when W was President
we just got downgraded.
Because we didn't cut enough from our spending.
Shocker.
OF COURSE the Republicans didn't like this plan !!!!
remember, Obama originally wanted us to extend the debt ceiling without any budget cuts at all
remember his original budget, back in February, rejected unanimously by Congress?
he should do the right thing and resign:
"WASHINGTON — Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's on Friday downgraded the United States' credit rating first time in the history of the ratings.
The credit rating agency said that it is cutting the country's top AAA rating by one notch to AA-plus. The credit agency said that it is making the move because the deficit reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country's debt situation.
A source familiar with the discussions said that the Obama administration feels the S&P's analysis contained "deep and fundamental flaws."
S&P said that in addition to the downgrade, it is issuing a negative outlook, meaning that there was a chance it will lower the rating further within the next two years. It said such a downgrade to AA would occur if the agency sees less reductions in spending than Congress and the administration have agreed to make, higher interest rates or new fiscal pressures during this period."
The downgrade might have been avoided if a week or two ago the GOP House leadership hadn't walked away from President Obama's big deal that had the entire $4 trillion reduction the ratings bureaus had asked for.
that deal had tax hikes and no reform of the current tax code. wouldn't necessarily raise revenue because the current tax code enables the Laffer curve.
ie, folks making over 250K married NOT making over 250K divorced might just choose to get divorced if the difference is 25K a year. Which it is if the Bush tax cuts including the marriage penalty expires.
tax code needs to be fair. Right now it is HORRIBLY broken. Just raising the rates on the top two brackets MIGHT not have the effect you desire.
Very curious how many of those in the second bracket are dual income families that would be UNDER the magic 250K if divorced.
Tax code has consequences. The democrats are trying everything they can to DESTROY the nuclear family.
And raising the rates on 208 AGI is just one of those ways.....
U.S. Department of Agriculture reports the number of Americans now reliant on the government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to stave off hunger has skyrocketed to 45.8 million in May of this year. That’s up a whopping 34% from May 2009.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29SNAPcurrPP.htm
Also, "New tax data from the Internal Revenue service shows that in 2009, incomes fell, unemployment claims rose, and the U.S. economy shed nearly two million taxpayers.
And of the 235,413 taxpayers who earned $1 million or more in 2009, 1,470 of them paid no taxes.
According to the data, the average income for American taxpayers fell to $54,283 -- a drop of $3,516, or about 6.1 percent, between 2008 and 2009. Not only that, but the overall number of taxpayers -- that is, individuals or married couples filing with the IRS -- fell by almost two million."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/irs-incomes_n_918458.html?ncid=wsc-huffpost-cards-headline
Meanwhile, "Tiffany’s first-quarter sales were up 20 percent to $761 million. Last week LVMH, which owns expensive brands like Louis Vuitton and Givenchy, reported sales growth in the first half of 2011 of 13 percent to 10.3 billion euros, or $14.9 billion. Also last week, PPR, home to Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent and other brands, said its luxury segment’s sales gained 23 percent in the first half. Profits are also up by double digits for many of these companies.
BMW this week said it more than doubled its quarterly profit from a year ago as sales rose 16.5 percent; Porsche said its first-half profit rose 59 percent; and Mercedes-Benz said July sales of its high-end S-Class sedans — some of which cost more than $200,000 — jumped nearly 14 percent in the United States.
The success luxury retailers are having in selling $250 Ermenegildo Zegna ties and $2,800 David Yurman pavé rings — the kind encircled with small precious stones — stands in stark contrast to the retailers who cater to more average Americans.
Apparel stores are holding near fire sales to get people to spend. Wal-Mart is selling smaller packages because some shoppers do not have enough cash on hand to afford multipacks of toilet paper. Retailers from Victoria’s Secret to the Children’s Place are nudging prices up by just pennies, worried they will lose customers if they do anything more."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/business/sales-of-luxury-goods-are-recovering-strongly.html?_r=1&hp
this is unprecedented
it's clear that Obama should go
his people need to talk to him
America deserves a leader and a winner
not a blame-shifter and a loser
"in February of 2009, the President promised an agenda focused on job creation,"
"the employment-to-population ratio fell to 63.9 percent in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' latest snapshot of the U.S. labor market, a new low"
"Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's on Friday downgraded the United States' credit rating first time in the history of the ratings."
just a reminder, it's August 2011
If you actually believe this anon, then the Republicans' strategy of driving the country off a cliff and blaming the President has worked.
actually believe what?
the facts?
Obama has made no effort to restrain spending or create jobs
last year, he was pushing the health care mess and everyone was urging him to focus on jobs first
he is now promising to "pivot" to jobs
and his idea to create jobs is push for the largest tax increase in history
we really don't have enough rich people to cover our deficits, even if you confiscated all their income
and his constant class warfare rhetoric has chilled economic intiative
in a country where the leader talks about those who succeed as if they are the enemy, who wants to be seen succeeding?
we need to give Obama the old heave-ho !!
OBAMA IS THE WORST NATURAL DISASTER TO EVER HIT THE UNITED STATES !!!
Even if you think Obama is St George and Republicans are the dragon, by now you must have realized we need a new knight in shining armor
Bea, this is from Fred Kudlow:
"There he goes again. Out on the campaign trail, President Obama is proposing more federal spending as his answer to sluggish growth and jobs. That won't do it, Mr. President.
He wants more infrastructure spending, undoubtedly in the form of an infrastructure bank. That's a terrible idea. It's borrowed from Latin America, where bloated and corrupt bureaucratic construction agencies have helped bankrupt any number of countries in the past.
He wants to lengthen 99-week unemployment insurance, although numerous studies have shown that continuous unemployment benefits are associated with higher unemployment.
And he wants to extend the temporary payroll tax credit, which is not a permanent reduction in marginal tax rates, has no incentive effect, has not worked so far and is really a form of federal spending -- not real tax relief.
Earlier this week, when he signed the debt-ceiling bill, the president ranted on about the need to raise tax rates on successful earners, investors and small businesses. He's trying to bring back tax hikes as part of the phase-two special committee seeking additional deficit reduction, even though his own party rebuffed him on this in the late stages of the debt talks. All this is a prescription to grow government, not the economy.
What the economy needs, Mr. President, is a strong dose of new incentives, with pro-growth tax reform that flattens marginal rates and broadens the base for individuals and businesses. This includes moving to territorial taxation that ends the double tax on foreign earnings of U.S. companies. Plus, we desperately need a complete moratorium on federal regulations. As Sen. Barrasso recently noted, the government put out 379 new rules on business in July alone, amounting to $9.5 billion in additional costs.
None of these pro-growth reforms are in sight. So the stock market is going through a nasty 10 percent correction over fears of another recession (and European debt default).
But at least we got some good news on jobs. The July jobs report came in stronger than expected. In the report, the unemployment rate slipped to 9.1 percent from 9.2 percent. But that's mostly because nearly 200,000 workers left the civilian labor force."
"in February of 2009, the President promised an agenda focused on job creation,"
And did the GOP Senators let one jobs bill get passed? No, instead they forced cloture votes, breaking the record for the number of filibusters in a session.
And since the GOP took over the House in 2010 on the promise they'd create jobs since Obama supposedly didn't (although the CBO says he did), how many jobs bills have they passed?
Zero.
the Post front page story has it right this morning
voters, even if they believe Obama's assertion that the GOP drove the economy into a ditch, will be asking in 2012 "why hasn't Obama towed it out?"
and our good friend, George Will, who had a nice lunch at the Palm yesterday, was right last week when he said that the best GOP slogan for 2012 would be: "is this the best we can do?"
"And did the GOP Senators let one jobs bill get passed?"
actually, in 2009, Dems controlled all three houses (Rep, Senate,
White) with filibuster proof majorities
"And since the GOP took over the House in 2010 on the promise they'd create jobs, how many jobs bills have they passed?"
the GOP, because of our political system, were only able to take one of the three houses
they took over in January 2011, not 2010, and have taken a number of actions that would have stabilized our economy but have been rejected by the Senate
meanwhile, more sleaze coming from the Dems in Congress:
"WASHINGTON -- New York members of the House are keeping the ethics committee awfully busy these days, with yet another member of the delegation being referred for investigation, this time Rep. Gregory Meeks.
The Office of Congressional Ethics revealed Friday that it has asked the full ethics committee to look into its finding that Meeks (D-N.Y.) had taken a gift of $40,000 from a friend and businessman named Edul Ahmad.
Meeks said the payment was a personal loan that he took in 2007 to help finish work on his new $860,000 home.
But Meeks failed to report the loan on any of his financial disclosure forms -- as required. The New York Daily News reported that Meeks came forward after the FBI started investigating Ahmad and discovered the payment.
Ahmad was recently arrested by the FBI in connection with a mortgage fraud case.
"During the course of its review, the Office of Congressional Ethics learned that the $40,000 Representative Meeks received from Edul Ahmad appeared to lack the normal indicia, including a set interest rate or repayment terms, of a legitimate loan," the OCE said in referring the matter. "Therefore, this $40,000 transferred to Representative Meeks in 2007 appears to have been a gift."
Larry Kudlow, the guy Bears Stearns fired for using cocaine and missing important client meetings who then got hired by Laffer? That's the guy you expect me to believe knows something important about economics??
Don't make me laugh!
I'm sticking with Paul Krugman for a number of reasons.
1. He was never fired for drug use.
2. He is the 15th most widely cited economist in the world today.
3. He is the winner of the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in economics.
Krugman says and has been saying for years that we need a second stimulus to correct this failing economy. He's right and history proves he's right in the example of the Great Depression, as the Anonymous Democrat noted in the second comment above.
We will not cut our way out of this mess. More cuts will only deepen the hole we're in right now. We need to take a balanced approach to solve the problems Bush created for us and that balanced approach must include both cutting spending and raising revenues. It's the only way to fill in the hole the Bush administration dug with their tax cuts and huge unfunded spending increases.
Those Bush tax cuts were supposedly for the foolish purpose of refunding tax payers the surplus Clinton managed to put together rather than saving that surplus for a rainy day fund. That surplus could be paying some extended unemployement benefits to the long-term unemployed, keeping consumer demand higher than it is now. At the very least, the Bush tax cuts should have ended the moment the Clinton surplus was gone rather than being allowed to hundreds of billions of dollars to our deficit every year for a decade.
In 2010, the CBO projected a decrease in deficits if the tax cuts expired, and said extending all of them permanently would cost $3.3 trillion over 10 years and increase deficits.
But the GOTP doesn't really care about deficits. If they did, they'd raise taxes as well as cut spending, taking a balanced and fair approach as Paul Krugman and the President have suggested over and over again.
Sadly, all the GOTP cares about is Grover Norquist's no-taxes-ever pledge, which will ensure workers in the former middle class in America languish in these economic doldrums for years to come while the richest among us party like it's the Roaring Twenties all over again.
you just don't get it, Bea
we can't borrow the money for another round of stimulus
we can't afford it
even Obama was pushing for cuts and tax increases a couple of weeks ago
he wasn't saying a word about increasing spending on stimulus
nevertheless, help is on the way
a guy whose state has produced half of the new jobs in the country since Sir Barry took over is coming:
"HOUSTON — Gov. Rick Perry will take his biggest step yet onto the national stage today when thousands congregate in a pro football stadium for the Response, the Christian prayer gathering that Perry initiated.
Perry will speak, read scripture and offer a prayer, an event spokesman said Friday. The event is likely to garner widespread media attention, and what Perry and others say today will define him to voters across the country as he prepares to launch a campaign for the GOP presidential nomination later this month.
Pastors planning to attend with church members said they will be praying for healing and a turn to national righteousness in what they say are troubled times for America.
Since Perry announced the Response in June, considerable media attention has focused on the host organization, the American Family Association, a Mississippi-based group that frequently organizes protests against companies that are too gay-friendly.
Perry has said in promoting the gathering, "As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.""
editorial from Investors' Business Daily:
"Leadership: As the economy flatlines and stocks crater, the Pied Piper of hope and change leads us over a cliff while blowing out birthday candles at the White House and snuffing out America's future.
This administration has been so wretched, its performance so incompetent, that we half-expect to see billboards popping up with the image of Jimmy Carter and the words, "Miss me yet?"
At least Carter, who with any luck will be supplanted in 2013 as America's worst former president, used appropriate symbolism in donning sweaters, sitting in front of fireplaces and complaining of America's "malaise." His birthdays, we recall, were relatively quiet affairs.
No sackcloth and ashes, however, for the incumbent. As Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported, President Obama celebrated his 50th birthday Thursday night with a celebrity-filled bash. As entertainer Chris Rock reported on his Twitter feed:
"Just left the president's birthday party at the White House. Herbie Hancock played, Stevie Wonder sang and, yes, they did the electric slide. A great night."
For the American people, it was a sleepless night, prefaced by the administration's press secretary Jay Carney declaring that "the White House doesn't create jobs." No, it just destroys them through regulations and policies that promote unionism while discouraging domestic energy production.
To cite just one example, Boeing wants to create a thousand jobs in a right-to-work state and Obama turns the dogs of the National Labor Relations Board loose on the company.
According to reports, birthday revelers in addition to Rock included rapper Jay Z, Tom Hanks, basketball legends Charles Barkley and Grant Hill, Whoopi Goldberg, Dallas Cowboys great Emmitt Smith and actor Hill Harper, one of the president's closest chums from Harvard law school and star of "CSI: NY." No word about the taxes on the private jets they flew in on.
It was the president's fiftieth birthday party to that point. Earlier in the day he was toasted in the Blue Room by White House aides as well as family and friends. The day before, he celebrated in his hometown of Chicago, with three different campaign fundraising events. For a mere $38,500 you could actually sit close enough to have an audience.
The latest jobless numbers showed just 117,000 jobs were created in July, a number that — like this year's GDP data — probably will be revised downward. Official unemployment stands at 9.1%. The participation rate, which measures the percentage of people working or searching for jobs, fell to 63.9%, the lowest in 27 years.
This weekend, the president was off to Camp David for more celebrating. But fear not: Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, head of the Democratic National Committee, assures us the economy has turned the corner.
Happy birthday, Mr. President."
On the same night that Standard and Poor's downgraded the United States' top-level credit rating for the first time in history, Christina Romer, former chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, didn't mince words when asked of downgrade's potential consequences.
The U.S. is "pretty darn f**ked," Romer said during a segment on Real Time with Bill Maher called “How F**ked Are We?”, after Maher asked what the news could mean for the U.S. economy.
"I’ve been hanging around Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner too long," Romer said, explaining her foul language. Geithner, she says, swears "like a seventh grade boy."
S&P and Moody's, another prominent credit rating agency, had threatened to downgrade the U.S. credit rating for months if the federal government would not impose an adequate long-term plan to address deficit reduction in the coming years.
For the first time in history, Standard and Poor’s, one of several credit rating agencies, on Friday, August 5, downgraded the credit rating of the U.S. government. Why?
Here's how S&P explained their decision:
"Overview
• We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term rating.
• We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.
• The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.
• More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
• Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.
• 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 to clarify items in their overview, S&P added:
"The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options."
John Chambers, Managing Director of S&P, was interviewed by Anderson Cooper on CNN and asked for the reasons his firm decided to downgrade the USA's AAA rating to AA.
"Cooper: Why did S&P downgrade the United States' credit rating today?
Chambers: "Well I think there were two reasons. The first reason is the one you've outlined, being our view of the political settings in the United States have been altered. We've taken them down a notch, the rating down a notch. The political brinkmanship we saw over raising the debt ceiling was something that was really beyond our expectations, the US government getting to the last day before before they had cash management problems. There are very few governments that separate the budget process from the debt authorization process. And we also think more broadly that this debate has shown, that although we do have an agreement that will, and we do believe, will deliver at least 2.1 trillion dollars in savings over the next decade, it's going to be difficult to get beyond that, at least in the near term, and you do need to get beyond that to get to a point where the debt to GDP ratio is going to stabilize."
Cooper: So it's interesting, you are saying without a doubt, the recent debate, the recent roadblocks in Congress, the tenor, the timing, the tone of the debate, had a major impact on this.
Chambers: Yes, I think that is what put things over the brink. In addition we have a medium term fiscal forecast that we see, the debt to GDP ratio continuing to rise over the forecast horizon and putting it in the position where it would be no longer compatible with many other AAA ratings."
Cooper: Already on Twitter, other places, Republicans and Democrats are pointing fingers at each other, at President Obama, at Congress. Do you blame one side more than the other?
Chambers: No, I think there's plenty of blame to go around. This is a problem that's been a long time in the making, well over this administration and the prior administration. It's a matter of the medium and long term budget position of the United States that needs to be brought under control, not the immediate fiscal position. It's one that centers on entitlements and its entitlement reform or having matching revenues to pay for those entitlements that's at the crux of the matter.
Cooper: What could the United States have done to have avoided this?
Chambers: Well I think it could have done a few things. Well, I mean the first thing it could have done is to raise the debt ceiling in a timely manner so that much of this debate had been avoided to begin with, as it had done, you know, sixty or seventy times since 1960 without that much debate. So that's point number one.
And point number two is it could have come up with a fiscal plan, you know, similar, for example to, you know, the Bowles Simpson Commission, which was bi-partisan, although it didn't have a super majority vote, it did have a majority vote, and came up with a number of sensible recommendations. I mean, you could envision other recommendations but that would have...."
"Well I think it could have done a few things. Well, I mean the first thing it could have done is to raise the debt ceiling in a timely manner so that much of this debate had been avoided to begin with"
the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority when the current budget year began and it was clear that the ceiling would need to be lifted
why wasn't it done then?
oh, that's right, an election was going on and that might have started a discussion about the level of spending
the cynical didn't help 'em much though
"There are very few governments that separate the budget process from the debt authorization process."
yes, but the Democrats want to keep doing it that way
for obvious reasons
"it could have come up with a fiscal plan, you know, similar, for example to, you know, the Bowles Simpson Commission, which was bi-partisan, although it didn't have a super majority vote, it did have a majority vote, and came up with a number of sensible recommendations. I mean, you could envision other recommendations but that would have...."
yes, you could
such as the Ryan plan to reform welfare
the intransigent Dems wouldn't even consider it
"It's a matter of the medium and long term budget position of the United States that needs to be brought under control, not the immediate fiscal position. It's one that centers on entitlements and its entitlement reform"
absolutely
Bill Clinton, under pressure from Newt Gingrich, reformed the welfare entitlement, resulting in surpluses that W returned to the American people
let's repeat history
this disaster happened on Obama's watch
his whining about how he was powerless to change it shows how he was wrong when he said he was offering change we could believe in
Americans have lost that false faith
Well, I can see why Anon prefers the editorial piece from Investor's Business Daily, and I do believe I understand why the author didn't sign his name to it. It's pretty dumb.
Mr. Chambers interview and the S&P report, on the other hand, give us information from S&P about why they decided to lower the USA's rating for the first time ever.
How could we have avoided this downgrade? Per Mr. Chambers in two ways.
1. "raise the debt ceiling in a timely manner"
2. "come up with a fiscal plan, you know, similar, for example to, you know, the Bowles Simpson Commission"
I sure hope the tea baggers and the GOTP's Norquist pledge signers are happy now that their intransigence has left a mark on us all.
you are as confused as usual, Bea
Obama had it within his power to raise the debt ceiling back when he began the budget year that resulted in the current deficit
he didn't want to talk about it when the voters would have a chance to weigh in on the excessive spending
the results of the Simpson Bowles plan, on the other hand, were out when Obama presented his budget in February
instead of using their ideas, he chose to present a budget so partisan and, frankly, socialist that it began our current problems
Obama's to blame and his presidency is over
he's officially a lame duck now
for the good of his country, he do the statesmanlike thing Sarah Palin did: quit
if he resigns, we'd have Biden
better yet, if they both resign, we'd have John Boehner
Obama has now blown the one good thing he has done as President
today, he allowed Taliban fighters to revenge Bin Laden's death by killing the Seals involved in the raid on Bin Laden's
Obama should have made sure they were protected
It's a freakin war, you moron. Sometimes we kill them, sometimes they kill us, if you can't stand it then get out there and protest against it. You are a big candy-ass to try to turn the deaths of dedicated American servicemen into a political statement.
did anyone ever tell you where the buck stops?
Obama's execution of the Afghanistan theater is appropos for discussion since he used it against the Repubs in his 2008 campaign
Obama criticized Bush for emphasizing the Iraq theater over the Afghan one
then, after months of dithering, he tried to imitate Bush's surge strategy
it worked for Bush in Iraq
it didn't work for Obama in Afghanistan
the Seals who raided Osama's compound would be natural targets for the Taliban and shoiuld have received special protection from Obama
I'm sure you're no hypocrite though
you probably thought Obama was a big candy-ass when he turned the deaths of dedicated American servicemen into a political statement during his 2008 Presidential campaign
right?
Your idea that Obama is to blame for these sad deaths because he had the courage to kill America's most hated enemy is absurd.
that's not why
it's because he failed to protect those who carried out the mission
And what was he supposed to do - be nice to Osama bin Laden so the Taliban would be nice to our guys?
it's still early but Bea may win the prize for Dumb Bunny of the Year:
"I'm sticking with Paul Krugman for a number of reasons.
1. He was never fired for drug use."
you wouldn't believe how many people in the world have this credential
are sticking with their economic experise too?
because most of them think Keynes is dead
"2. He is the 15th most widely cited economist in the world today."
as an example of how not to understand economics-
"citing" can go both ways
"3. He is the winner of the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in economics."
the Nobel Committee has been on a campaign to discredit George Bush
their awards in 2007 (Al Gore), 2008 (Paul Krugman), and 2009 (B. Hussein Obama) have been mocked and diminished the prestige of the Nobel Prize greatly
"Krugman says and has been saying for years that we need a second stimulus to correct this failing economy."
uh, the first stimulus didn't end long ago
how many "years" could this guy have been saying that we need a "second stimulus"?
the qualifications for the Dumb Bunny award keep piling up, don't they?
"He's right and history proves he's right in the example of the Great Depression,"
you mean the huge economic collapse of the thirties that didn't go away until Hitler made us the only safe, thriving industrial nation in the world?
how does that prove Krugman right?
you sure you aren't referring to Jack Klugman?
(I know Klugman didn't seem that smart but Bea might mean him. She thinks Al Franken is a genius- nyuck-nyuck-nyuck)
"The debt deal unhinged the left.
No, the Tea Parties did not win, as the left has been saying. The spending "cuts" only limit the additional growth of government, and they are too small and too distant to be worth celebrating. But the left is correct about one thing: they lost, because the debt deal established the idea that there would be no more tax increases and no big new spending programs. And the left does not exactly have a record of being gracious political losers.
As usual, no one was more unhinged than Paul Krugman. To be sure, his New York Times colleague Joe Nocera established a new apex of civil political discourse when he denounced Republicans as jihadist terrorists. But that's just a lot of angry venting and empty invective. By contrast, Krugman brings to this debate a peculiar kind of madness. What was really unhinged was the substance of his response, the solution that he thinks the nation needs to follow.
In a blistering column, Krugman lashed out at the Obama administration, declaring that "we are not now and have never been on the road to recovery" and that "the economic policy of the past two years" "isn't working."
Yet he was attacking Obama, not for pushing through too much "stimulus" spending, nor for printing too much money, nor for piling up too much debt--but for doing too little of these things. He argues for an even bigger stimulus, for government to "support the economy in its time of need" and to be the sole source of growth. He snarls: where else is growth going to come from? And yes, for him, that's supposed to be a rhetorical question.
This is not, by itself, Krugman's peculiar madness. The peculiar madness of Paul Krugman is that he presents all of this as if it were sensible and self-evidently true and requires no argument. He presents it as if the only thing preventing others from seeing the truth is blind political obstructionism (for the Republicans) or cowardice (for the Democrats)."
"KABUL, Afghanistan — Insurgents shot down a U.S. military helicopter during fighting in eastern Afghanistan, killing 30 Americans, most of them belonging to the same elite Navy SEALs unit that killed Osama bin Laden, as well as seven Afghan commandos, U.S. officials said Saturday. It was the deadliest single loss for American forces in the decade-old war.
The downing was a stinging blow to the lauded, tight-knit SEAL Team 6, months after its crowning achievement. It was also a heavy setback for the U.S.-led coalition as it begins to draw down thousands of combat troops fighting what has become an increasingly costly and unpopular war.
None of the 22 SEAL personnel killed in the crash were part of the team that killed bin Laden in a May raid in Pakistan, but they belonged to the same unit. Their deployment in the raid in which the helicopter crashed would suggest that the target was a high-ranking insurgent figure.
Special operations forces, including the SEALs and others, have been at the forefront in the stepped up strategy of taking out key insurgent leaders in targeted raids, and they will be relied on even more as regular troops pull out.
The strike is also likely to boost the morale of the Taliban in a key province that controls a strategic approach to the capital Kabul. The Taliban claimed they downed the helicopter with a rocket while it was taking part in a raid on a house where insurgents were gathered in the province of Wardak overnight. Wreckage of the craft was strewn across the crash site, a Taliban spokesman said.
A senior U.S. administration official in Washington said it appeared the craft had been shot down. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the crash is still being investigated.
“Their deaths are a reminder of the extraordinary sacrifices made by the men and women of our military and their families, including all who have served in Afghanistan,” President Barack Obama said in a statement, adding that his thoughts and prayers go out to the families of those who perished.
The U.S.-led coalition said in a statement that 30 American service members, a civilian interpreter and seven Afghan commandos were killed when their CH-47 Chinook crashed in the early hours Saturday. A current U.S. official and a former U.S. official said the Americans included 22 SEALs, three Air Force air controllers and a dog handler and his dog. The two spoke on condition of anonymity because military officials were still notifying the families of the dead.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai announced the number of people killed in the crash and the presence of special operations troops before any other public figure. He also offered his condolences to the American and Afghan troops killed in the crash.
The deaths bring to 365 the number of coalition troops killed this year in Afghanistan and 42 this month.
The overnight raid took place in the Tangi Joy Zarin area of Wardak’s Sayd Abad district, about 60 miles (97 kilometers) southwest of Kabul. Forested peaks in the region give the insurgency good cover and the Taliban have continued to use it as a base despite repeated NATO assaults.
Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said in a statement that the helicopter was involved in an assault on a house where insurgent fighters were gathering. During the battle, the fighters shot down the helicopter with a rocket, he said.
An American official in Brussels said the helicopter was a twin-rotor Chinook, a large troop and cargo transporter."
More at
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/military/7685948.html#ixzz1UJ0diKqi"
"The insanity comes from the context in which Krugman was writing. He was responding, not just to the debt deal, but to Thursday's sharp correction in the stock market. The correction capped off a week of bad economic news and was widely seen as pricing into the market the looming prospect of a double dip recession. The big conclusion everyone has been drawing from this is precisely the failure of government stimulus, both the public-works fiscal stimulus Krugman is talking about, and the money-printing monetary stimulus of "quantitative easing."
Now, maybe we're all deluded. Maybe everyone else is wrong and Krugman is right. But one gets no sense from his column that he believes he has to make that argument, that other people need to be convinced.
Consider the thinking process any rational person would have to go through to accept Krugman's prescription for the economy. Given his long-expressed opinion that the first Obama stimulus was far too small, we would have to accept an additional--what, at least a trillion dollars?--in government spending, and more beyond that if that next shot of stimulus doesn't work. Which means: we would have to move the nation rapidly closer to unserviceable Greek-style levels of debt."
Having amassed a little savings, most of us don't go out and cut our income until we bankrupt ourselves and then keep our income cut while expecting to climb out of the bankruptcy hole we dug for ourselves by cutting our income.
The tea baggers and the Norquist pledge signers played bully with our credit rating, holding out until the very last minute, and cost the United States of America our third A in our credit-worthiness rating from S&P.
Once their unbalanced bill was passed, John Boehner proudly asserted *I got ninety-eight percent of what I wanted*
Boehner also gets 98% of the blame for walking away from Obama's big deal offer a week before the Aug. 2 deadline, a big deal that was modeled on the gang of six' and Bowles Simpson Commission's findings, exactly what Mr. Chambers said would have averted S&Ps downgrade.
I pray that Monday does not see a rise in everyone's credit card, mortgage, and automobile loan interest rates, but if it does, we all know exactly where to lay the blame.
You have fun playing with your imaginary "dumb bunnies" all by yourself Anon. Your personal attacks and immature behavior are boring.
wow, Bea, you really want that award, don't you?
I wouldn't worry- I don't anyone can challenge you in the dumb bunny arena
"Having amassed a little savings,"
are you talking about Bill Clinton again?
it's true that under pressure from Republicans, he ran a surplus in the last three years of his eight-year term but the U.S. had more debt when he left than when he moved into 1600 Pa Ave
you see, the Republicans in 1994 signed a contract with America that they would force a balanced budget if elected
Clinton had no choice but to go along
when Republicans are elected, unlike Dems, they generally keep their promises and make that their goal rather than just pursuing re-election
more on that in a minute
"most of us don't go out and cut our income until we bankrupt ourselves"
now, see, here's where you really earn your dumb bunny status
I've already made you look stupid by explaining to you that the analogy of "us" to the government is erroneous
and, yet, you come back for more
most if "us" maximize their income
but, who, other than socialists, would like to see the government do that
the government could increase its "income" greatly by raising tax rates to 100%
but, really, that's not "income" and the government doesn't produce income
it conficates income from those who earned it and redistributes it to those who haven't earn it
and when the government borrows money, it is basically saying that it doesn't respect the judgment of the American people on how much of their income they want redistributed and will simply borrow the money it wants to give out from more responsible countries and confiscate the money from those who earn income later to pay back the responsible countries
governmental borrowing, in a real sense, is a tax on future generations and should be made unconstitutional as it represents taxation without representation
"and then keep our income cut while expecting to climb out of the bankruptcy hole we dug for ourselves by cutting our income"
we need to stop spending what we don't have
the American people have already decided what tax rate they want to pay
we now have to decide what we want to do with that money
after we equalize those amounts, Dems can argue how much they want to raise taxes to pay for whatever spending program they are advocating
"The tea baggers and the Norquist pledge signers played bully with our credit rating, holding out until the very last minute, and cost the United States of America our third A in our credit-worthiness rating from S&P."
again, the Tea Party candidates signed that pledge publicly, before the election, and were elected
again, Republicans keep their commitments to the voters
S&P wanted a plan to reduce the debt 4 trillion
they didn't care if the American people wanted to do that by spending less or letting the government have more of their income
but, in the 2010 election, the voters made clear that they didn't want their taxes raised
they made that clear by electing Republicans who had pledged not to do so
"Boehner also gets 98% of the blame for walking away from Obama's big deal offer a week before the Aug. 2 deadline, a big deal that was modeled on the gang of six' and Bowles Simpson Commission's findings, exactly what Mr. Chambers said would have averted S&Ps downgrade."
actually, after Boehner and Obama had agreed to an 800 billion tax increase, Obama proposed increasung the amount 50% to 1.2 trillion
Chambers made it clear that any agreement to reduce the debt 4 trillion would have done it
of course, is Obama had put any plan on the table, there could have been a discussion
"I pray that Monday does not see a rise in everyone's credit card, mortgage, and automobile loan interest rates, but if it does, we all know exactly where to lay the blame."
yes, where the buck stops- the desk in the Oval Office
our interest rates may go up slightly but the world's money has continued, and will continue, to flood in
people around the globe actually have more faith in the stability of the U.S. than in the judgment of S&P, which blew it big time in recent history
"You have fun playing with your imaginary "dumb bunnies" all by yourself Anon. Your personal attacks and immature behavior are boring."
wouldn't the mature thing be to ignore it?
Obama clearly had the worst week in Washington
he thought things were going great last weekend when the debt ceiling was raised
since then everything has gone to hell:
several polls show Americans disapprove of his debt deal
they also show his approval ratings are at a low and people in swing states like Penssylvania and Florida have abandoned him
the stock market collapsed
unemployment hasn't budged aceept for the effect of discouraged workers leaving the labor force
for the first time in history, our national debt has been downgraded
but there's a silver lining
Barry turned 50 and is now eligible to join the American Association of Retired Persons
let's retire him !!
"they didn't care if the American people wanted to do that by spending less or letting the government have more of their income"
Wrong, Anon. Here's a bit more of what S&P had to say when they explained why they lowered our AAA rating:
"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."
It's pretty clear who S&P blames for thier "changed...assumption" that led them downgrade the USA's rating.
Adventures in tea-party cognitive dissonance
Aug 5th 2011, 14:58 by M.S.
THIS (gated, sorry) was the most amazing thing I read today. It's a couple of weeks old, but bear with me here. It comes from a post by Judson Phillips, the Tennessee lawyer who heads Tea Party Nation, a far-right pressure group, objecting to prospective defence cuts proposed by the administration, which he refers to as "the Party of Treason". Rather than downsizing from 11 to 9 carrier task forces, Mr Phillips says, we should be building even more aircraft carriers:
"If we decided to build a couple of new carriers, thousands of workers would be hired for the shipyards. Thousands of employees would be hired for the steel mills that would provide the steel for the hull and various sub contractors would hire thousands. Do you know what that means?
It means they would receive paychecks and go out and spend that money. That would help a recovery. That is a shovel ready project!
Increasing spending for the military does a couple of things. It not only not only stimulates the economy, it protects our nation. That is a better investment than say spending money on teaching Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly."
Now, an aircraft carrier costs about $9 billion. The prospect of someone in the government trying to design a programme that could spend $9 billion teaching Chinese prostitutes how to drink responsibly fills me with limitless mirth and joy. I think to succeed in spending that kind of money, you'd basically have to stage the programme inside a brand-new purpose-built aircraft carrier.
But what's amazing here, obviously, is that Mr Phillips is justifying building aircraft carriers because government spending creates jobs and stimulates the economy. And he's right about that! But it seems that there are no other things the government spends money on, apart from defence, that Mr Phillips believes can stimulate the economy. He appears to believe that while government spending on aircraft carriers leads to workers getting hired, spending their paychecks, and helping the recovery, government spending on highways, high-speed rail, education, and health care does not..."
"Wrong, Anon. Here's a bit more of what S&P had to say when they explained why they lowered our AAA rating:
"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."
It's pretty clear who S&P blames for thier "changed...assumption" that led them downgrade the USA's rating."
Bea, you are a moron for all seasons.
The S&P is indifferent to whether the debt is reduced by higher taxes or lower spending.
Their point in the quote you cited is that the cuts will be have to be even larger than 4 trillion now because they now believe the Bush tax cuts will not expire.
They're right, of course, and the Tea Party is indeed willing to make the necessary cuts.
I've tried to tell you this myself.
Taxes are never going to be any higher than they are right now.
In January 2013, either Rick Perry or Michelle Bachman will move into the White House and with the assistance of both houses of Congress, controlled by Tea Party followers, will begin to dismantle the government bureaucracy built by LBJ-Nixon-Ford-Carter.
And America will flourish.
And will have the envy of the entire bankrupt world.
good news for the Tea Party 2012 election prospects:
"WASHINGTON — Timothy Geithner has told President Barack Obama that he will remain on the job as Treasury secretary, ending speculation he would leave the administration.
The Treasury Department released a statement Sunday saying Geithner had informed the president of his decision to remain in the administration."
who's running this country anyway?
liberals Dems are getting a beat-down across the country:
"Standard & Poor’s downgrade of the nation’s credit rating gives House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan every right to say “I told you so.”
Even earlier this week when President Obama was taking his victory lap for the debt-ceiling compromise, Ryan was disclosing the cold, hard truths of the economic troubles that lie ahead — truths that a jittery Wall Street has been more than aware of.
In an oped column in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, the Wisconsin Republican reiterated, of course, that the president really has no budget plan.
“The president’s February budget,” he wrote, “deliberately dodged the tough choices necessary to confront the threat of runaway federal spending. It was rejected unanimously in a Senate controlled by his own party.”
Well, so much for that auspicious beginning.
The president knew then and knows now that his health care and welfare state agenda demand new and higher taxes, that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid will continue to rise at unsustainable levels and that he has no plan for dealing with that.
In fact, when presented with options by his own debt commission appointees, Obama continued to be in denial.
Not so, Ryan. And he has a lot of help in the truth-telling department from the Congressional Budget Office, whose numbers he cites in the Journal oped.
“The CBO’s latest Long Term Outlook in June estimated that total tax revenues would have to double by mid-century in order to finance our current spending path,” Ryan wrote. Yes, DOUBLE.
Health-care costs, which rose 8 percent this year and are projected to rise anther 8.5 percent in 2012, are leading the pack.
Democrats have done a great job of demagoguing the Medicare issue in particular and Ryan’s proposals for putting it a more stable path, but they haven’t come up with a solution. He urged Democrats to “give the American people the debate they deserve.”
And with S&P breathing down the nation’s neck, isn’t it about time!"
Dem liberals have long whined that everyone is trying to "impose" religion on them
after the last couple of weeks, if we didn't know better from reading the NY Times, you'd almost think Dem liberals are hypocrites
from the heartland, in the state of Superman's childhood, the Kansas City Star:
"Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri lit up the media with his “Satan Sandwich” remark. That’s what he called the debt-ceiling deal.
“If you lift the bun,” he told MSNBC, “what you see is antithetical to everything the great religions of the world teach, which is take care of the poor, take care of the aged.”
Cleaver wasn’t alone in over-the-top rhetoric. Last week, Republicans and tea partiers were called terrorists, hostage-takers, jihadists and worse — much of it coming from the same people who tut-tutted the GOP about “toxic rhetoric” after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.
But take a closer look at Cleaver’s quote. He implies a divine sanction for the political project of liberalism, which emphasizes getting more for those in need.
The impulse is laudable and on that point few would object. But the argument today isn’t about whether to maintain a safety net; that was settled long ago. At issue is what to do about the reality that the government is promising grossly more than we can afford to deliver.
The U.S. government has become a giant check-writing machine, with two-thirds of the federal budget given over to payments to individuals — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, food stamps, housing subsidies. Last year, government payments made up more than 18 percent of Americans’ personal income, a record.
That’s the place where we find ourselves, even though the leading edge of the huge baby-boom generation has barely reached retirement age. In a few years, the picture will get a lot worse.
In recent days I’ve received calls from seniors upset and angry about all the talk of reform. Tell the politicians to keep their hands off Social Security and Medicare, they say: We’ve paid into those programs all our working lives.
True, but most retirees will still get back far more than they put in. John Cogan of Stanford calculated that by the time they’re 66, the typical husband and wife will pay $500,000 into Social Security and Medicare. A tidy sum, but that typical couple will receive double that amount in inflation-adjusted Social Security benefits and Medicare services — courtesy of younger taxpayers.
If Democrats succeed in blocking reform efforts while portraying any attempt to cut spending as satanic, we’re far more likely to reach that point.
Global credit markets will not forever tolerate Treasury’s current level of borrowing, nor will younger workers accept the huge tax increases — and diminished future — necessary to finance these programs as they stand.
Many on the left describe government benefits as rights on a par with the right to free speech or religion, echoing FDR’s suggestion that “freedom from want” should be on the same plane as freedom of religion. But the two kinds of “rights” cannot be the same.
Constitutional rights require payment from nobody, while government benefit programs deliver goods and services that cost money, have properties of scarcity and require tradeoffs.
Cleaver and his friends use the language of fairness and justice to suggest that the only policy in keeping with “the great religions of the world” is to grab a bigger share of other people’s money, ignoring the growth of the debt and the threat it will impede the wealth-creation process on which these politicians feed. Their basic program of more and more and more runs the risk of creating more people dependent on government.
This is not something that can continue. The real Satan sandwich will come if we do nothing and someday face the choice of blighting our children’s economic future or cutting benefits to people already retired — or both."
I don't think we can object if our fiscal situation is used to evaluate our credit-worthiness but the "political gridlock" comment is unacceptable political manipulation. We should use whatever political process we want.
"WASHINGTON -- A Standard & Poor's official says there is a 1 in 3 chance that the U.S. credit rating could be downgraded another notch if conditions erode over the next six to 24 months.
The credit rating agency's managing director, John Chambers, tells ABC's "This Week" that if the fiscal position of the U.S. deteriorates further, or if political gridlock tightens even more, a further downgrade is possible.
Chambers also said Sunday that it would take "stabilization and eventual decline" of the federal debt as a share of the economy as well as more consensus in Washington for the U.S. to win back a top rating.
S&P downgraded the U.S. rating Friday, from AAA to AA+, for the first time."
"The debate over raising the debt ceiling, which brought the nation to the brink of default, has sent disapproval of Congress to its highest level on record and left most Americans saying that creating jobs should now take priority over cutting spending, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
A record 82 percent of Americans now disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job — the most since The Times first began asking the question in 1977, and even more than after another political stalemate led to a shutdown of the federal government in 1995.
More than four out of five people surveyed said that the recent debt-ceiling debate was more about gaining political advantage than about doing what is best for the country. Nearly three-quarters said that the debate had harmed the image of the United States in the world.
Republicans in Congress shoulder more of the blame for the difficulties in reaching a debt-ceiling agreement than President Obama and the Democrats, the poll found.
The Republicans compromised too little, a majority of those polled said. All told, 72 percent disapproved of the way Republicans in Congress handled the negotiations, while 66 percent disapproved of the way Democrats in Congress handled negotiations.
The public was more evenly divided about how Mr. Obama handled the debt ceiling negotiations: 47 percent disapproved and 46 percent approved.
The public’s opinion of the Tea Party movement has soured in the wake of the debt-ceiling debate. The Tea Party is now viewed unfavorably by 40 percent of the public and favorably by just 20 percent, according to the poll. In mid-April 29 percent of those polled viewed the movement unfavorably, while 26 percent viewed it favorably. And 43 percent of Americans now think the Tea Party has too much influence on the Republican Party, up from 27 percent in mid-April.
“I’m real disappointed in Congress,” Ron Raggio, 54, a florist from Vicksburg, Miss., said in a follow-up interview. “They can’t sit down and agree about what’s best for America. It’s all politics.”
There were signs that the repeated Republican calls for more spending cuts were resonating with the public: 44 percent of those polled said the cuts in the debt-ceiling agreement did not go far enough, 29 percent said they were about right and only 15 percent said they went too far. More than a quarter of the Democrats polled said that the cuts in the agreement did not go far enough.
But by a ratio of more than two to one, Americans said that creating jobs should be a higher priority than spending cuts.
Though Republicans prevented tax increases from being included in the debt-ceiling deal, half of those polled said the agreement should have included increased tax revenue, while 44 percent said it should have relied on cuts alone. That issue is likely to be revisited soon: Congress is preparing to appoint a special committee to recommend ways to reduce the deficit. Sixty-three percent of those polled said that they supported raising taxes on households that earn more than $250,000 a year, as Mr. Obama has sought to do — including majorities of Democrats (80 percent), independents (61 percent) and Republicans (52 percent).
The poll found that Mr. Obama was emerging from the crisis less bruised than the Republicans in Congress.
The president’s overall job approval rating remained relatively stable, with 48 percent approving of the way he handles his job as president and 47 percent disapproving — down from the bump up he received in the spring after the killing of Osama bin Laden, but in line with how he has been viewed for nearly a year. By contrast, Speaker John A. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, saw his disapproval rating shoot up 16 points since April: 57 percent of those polled now disapprove of the way he is handling his job, while only 30 percent approve."
Read more at
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/politics/05poll.html
Obama's approval rating is not stellar and the Tea Party candidate will probably be a governor
right now, public perception is largely shaped by the media but this will all be discussed during the election
if they don't blame Obama but think he was ineffective and powerless, that's really not such a great place to be
part of the Wall Street Journal editorial today:
"The real reason for White House fury at S&P is that it realizes how symbolically damaging this downgrade is to President Obama's economic record.
Democrats can rail all they want about the tea party, but Republicans have controlled the House for a mere seven months.
The entire GOP emphasis in those seven months—backed by the tea party—has been on reversing the historic spending damage of Mr. Obama's first two years.
The Bush Presidency and previous GOP Congresses contributed to the current problem by not insisting on domestic cuts to finance the cost of war, and by adding the prescription drug benefit without reforming Medicare.
But as recently as 2008 spending was still only 20.7%, and debt held by the public was only 40.3%, of GDP.
In the name of saving the economy from panic, the White House and the Pelosi Congress then blew out the American government balance sheet.
They compounded the problem of excessive private debt by adding unsustainable public debt.
They boosted federal spending to 25% of GDP in 2009, 23.8% in 2010 (as TARP repayments provided a temporary reduction in overall spending), and back nearly to 25% this fiscal year.
Meanwhile, debt to GDP climbed to 53.5% in 2009, 62.2% in 2010, and is estimated to hit 72% this year—and to keep rising.
These are all figures from Mr. Obama's own budget office.
Rather than change direction this year, Mr. Obama's main political focus has been to preserve those spending levels by raising taxes.
His initial budget in February for fiscal 2012 proposed higher spending.
He then resisted the modest spending cuts that the GOP proposed for the rest of fiscal 2011.
He responded to Paul Ryan's proposal to reform Medicare and Medicaid by calling it un-American and unworthy of debate.
In the most recent budget talks, he would only consider small entitlement reforms (cuts in payments to providers) if Republicans agreed to raise taxes.
He has refused even to discuss ObamaCare or serious reforms in Medicare and Social Security.
Meanwhile, federal payments to individuals continue to grow as a share of all spending.
This is how you become the Downgrade President.
Despite S&P's opinion, there is no chance that America will default on its debts. The real importance of the downgrade will depend on the political reaction it inspires.
If the response is denial and blaming the credit raters, then the U.S. will continue on its current road to more downgrades and eventually to Greece. What has already become a half-decade of lost growth will turn into a lost decade or more.
If the response is to escape the debt trap by the stealth route of inflation—a path now advocated by many of the same economists who promoted the failed spending stimulus of 2009—then the U.S. could spur a dollar crisis and jeopardize its reserve currency status.
The better answer—the only road back to fiscal sanity and AAA status—is to reverse the economic policies of the late Bush and Obama years.
The financial crisis followed by the Keynesian and statist revival of the last four years have brought the U.S. to this downgrade and will lead to inevitable decline.
The only solution is to return to the classical, pro-growth economic ideas that have revived America at other moments of crisis."
"Anonymous"
Your constant ad hominem, venomous attacks on Bea by using such appellations as "Bea's mind is having dry heaves" and "you freaking idiot" reiterate your lack of education and lack of manners. Your behaviour has always been that of a 4th grader on the play ground!
We have had enough of your constant diarrhea of the mouth (vomited thru the mouths of various silly guises)!
We need not go into the issue of the paucity of intellect and manners on your part - it is, and has always been, very obvious to others in this blog.
What is troublesome is your obvious need to constantly stroke your ego at the expense of others.
There is a serious emotional issue underpining your need for attention.
By-the-way...we are always interested in knowing whether you are a retiree (suplimented by Social Security payments) or a full-time employee of some company or agency that allows you to use your obviously copious free time to post your crap. Do they pay you for writing such trash?
Get a life!
Citizen
Citizen, you seem stuck in some antediluvian denial, you half-baked intellectual slug:
"We need not go into the issue of the paucity of intellect and manners on your part -"
if you didn't need to, why did you do so?
it's obvious you think this whole thing is funny
"it is, and has always been, very obvious to others in this blog."
it's also obvious that these others of whom you speak have a very definite bias
to have earned their disdain is quite delightful
"What is troublesome is your obvious need to constantly stroke your ego at the expense of others."
well, how could I do that if I'm so intellectually challenged?
"There is a serious emotional issue underpining your need for attention."
hmmm...maybe you're right
I might have a mental disorder
you think Obamacare will cover a stay at some nice relaxing resort in the Carribbean to help me get myself together?
we could always borrow the money from Beijing
DJI down 5.5%
S&P down 5.8%
Worst stock market performance since the waning days of the Bush Administration.
Thank you to the tea party for taking us back to the good ol' days.
you've gotta be kidding
at the beginning of the year, Obama wanted to extend the debt limit without any cuts and was working on a trillion-dollar-plus deficit
that would have caused our credit rating to drop further and sooner
the only reason we ever started talking about debt reduction was the Tea Party changed our national dialogue
toward the end, Obama came along, proposing tax increases because he saw the writing on the wall and wanted to preserve as much of his spending as he could get away with
as for cuts, no one could ever nail him down on specifics
if we had maintained the spending levels of the Bush administration instead of trying to make temporary stimulus spending a new permanent default, this never would have happened
Obama has refused to participate and make proposals since he became President, always leaving the work to Pelosi and Reid, which is why there is such division and gridlock
the long and short of it is, we don't have a leader in the White House
"Thank you to the tea party for taking us back to the good ol' days."
it really takes a lot of gall for these lunatic liberals to say something like this
after bankrupting this country, trying to borrow away every problem in society, they attack the average American for saying enough
unbelievable
"WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Monday dismissed an unprecedented downgrade in the nation's credit rating, insisting investors will stand by the United States. Obama said Washington can fix its ills by showing more political will.
"Markets will rise and fall, but this is the United States of America," Obama said. "No matter what some agency may say, we've always been and always will be a triple-A country."
Investors did funnel money on Monday into Treasurys, a sign of confidence in the United States as a safe long-term investment even after Standard & Poor's had dropped the U.S. credit rating down a notch.
For Obama, a president seeking a second term from voters desperate for better times, the pressure for results is intense.
He is the first president to have a credit downgrade come on his watch.
After saying nothing about the downgrade all weekend, Obama sought Monday to use it as leverage against a Congress whose members are on an August vacation.
Obama said he would offer his own recommendations.
Obama on Monday said Congress should ask wealthy Americans to pay more in taxes.
"I assure you, we will stay on it until we get the job done," the president assured.
But Congress remains in divided political hands, limiting Obama's ability to keep that promise.
Heading into a campaign-style economic tour before going on his own vacation, Obama's overall rating hovers below 50 percent in most polling. He is on far more perilous ground when it comes to public views on the key issue for voters – his handling of the economy – where his approval rating is under 40 percent in most major recent surveys.
Obama pressed lawmakers to extend a payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits in September as a way to "put money in people's pockets and more customers in stores."
On a jittery day for the financial world, it fell to Obama to deal with a downgrade that S&P had warned for weeks would come if Obama failed to agree with Congress on a major debt-reduction package.
The agency was dissatisfied with the deal lawmakers reached last week to cut more than $2 trillion from the debt over 10 years.
The administration has derided the downgrade as having no economic basis.
"We didn't need a rating agency to tell us that the gridlock in Washington over the last several months has not been constructive," Obama said.
S&P has dropped the government's rating to AA+ from the top rating, AAA. The agency attached a negative outlook that means the rating could be lowered again.
Asked under what scenario the United States could regain its AAA rating, David Beers, head of sovereign ratings at S&P, told reporters on Monday, "We don't anticipate a scenario at the moment where the United States could quickly return to AAA."
S&P officials said that five countries including Canada and Australia have lost their AAA ratings from S&P and then regained them. The shortest time that it took a country to regain an AAA rating was nine years and the longest time was 18 years.
Wall Street had its first chance to react to the downgrade on Monday. The Dow fell below 11,000 for the first time since November. The sharp drop extended Wall Street's almost uninterrupted decline since late July, when the Dow was flirting with 13,000.
Obama calmly sought to dismiss all the talk of a dent to U.S. credit.
"Our problems are eminently solvable," he said. "We know what we have to do to solve them. Our problem is not confidence in our credit. The markets continue to reaffirm our credit as among the world's safest. Our challenge is the need to tackle our deficits over the long term.""
have you ever heard of a "cooler"?
in Vegas, whenever a gambler is getting hot, the casinos have professional coolers they send out, who seem to chill anyone's luck
President Obama is our national cooler
everything he touches goes bad:
"President Obama sought to reassure jittery investors Monday following a credit rating downgrade, affirming that the government maintains the ability to pay its debts."
when Obama started speaking the Dow Jones was down about 400
soon, it dropped to 635
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
remember the scare tactics used during the debt celing debate
if our credit is downgraded, we'll have to pay a lot more and interest and the deficits will get worse
the Tea Party balked at the conventional wisdom
well, we got downgraded and interest the government pays has been dropping ever since as the world's reaction to the downgrade is to buy more U.S. bonds, as the only remaining safe place to put your money:
"(Reuters) - U.S. Treasury prices soared on Monday after the first credit downgrade of U.S. debt caused investors to flee risky assets in favor of bonds on concern over the ripple effects of the ratings cut.
Treasuries benefited at the expense of risky assets including stocks, as investors maintained confidence that U.S. government debt may still be among the world's safest assets, if no longer risk free.
Standard & Poor's cut the debt to AA-plus, the second highest ranking.
"Treasuries are still a comparatively low-risk asset. I think there's no doubt about that," said Michael Schumacher, a strategist at UBS in Stamford, Connecticut.
With over $9 trillion in marketable Treasuries outstanding, the U.S. debt market is one of few able to meet the demand.
Most analysts are confident S&P's downgrade will not provoke forced selling of Treasuries, and they also said the ratings cut was also likely anticipated by many in the market.
"Most people in the bond market thought that while the timing might be a little more distant, at least there was a chance that the U.S. would be downgraded in the next few months," Schumacher said.
Benchmark 10-year notes at one point soared over two points in price, with yields falling as low as 2.33 percent, the lowest level since February 2009.
Two-year and three-year Treasury yields also fell to record lows of 0.23 percent and 0.38 percent, respectively."
now, I'm scared of what will happen if they upgrade us back up
if we can borrow at two-tenths of a percent at AA, will everyone start paying us to hold on to their money at AAA?
"Anonymous"
Thanks so much for your response. I was glad to see your rationale for insulting everyone with ad hominem attacks. It's in keeping, however, with your proclivity to ignore anything which points out your tendencies to stroke your ego. You have only reinforced how people see you.
By the way, you never did clarify your situation in life. Are you retired with too much time on your hands or are you employed with too much time on your hands?
Signed: "half-baked intellectual slug"
80% of the comments on this thread have been by bad anonymous and most aren't directly related to the topic. Bad anonymous is manic, out of control, and needs to be reined in.
"We'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people...
The Democratic Party
August 5-7, 2011 47% (favorable) 47% (unfavorable)
July 18-20, 2011 45% (favorable) 49% (unfavorable)
The Republican Party
August 5-7, 2011 33% (favorable) 59% (unfavorable)
July 18-20, 2011 41% (favorable) 55% (unfavorable)
The Tea Party movement
August 5-7, 2011 31% (favorable) 51% (unfavorable)
July 18-20, 2011 37% (favorable) 47% (unfavorable)"
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/08/09/rel13c.pdf
The debt ceiling debate hurt Americans’ view of Republicans, bolstered their opinion of Democrats, and drove the tea party’s favorable ratings to a new low, a poll on Tuesday found.Just 33 percent of Americans approve of the Republican Party, while 59 percent disapprove in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday. That’s a net negative 10-percentage-point shift from less than a month ago, when 41 percent of those surveyed by CNN said they had a favorable view of the GOP while 55 percent had an unfavorable one.
"Thanks so much for your response."
well, you're quite welcome Citizen Slug
"I was glad to see your rationale for insulting everyone with ad hominem attacks."
I don't recall providing you with any such rationale.
Of course, I also don't recall any "ad hominem attacks" that weren't reciprocal or that involved "everyone".
"It's in keeping, however, with your proclivity to ignore anything which points out your tendencies to stroke your ego."
I never get this point.
If I'm such an egotist, why do I remain anonymous?
"You have only reinforced how people see you."
What "people" are we talking about here?
"By the way, you never did clarify your situation in life. Are you retired with too much time on your hands or are you employed with too much time on your hands?"
Would never discuss such a thing on the internet.
"Bad anonymous is manic, out of control, and needs to be reined in."
I know it's hard for someone from a socialist country to understand this but, here in America, we don't feel compelled to control the speech of others.
Maybe if you asked the Queen, she'd let you say what you want too.
"The debt ceiling debate hurt Americans’ view of Republicans, bolstered their opinion of Democrats, and drove the tea party’s favorable ratings to a new low, a poll on Tuesday found."
If you recall, similar poll numbers were around last year when the media tried to smear the Tea Party as violent and racist.
Right now, the media has pushed hard to blame everything oin the Tea Party.
We'll have an election, with debates and meetings and discussion, and those who care will vote.
You can the Obama presidency bye-bye.
Meanwhile, a guy who once declared himself the next President of the United States shows again how fortunate we were that he was wrong:
"Speaking in Aspen last Thursday, former Vice President Al Gore warned of the impacts of global warming. In sharp contrast to previous appearances, however, Gore may have frothed at the mouth a bit when he told the Aspen Institute's 'Networks and Citizenship' panel not to believe those that dismiss global warming.
In a passionate rant, Gore says his opponents are a group of people, "washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again. It's no longer acceptable in mixed company -- meaning bipartisan company -- to use the goddamn word 'climate.'"
Gore continues, "And some of the exact same people — I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!"
Thanks for that insightful analysis, Albert!!
the ultimate loser's campaign theme:
it's someone else's fault !!
Barry, at this point, even if you're right, no one cares whose fault it is.
What we want to know is what is your plan, or should we expect four more years of failure if you're elected?
Is this the best you can do?
"(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Monday he inherited many of the country's problems with high debt and deficits when he entered the White House, sounding a theme likely to dominate his 2012 re-election campaign.
Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser, where families paid $15,000 to get a picture with him, Obama defended his economic record and noted that problems in Europe were affecting the United States.
"We do have a serious problem in terms of debt and deficit, and much of it I inherited," Obama said. The financial crisis, he said, made the problem worse."
Al Gore is right and once again Anon is wrong.
In fact, Anon himself tried to peddle an editorial written by a "pseudo scientist" who was actually a climate change denier paid by the Koch Brothers. The Koch Brothers pay Patrick J. Micheals and other fake scientists well at their climate change denying think tank, the Cato Institute, "to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense."
Why do the Koch Brothers pay pseudo scientists to tell lies like that? So Koch Brothers Industries can keep pumping huge amounts of heat trapping gasses into our air.
Here's a link to the July thread called LGBT Added to California Social Studies Curricula, where Anon posted an off topic editorial paid for by the Koch Brothers, and tried to defend the Koch-paid hack, who published partial information in 2011 about a supposed cooling trend that two years earlier had been fully analyzed and debunked by NOAA.
Gore is absolutely right: ""some of the exact same people — I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo scientists to pretend to be scientists..."
Lots of us are grateful Al Gore is still fighting to show the truth about Koch Brothers funded liars.
What we want to know is what is your plan
Go ask Boehner about the "big deal" Obama had put on the table, you know, the one Boehner walked away from in order to pass a bill with half the cuts ($2 trillion) Obama had in his plan ($4 trillion).
Too bad Boehner wasn't smart enough to know S&P was going to downgrade the USA because the deal that gave Boehner 98% of what he wanted wasn't big enough.
you're as confused as always, Bea
we want to know Obama's plan to revive the economy
so far, the only moves he's made have failed
as far as the debt plan, Obama had no specific cuts proposed
he tried to extend the debt without cuts and tried to pass another irresponsible budget in February
his specifics were that he wanted taxes raised
that's not happening
no one other than S&P downgraded U.S. Treasuries
and the world continues to fall all over themselves to purchase our debt, so once again, the fear tactics of the liberal left proved false
"Lots of us are grateful Al Gore is still fighting to show the truth about Koch Brothers funded liars."
everyone's funded by somebody
arguing anything on that basis shows the paucity of your arguments
just like Gore's crass rant shows the paucity of his understanding
good news
less than a week after liberals have started claiming that America has turned on the Tea Party, the Tea Party has prevailed in the Wisconsin recall elections
funny how that works, huh?
You have helped expose how Koch Brothers paid fake scientists parrot old discredited findings in their continuous and coordinated efforts to lie about the facts of climate change intented simply to confuse the public in the editorial you posted by Patrick J. Michaels.
Keep up the good work.
Wisconsin lost 2 GOP State Senators in two districts that had been carried by Scott Walker just last year.
Walker must be so grateful for the millions of Koch Brothers dollars (funneled through Americans for Prosperity this time) that managed to save a one vote GOP majority in the Wisconsin State Senate.
"You have helped expose how Koch Brothers paid fake scientists parrot old discredited findings in their continuous and coordinated efforts to lie about the facts of climate change intented simply to confuse the public in the editorial you posted by Patrick J. Michaels."
Gee, I don't remember doing that.
All I know about global warming is that predictions made by its adherents rarely come to pass and there is a lot of money to be made pushing the theory. Not to mention, there is evidence that its adherents have altered and hidden any evidence that desn't support their theory.
"Keep up the good work."
back to this in a minute
"Wisconsin lost 2 GOP State Senators in two districts that had been carried by Scott Walker just last year.
Walker must be so grateful for the millions of Koch Brothers dollars (funneled through Americans for Prosperity this time) that managed to save a one vote GOP majority in the Wisconsin State Senate."
a one vote majority is so much better than a one vote minority
but then, liberals can't be expected to know that first hand
the perfect storm of media and union won't be anywhere near as intense in Nov 2012
Bea, I'm heading somewhere salty, sunny and breezy for the next couple of weeks to examine the effects of global warming and won't be checking in here
I'm leaving you in charge
now, don't abuse the privilege
Have fun at the beach and be sure to protect yourself and your loved ones from skin cancer.
Or ignore the risk if that's what your belief system tells you to do.
Don't forget the March 9, 2011 suprise vote by the Wisconsin State Senate GOP members only to approve Walker's collective bargaining busting budget bill was 18-1.
GOP WI State Senator Dale Schultz voted against it.
Post a Comment
<< Home