98% of what Republicans wanted = credit rating downgrade


House Speaker John Boehner famously said that he thought the Republicans got 98% of what they wanted in the debt ceiling agreement, crappy as it was. Then, late Friday, Standard & Poor’s announced they had downgraded the U.S. government’s previously unsullied credit rating. God forbid Republicans had gotten 100%, eh?

Ben Hoffman urges us to read the Standard and Poor’s report on why the rating company downgraded U.S. credit.

S&P Explicitly Blames Republicans For Credit Downgrade

by Ben Hoffman

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

Source

Obama should have let the Bush tax cuts expire last year, which would have dramatically reduced our deficit. The Republicans held the unemployed hostage and Obama negotiated a bad deal with the domestic terrorists.

Is there more in that report we should read before we get the torches, tar and feathers to meet with our Republican representatives in August town meetings?  Would they get the message with polite questions?

183 Responses to 98% of what Republicans wanted = credit rating downgrade

  1. What was that about democrats and liberals giving a damn about our skyrocketing public debt?

    Like

  2. James Kessler says:

    So Rick Perry thinks that seniors and the poor don’t pay enough in taxes. He apparently thinks they’re getting such a good deal by being too poor to pay the federal income tax. Meanwhile, at least two dozen US companies, all sitting on massive piles of cash, also pay no federal income taxes. And yet Mr. Perry utters not a word about them.

    Then Michele Bachmann thinks Corporate taxes should be cut again but that we can’t continue to afford to pay unemployment. Oh and she wants to cut taxes on the wealthy again.

    And she wants to end medicare for anyone not currently receiving it immediately.

    So what was that about the Republicans giving a damn about the middle class and the poor of this country? What was that about them not solely seeking to strip this country of its wealth and hand it over to the rich?

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/15/295713/perry-tax-the-poor/

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/14/295506/pushing-low-corporate-taxes-bachmann-rejects-extending-jobless-benefits-because-we-dont-have-the-money/

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/15/295993/bachmann-deeper-entitlement-cuts/

    Like

  3. James Kessler says:

    Morgan writes:
    I kick puppies and eat babies, too.

    Would explain why you can’t bother to be at all Christian much less moral at any point, Morgan.

    Oh and unlike Jim…I don’t kid.

    Like

  4. Jim says:

    Howdy Circle!

    I know Grace (and Winona Lake) well. Some very nice people there. I lived in Fort Wayne for 23 before recently moving to Illinois. I should have discerned, from your screen name, that you are a fellow Hoosier. Circle City and all…

    Welcome to the bathtub! Ed, our host, is one of the brightest people I know…and also, one of the kindest.

    Keep on reading, CC!

    Jim

    Like

  5. @Jim, I earned my Biblical Studies degree from Grace College, a private, Christian college in Indiana. I was, however, reading the Bible long before I attended school there.

    I am not a Biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination but I do read it, believe it and try to apply it in my life. Also, I do try to leave out all the denominational, traditional dogma stuff that takes away from the true (love and have faith in GOD) message of Jesus.

    Like

  6. Jim says:

    Hi there Circle and Howdy Morgan!

    Circle says, “Jim, thanks for clarification. I apologize for the mistake.”

    No apology needed. Part of the problem is just Word Press. I find the blogs awkward, though Ed does a wonderful job with it. I’m used to message boards with descending threads, etc. It’s easy to get discombobulated. :-)

    Where did you study Scripture? I graduated from Moody way back before Moses wore short pants. Am attending seminary now to complete my Masters. (I’m not in lock-step with Moody by any stretch…I was a different character altogether in the 80s!)

    It’s good to have you here.

    Morgan says, “I kick puppies and eat babies, too.”

    Then you and President Obama have something in common after all, Morgan! But how can BOTH of you be the Antichrist?

    I kid, of course.

    Like

  7. I kick puppies and eat babies, too.

    Like

  8. @Jim, thanks for clarification. I apologize for the mistake.

    Like

  9. James Kessler says:

    To quote:
    Morgan is serially wrong, but he’s not religiously bigoted from what i have observed.

    Yeah he is. Go back to the mosque in New York topic from last year and see how fast Morgan can find his inner bigot.

    Like

  10. Okay Pangolin, now you’re making the same mistake our host was making with that incendiary “Mosque at Ground Zero” idea…effectively confusing the question of “do they have the constitutional right” with “is it a good idea.” But let’s let that one go. I think we can all agree that if Congress decided to raise all income taxes to 100%, it would be an idiotic idea, and we’d all agree on the eventual result regardless of ideology. At least I hope we would…

    But you missed the critical difference I’m talking about, as well. Can you figure out what it is? About 4 out of 5 conservatives whom I’d approach with your “higher taxes are Jesus’ way” idea, would recognize it and point it out immediately.

    Like

  11. Pangolin says:

    Trying to understand here.

    I pointed out that back in WWII the U.S. government made it perfectly clear that it had the legal right to take any percentage of your wealth as taxes up to 100%. It also established that it had the right to detain your person, i.e. “draft” you, and toss you into a war zone where your chances of survival might be very slim.

    This is established law and has survived numerous legal challenges.

    Ignoring that the conversation went off on a tangent inspired by my parenthetical comment about christian charity. Is there any anchor to this conversation other than the outrage over the fact that some of their taxes will go to support people they don’t approve of?

    Like

  12. @Morgan, First, the post clearly said, “Morgan K Freeberg says:
    August 15, 2011 at 8:59 am

    So where does Jesus say it’s the ethnos, or nation’s, or society’s job to forcibly deprive people of the wages they have justly earned and redistribute wealth? Got a passage for that?”

    It wasn’t in quotation marks or in italics. So, I presumed (incorrectly because I did not read the 200+ replies) that you were the author. I apologize.

    Second, I’ve been studying the bible for over 20 years and I have a degree in Biblical Studies. Please forgive me if I spent more time reading and studying the Bible than I did your comment.

    Like

  13. Thanks for setting the record straight, Jim.

    Now I will say although I didn’t bring up the Jesus thing, I’m going after it with some gusto and there’s a good reason why. There’s a crucial difference between all these situations people on the left tend to miss. Your citation of Matthew 25 in support of your point shows you’re among the people having trouble with this critical difference. Can you spot it?

    Like

  14. Jim says:

    Good afternoon, Circle City! So glad you are here participating in the discussion.

    You said to Morgan, “I’m not sure why you want to bring religion up in a conversation, or post, that is purely political. I’m sure bringing your religion (Christianity?) up in politics is fine. But, you may have a problem when someone brings up their religion (Islam, Buddhist, Atheism, Hindu, etc.) in politics.”

    I need to correct the record here. In Morgan’s defense, I think it was I who introduced religion into the discussion. He simply joined the conversation, albeit on the other side of the debate.

    And though we take different sides, I am pretty sure both Morgan and I would have no problem with people of other faiths — or folks who are Atheist friends — introducing their theological or cosmological thoughts into the mix. Morgan is serially wrong, but he’s not religiously bigoted from what i have observed.

    I sincerely DO appreciate your entering the discussion, your views and your concern for the voices of other faiths. Yours will be a welcome contribution to this growing community. I can tell!

    All the best,

    Jim

    Like

  15. Jim says:

    Hi Morgan!

    You ask, “So where does Jesus say it’s the ethnos, or nation’s, or society’s job to forcibly deprive people of the wages they have justly earned and redistribute wealth? Got a passage for that?”

    I gave you dozens. Matthew 25 being the crown jewel among them.

    It’s fine, Morgan, if you don’t want to accept it or believe it. I’m not on the side of those who would make Christianity the state religion, even though Jesus Christ has changed my life. I think everyone has the right to believe what they want..Atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew or whatever.

    It’s fine for you to believe Jesus was a criminal. A liar. A crackpot. A lunatic. You can even, if you really want to choose to be intellectually dishonest, opt for the belief that He was a good moral teacher but not “true God from true God”.

    But what you can’t do is get away with saying He didn’t say individuals, the church and the state have an obligation to the poor. He said it in Matthew 25 and I proved it to you from the original language.

    Don’t feel too bad. I rejected His teaching for decades and it never once hindered Him in loving me. He loves you just as much, if not more.

    Jim

    Like

  16. Waitaminnit, let me see if I got this straight…

    Your point is that you can pick out passages from the Bible that seem to support this position, and since they make sense to you, we’re supposed to read some relevance into them…but you can’t pay close enough attention to see it was actually someone other than me who brought this up?

    Like

  17. @Morgan, I’m not sure why you want to bring religion up in a conversation, or post, that is purely political. I’m sure bringing your religion (Christianity?) up in politics is fine. But, you may have a problem when someone brings up their religion (Islam, Buddhist, Atheism, Hindu, etc.) in politics.

    You asked, “So where does Jesus say it’s the ethnos, or nation’s, or society’s job to forcibly deprive people of the wages they have justly earned and redistribute wealth? Got a passage for that?”

    Yes I do have a passage for that. Matthew 22:21. Render unto Caesar what is his. Pay taxes. The government makes the money, the say how much, what it looks like, and the head of presidents are on most of the money. If you try and make money yourself you will get arrested by the government for counterfeiting their money. So, if you don’t think the government owns the money you use then you are sadly mistaken.

    Now, show me a passage that says we should not pay taxes and keep every earthly, materialistic thing we receive.

    PS-Read Luke 3:11; James 1:27; Luke 14:12-14; Luke 12:33-34; 1 John 3:17 to help your understanding of the Bible.

    Like

  18. I said “as a general rule” and “tend,” G.

    We can learn things from general trends and tendencies. Liberalism, in this day and age, is really all about concentrating great power in the hands of a few By Any Means Necessary. To do that, you can’t maintain consistency in ideas for very long, so “liberal ideas” after awhile becomes an oxymoron. They often end up contradicting themselves, which is why it’s hard to get anything to actually work when you’re maintaining it or building it liberal-style.

    Go visit any large city governed by liberals. They aren’t hard to find; there are dozens, maybe hundreds. See how they build their roads. See how they pick up their garbage. Take a look at how their budget is doing. Liberals don’t deal with ideas; they don’t deal with consistency.

    One of their favorite planks since the 1960’s has been to preserve the “wall of separation between church and state”; and here, not even five decades later, where are we now?

    So no, I’m not doing the same thing they are. They’re trying to distract from a discussion their side wanted, and I’m calling them on it.

    Like

  19. philmon says:

    So what you’re saying, Jim, is that Nations will go to heaven or hell, not people.

    OR … everyone in a “good” nation will go to heaven because that nation is “good” … so would that include Timothy McVeigh, or Charles Manson?

    And what about “undocumented workers”? Are they in, or out?

    Or suppose you believe America is “bad”.

    Is Martin Luther King, Jr going to hell? Seriously?

    Complete and utter nonsense.

    “Yet in Matthew 25, Jesus clearly teaches that NATIONS (the Greek is ethnos which is faithfully rendered as “nations” or “societies”) are saved or damned on the basis of what they did and didn’t do vis a vis the poor and marginalized. ”

    Mind you, I haven’t read any of this stuff in 35 years, but I know bullshit when I see it. So I went out and checked Matthew 25. Relevant passages appear to be:

    ” 32And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats:

    33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.”

    Clearly, you say. It says all of the nations will be gathered before him, true. But it is far from clear that what he is separating is nations. It just means “everyone’s gonna be there”. The separating is, in fact, of the individual people.

    Now about what St. Paul said …

    “[6] And hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus. [7] That he might shew in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace, in his bounty towards us in Christ Jesus. [8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them. ”

    I don’t see anything in there that talks about collective salvation. It basically says your good works must come from the grace, the goodness in your heart — not from a desire to do them just to boast of them.

    Other passages on the subject:

    Saved by grace

    (Ephesians 2:8-9) – “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.”
    (Rom. 3:20, 28) – “because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin…For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.”
    (Galatians 2:16) – “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.”

    Saved by works

    (James 2:24) – “You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”
    (Matthew 19:16-17) – “And behold, one came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

    A lot of talk of individual salvation in there.

    Begone with thee, thou selector, misquoter, and willful misinterpreter. Thou speakest lies, dressed up as truth.

    Like

  20. G says:

    Morgan –

    You are doing the same thing Pangolin does, which is blaming the other viewpoint. Anytime Pangolin disagrees, he resorts to childish insults and attacks anyone who may have different beliefs.

    While you refrained from sophomoric remarks, you claim that liberals are to blame whenever the argument turns into something it isn’t. This obviously is untrue, and anytime comments like that are made, everyone is forced to pick a side and argue. Arguments are great and all, but now it is completely off topic and not going anywhere.

    Like

  21. As a general rule, if a political argument turns into something it shouldn’t, you can fairly blame the liberal. Conservatives tend to discuss ideas and liberals tend to discuss things that aren’t ideas.

    Thus it is here. Pangolin wanted to show anyone who’s a Christian, and agrees with my side of it, is contradicting himself…it was off topic because I hadn’t said anything about Christianity and neither had anyone else.

    But Jim had done some reading to prep himself for just such a discussion — lots of dry timber on the forest floor, one little spark and away we go.

    But whatever. They’re both wrong and it isn’t hard to show it.

    Like

  22. G says:

    Why do political arguments always turn to religious arguments. Religion has no business in governmental issues.

    Like

  23. So where does Jesus say it’s the ethnos, or nation’s, or society’s job to forcibly deprive people of the wages they have justly earned and redistribute wealth? Got a passage for that?

    You can tell an idea is a bad when one it starts to dismantle itself, under the crushing weight of the simple burden of being taken seriously. Thus it is with the “liberals are all about the real teachings of Christ” idea; take it seriously, it falls apart. When do we get to see some liberals filing suit against each other for vaulting unconstitutionally over the wall of separation? Odd how that never seems to happen, yes?

    What does Christ have to say about lazily conflating the “poor” who are poor through unfortunate and unavoidable circumstance, and “poor” who choose to live off the labor of others and think work is for suckers? Does Christ say someplace that the ONLY way we can look after the poor is to make sure nobody gets too rich? Isn’t there a commandment somewhere in the Old Testament about not coveting?

    In fact, are liberals really about taking money away from all the rich people? As near as I can figure, if you’re rich, but your name appears in Bernard Goldberg’s “Hundred People Who Are Screwing Up America,” you can make and keep as much money as you like an liberals will go after somebody else…the “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money” only applies to people who aren’t on that list.

    Would it not be fair to say the natural consequences of liberalism, like what we see in London, are really just the natural consequences of man passing judgment against man, as we see our liberals doing constantly? Wouldn’t that fit what we’re seeing take place right now? Like a hand in a glove?

    Hey. You did want to have the discussion.

    Like

  24. Jim says:

    Jesus had plenty to say about the obligation of both individuals and government to care for the poor and marginalized. The idea that He advocated only individuals…or individuals and churches…to do it all is flat wrong.

    In Matthew 25, we see His vision of final judgment — not on individuals, but on nations. The text clearly says — in the original Greek and in the modern translations — that the Son of Man will judge NATIONS. This is perfectly in sync with St. Paul’s teaching that humans cannot earn or acquire eternal salvation by good works. Why? Because individual humans are saved solely by grace, through faith in the finished work of Jesus on the cross and in the confession of His resurrection. “For by grace you have been saved and not by works, lest any mortal should boast.”

    Yet in Matthew 25, Jesus clearly teaches that NATIONS (the Greek is ethnos which is faithfully rendered as “nations” or “societies”) are saved or damned on the basis of what they did and didn’t do vis a vis the poor and marginalized.

    Now how individuals can be saved while societies simultaneously suffer damnation is unclear to me. It is beyond my pay grade. Perhaps that’s what Evagrious Ponticus meant when he said, “God cannot be fully grasped by the mind. If He could be, then He would hardly be God.”

    But I digress. The point is, Jesus clearly taught in Matthew 25 that nations will be punished for failing to do good works. And this is perfectly consistent with the witness of the Old Testament. The prophet Ezekiel proclaims that Sodom was destroyed — as a nation — because “she was arrogant and overfed. And because she neglected the poor and needy in her midst” (16:49). Isaiah ferociously condemns lawmakers who pass laws favoring the rich and robbing the poor (10:1-3) and later, with soaring cadence, he announces the favor of God on the nations (there’s that word again) that feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, heal the sick, set prisoners free and defend the oppressed. (ch. 58) Jeremiah is even more insistent. In his famous rant in chapter 33, the prophet specifically calls on individuals, officials, rulers and priests — private individuals, government and churches — to sit in the gate and hear the word of the Lord. And what IS the word of the Lord to them? To defend the rights of workers; to stand up for the rights of the poor and to seek justice for widows and orphans. YHWH inspires Jeremiah to go so far as to compare the reign of the current, wicked king — a man of greed and exploitation — to the reign of good king Josiah. God says, “that king cared for the poor and the needy. Is that not what it means to know me?”

    Would you like more?

    Read what Amos has to say. He fairly thunders. As Nehemiah is rebuilding Jerusalem, it becomes clear quite rapidly that both he and the Lord are distressed about the treatment of workers and about those in Israel who have too little to eat. The Law of Moses, ever misunderstood, is replete with calls on the SOCIETY to provide for aliens and strangers, to always leave enough extra for widows and the poor and to treat created things with conservation and respect.

    Yes, Morgan. Let’s do have this discussion.

    Like

  25. Ellie says:

    Pangolin says:
    August 14, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    “I keep forgetting y’all believe in Right Wing Jesus. Who wandered around Judea teaching the virtues of selfishness and gluttony.”

    Perhaps, and I could be wrong…I often am…perhaps he meant that Jesus didn’t say anything about taxing the rich. Jesus, and of course, the Prophets of old, had a great deal to say about what the rich should do for the poor, but I don’t believe they mentioned the word “taxes” in that context. No taxes to take care of the poor may have worked in 1st century Palestine (although probably not, or Jesus wouldn’t have told that story about Poor Lazarus and the rich man who didn’t get it, even while suffering the torment of the damned) but it doesn’t appear to work today.

    Like

  26. Pangolin says:

    I keep forgetting y’all believe in Right Wing Jesus. Who wandered around Judea teaching the virtues of selfishness and gluttony.

    Like

  27. G says:

    Panda,

    I think everyone wants everyone to be happy, and be able to live their life with no hatred, no tough times, no wars, etc.. The problem with your belief is that it is not realistic. It is rainbows and unicorns you see in the future. Everyone living in harmony, no fighting, no problems, just a life of happiness.

    Can you name any socialist country that looked like that in the end?

    Like

  28. (that is actually completely in line with Jesus’s teachings for you Christians)

    No, it isn’t.

    Like

  29. Pangolin says:

    Michael Moore doctrine: Your wealth isn’t yours, it’s everybody else’s, it’s a national resource. Ed says Mr. Moore is “a champion of America and American business.” Maybe you need to have a word with Mr. Darrell, to try to get him to stick to the subject too?_Morgan

    Look at the tax rates the U.S. imposed to pay for WWII. Sorry bub but if Congress passes a law that says you’re drafted and all your wealth gets taxed away that’s legal in the U.S..

    As a citizen of the United States your obligations to the State override your most personal freedoms. You might have noticed that when so many jobs require you to piss in a bottle to get hired. You don’t even own your own bloodstream. Put the wrong molecules in it and you’re breaking the law.

    Like

  30. Pangolin says:

    Let me be absolutely clear on my position.

    I believe that as long as there is a rich man that has two houses and one single poor man that for whatever reason, has no shelter at all, it is acceptable to tax the rich guy enough to provide reasonable shelter for the poor guy. (that is actually completely in line with Jesus’s teachings for you Christians)

    Adequate housing for an individual can be provided in a 10x10X10 space including a sleeping area, flush toilet, shower, cooking area and seating area. That’s not luxury; not even close.

    Is it socialism? Yeah; so what. So are public roads, public schools, farm subsidies, public water projects and a few thousand other services YOU rely on.

    Do I give a rat’s hiney if the rich man whines? Nope. Do I believe that the poor man will sit in his house and do no work? No, because RICH people continue to work, even at money losing projects, long after they could retire to the hammock and endless Mai Tais. The genetic range of rich and poor people is EXACTLY the same.

    Like

  31. Is Michael Moore running for a national office? How about any office in the State of California? Any elected office anywhere? Nope.

    But he represents an idea. A very, very specific idea which seems to be perfectly compatible with what’s presented from the left in this thread:

    “We’re not broke. This country is not broke. The state of Wisconsin is not broke. There is a ton of cash. Trillions of dollars of it. But it is a finite amount. What’s happened is we’ve allowed a vast majority of that cash to be concentrate in the hands of just a few people. And they’re not circulating that cash. They’re sitting on the money, they’re using it for their own — they’re putting it someplace else with no interest in helping you with your life, with that money. We’ve allowed them to take that. That’s not theirs, that’s a national resource, that’s ours. We all have this — we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it.”

    So we’ve allowed them to take that, that’s not theirs, that’s a national resource, that’s ours. Off topic you say? Really?

    Seems to me it’s only fair to just be candid about what you want when it’s time for people to vote on it. Every time we’re presented with the demagoguery about “corporate jets” and “millionaires and billionaires,” that’s essentially the argument presented; it doesn’t matter whether the wealth has been earned or not, if the public can be agitated into being angry enough about it, then the wealth can be taken away because it’s a “national resource.” Well if it’s to be put up to a test of public anger, then all I’m saying is be honest with the public — tell them the nature of the argument you’re using on them to try to get their emotions stirred up.

    Michael Moore doctrine: Your wealth isn’t yours, it’s everybody else’s, it’s a national resource. Ed says Mr. Moore is “a champion of America and American business.” Maybe you need to have a word with Mr. Darrell, to try to get him to stick to the subject too?

    Like

  32. Pangolin says:

    Is Michael Moore running for a national office? How about any office in the State of California? Any elected office anywhere?

    Nope.

    Michael Moore makes movies that are seen by millions of people. He’s good at what he does and I know that because he infuriates Republicans.

    Exactly what that has to do with the OP is anybody’s guess. Try to stay on topic.

    Like

  33. Then sit with him. Campaign with him. Make his the face of the democrat party. Use his name. With his permission, of course…just make all the concessions to his platform needed, until he’s cool with it, and then tell the American electorate that’s what you’re all about. Michael Moore wants the same things you want.

    Just be honest about it. Then we can find out how much confidence the electorate has in running things the Michael Moore way. Stop hiding.

    Like

  34. Ed Darrell says:

    Pangolin at 4:21pm is indistinguishable from a certain notorious Mr. Michael Moore.

    Your momma must be so proud. Comrade.

    Most businessmen would be happy to return to the boom prosperity years Pangolin referred to, especially versus the slow-growth, high-debt years of George Bush and the Republicans blocking all attempts to get economic growth back of the Obama years.

    If Michael Moore urges that, too, he’s a champion of America and American business.

    Like

  35. Big Steve says:

    S&P does not advise countries as to the appropriateness of their spending. They advise investors. We would have kept our rating if we had gotten the debt deal done sooner because that would have shown greater stability. Keep your heads in the clouds, folks. Keep thinking that you can spend your way out of debt. Don’t worry about Moody’s warnings. Keep blaming those who preach austerity and responsible goverment. If we just spend enough, we will all be rich.

    Like

  36. Ding! Godwin.

    In what way, exactly, would the Nazis be proud of me James? The “hmmm this government-takeover-of-everything doesn’t seem to be working out so hot, let’s slow down or stop it altogether” thing? Funny, I’m having a bit of trouble envisioning them getting down with that…

    Like

  37. James Kessler says:

    Morgan writes:
    Pangolin at 4:21pm is indistinguishable from a certain notorious Mr. Michael Moore.

    Your momma must be so proud. Comrade.

    And the Nazi’s must be so proud of you, morgan.

    And apparently the Republicans are perfectly fine with raising the payroll tax…which of course hits the middle class and the poor and not the rich.

    So, Morgan, Lower and Grif..how does it feel to support a party that is actively selling you out?

    Like

  38. Pangolin says:

    Morgan_ I’m more liberal than Michael Moore but I’ll still regard that as a compliment.

    You’ve met my Mom?

    Like

  39. Pangolin at 4:21pm is indistinguishable from a certain notorious Mr. Michael Moore.

    Your momma must be so proud. Comrade.

    Like

  40. They want us to fail; they need us to fail. That’s the bottom line. They don’t want to come up with any solutions, they just want us to be miserable so they can have their right wing paradise free of any regulations and taxes.

    Great point!

    But be fair. According to exactly the same logic, the left wing wants lots of people to be poor; they need lots of poor people, so they can get lots of political muscle behind their wealth redistribution schemes. Let’s face it, if you’ve got the wherewithal to pay your bills and put food on the table and have a little left over for your entertainment & charities & so forth, who gives a rip whether the government is growing at a healthy clip?

    Like

  41. Pangolin says:

    Bottom line. The US budget is about how this nation shares it’s resources. Nobody can reasonably argue that the U.S. doesn’t have resources.

    So we are presented with two choices.

    1) The wealthy continue to hoard the lions share of the national income and wealth while the poor are sent into the streets to keep the taxes on the wealthy low.

    2) The wealthy pay taxes at the level of the Clinton administration, when there were still plenty of wealthy people and we help those less able than ourselves while paying off our debts.

    The Tea Party is all about choice #1. All their folderol and window dressing about “job creators” is a very thin fig leaf to cover their miserly ways. Eight years of tax cuts and less people has jobs at the end of the Bush administration than at the beginning.

    Like

  42. Angie~Lah says:

    The thing that bothers me most is that Tea Partiers were out there at one of their stupid rallies cheering that our credit rating had been downgraded. They want us to fail; they need us to fail. That’s the bottom line. They don’t want to come up with any solutions, they just want us to be miserable so they can have their right wing paradise free of any regulations and taxes.

    Like

  43. Why have a debt ceiling?

    Seriously, if your point is “all businesses have to go into debt to meet a payroll, why shouldn’t the government?” and it seems that is where you’re trying to go with this…the government is like a business that deals in $1,600,000 worth of commerce a year, manages to take in $217,000 for itself, spends $382,000 just surviving, owes the bank some $1.4 million, just bumped into its debt ceiling and had its credit downgraded.

    One of the people on the board of directors for that business has been saying for a long time, we need to take a look at that $382,000 and find ways to reduce it…another person on that board of directors insists she’s a nut…just because. Whenever he’s asked to explain himself, all he can do is put on a smug NPR-male smirk and act like he’s enjoying special access to some privileged nugget of knowledge that would somehow make it logical to raise the company’s “debt ceiling.” Well, who’s the nut here again?

    Like

  44. Ed Darrell says:

    Of course, businesses finance and borrow including mine. It is a calculation that to take on some temporary debt, we will be in a better position to create more wealth for our company. (We do not borrow to pay off debt, and then borrow to pay off that debt.) Each year, we take in more revenue than we spend. Which is the only way to operate a business. Attempting to justify the government’s massive increasing of our debt as a normal business practice is humorous.

    Just as it’s humorous for a young family to take out a mortgage, or for a new business to expect a line of credit to keep payroll met.

    As a nation we have the resources to meet long-term, huge debts incurred to pull our nation out of economic doldrums.

    But, if we decide we should be like Greece, or Venezuela, then yes, it’s silly to raise the debt ceiling.

    Failing to raise the debt ceiling in a timely fashion may well have put us on the road to Greece-dom. Humorous? No, not much.

    Like

  45. S. Griffith says:

    No, we have not had an influx of applications, but we have had people requesting days off work or calling in sick and then applying for partial unemployment.

    Of course, businesses finance and borrow including mine. It is a calculation that to take on some temporary debt, we will be in a better position to create more wealth for our company. (We do not borrow to pay off debt, and then borrow to pay off that debt.) Each year, we take in more revenue than we spend. Which is the only way to operate a business. Attempting to justify the government’s massive increasing of our debt as a normal business practice is humorous.

    Like

  46. Ed Darrell says:

    Points to me for demonstrating that you are, in fact, inferior in the art and science of constructing a logical argument. Since there are people with vastly greater experience than either one of the two of us meeting payrolls, who agree with you and disagree with me.

    I think the usual “have you ever met a payroll argument” is complete red herring — and fish rotting as it does, not useful much these days.

    My question, though, is a real one: You met a payroll? Good.

    You didn’t use a bank in all of your bussinessing? You never used a line of credit?

    I don’t know of anyone with a payroll larger than a dozen who has ever been able to do that. Defenders of the credit-wreckers claim the U.S. can somehow finance everything with bad credit.

    I want you to explain how.

    Like

  47. Ed Darrell says:

    Starting to get the picture yet?

    I’ve had the picture all along, and you’re still in denial.

    The debt ceiling does nothing to the debt, except, in this case, cost us several hundreds of billions more.

    See, debt ceilings do not, cannot, restrict outlays. Debt ceilings are a formal, probably unnecessary, extra step we take in our political process to inform Congress.

    Spending cuts need to be made in authorization and appropriations bills. It’s in the Constitution — you could look it up.

    Using the debt ceiling as a tool to decrease debt cannot work, except to increase debt, which is what happened in this case.

    We have a very formal budgeting process. There is also a process to authorize spending, AND a process to appropriate money to spend. That’s where budget discipline can have an effect.

    The debt ceiling is a restatement of the will of the U.S. to act responsibly, a restatement that we plan to follow through on our debt obligations. That is all.

    Standard & Poor’s accurately noted that the debate itself is the message — some fools think it was about how much we spend. That’s not what the debt ceiling bill says, or does, or can say or do. The debate demonstrated that Republicans have a significant arm who think we can simply stop paying our creditors.

    Because they are so stupid, but have sway, it means that they might win one of those debates one day — and if that happens, faith in the U.S. as a good credit risk is misplaced.

    So, the only outcome possible from this debate was bad, or worse. Engaging in the debate in the way the House took America hostage, indicates there are fools and complete idiots at the helm, and while they don’t have full control of the bridge, they can steer the ship into the rocks and they have demonstrated they are insane enough to do exactly that.

    Spending “too much?” Yes. Want to rein it in? Stand up like an honest human and engage in the authorization and appropriations debates, and budget debates. Want to ruin the nation? Insist on a silly debate about whether we will honor our obligations, making it appear we won’t.

    The way to reduce spending, Morgan, is not to increase spending by a trillion dollars and give all that money to the bankers in interest, instead of using it to decrease spending, or at least get something for the dollars spent.

    No businessman goes to his bank and says, “I think I won’t pay my debt obligations even though I’ve got the bucks to do it.” The bank knows that is a reason to call the loan, and has justification for doing so, by that simple message.

    This is not a debate about how much is spent, or whether it’s too much.

    At least, it’s not such a debate with the tools the Republicans chose to use.

    It’s a mark of how much danger we’re in, that you somehow think that was the issue with this bill.

    Like

  48. Ed, I’m going to state for the sake of argument my experience is zero. Those who are familiar with my background are going to say that’s not true. But unlike you, I’m in the business of building things that actually have to work so I’m inclined to estimate conservatively on such things. At any rate, I’m willing to say it’s possible, perhaps even likely, you have met more payrolls than I have.

    Points to me for demonstrating that you are, in fact, inferior in the art and science of constructing a logical argument. Since there are people with vastly greater experience than either one of the two of us meeting payrolls, who agree with you and disagree with me. There are also those in that elite crowd who agree with me and disagree with you. (I would further suppose that among those in the even more elite crowd who have had to transfer money from savings to meet that payroll, more overwhelmingly agree with me, but let’s let that go.) This would mean your barbed inquiry is what is called a “red herring.” It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is:

    After a statutory debt ceiling crisis that has resulted in a humiliating national credit downgrade, is it logical to turn to the people who said “put a check on all this debt, the sooner the better” and say to them…you were in the wrong here?

    Whoever says yes to that, I don’t want that guy managing my payroll!

    Like

  49. You do realize don’t you, by declaring Steyn’s numbers to be so completely mind-bending and flabbergasting that the magnitude he’s suggesting is supposed to have ruined his credibility — you actually reinforced his point? Go back and check the context. It’s about human behavior…are Americans really serious about paying off the debt racked up in their name…

    You just can’t believe the number and refuse to read anything that suggests it. The irony.

    Like

  50. Pangolin says:

    Morgan_ Ten points for Slytherin. Brevity.

    Like

  51. Sorry Pangolin,

    I make it a point never to take any advice from people who brag about not reading things. It’s served me pretty well.

    Like

  52. Pangolin says:

    Morgan_Nice wall-‘o-text there guy. You might want to a) get your own blog, no wait. You have your own blog that nobody reads which is why you’re here b) find the return key more than randomly. (under your right pinky)

    I stopped reading at your link and dismissed the rest as blather because the guy you linked to Mark Steyn describes the debt saying.. “by 2020 when, under these historic “cuts,” it’s up to 23-25 trillion?”

    If that’s not a deliberate misinterpretation of how the U.S. federal government works nothing is. It seems Mr. Stein expects that Obama will declare himself dictator next year and yet mysteriously, never raise taxes. What utter bullpucky. That you bothered typing on after you added that link indicates a certain tone-deafness.

    S. Griffith _Nice use of the self-referential appeal to authority. Actually I’d be happy to relieve your business of all payroll taxes. I’d actually be happy to shut your business’s doors since you seem to be unable to hire U.S. citizens in the worst unemployment since the the Great Depression you traitorous bastard.

    If applications are at an all time low it’s because a) you’re asking skilled workers to work for peanuts or b) your company has a reputation for treating it’s employees like garbage or c) both. I’m going with C.

    Let’s compromise. We could eliminate payroll taxes charged to employers in exchange for a value-added tax averaged in each state to make up 105% of the revenues. No exemptions. You could hire more people assuming they wouldn’t rather drive the honey truck than work for you.

    I’m betting on the honey truck.

    Like

  53. Ben Hoffman says:

    Every time Republicans cut spending, people are laid off and they collect unemployment benefits for doing nothing.

    Like

  54. Ed Darrell says:

    I am a business executive and I do have to meet a payroll. Actually, seven payrolls if broken up by department, and 14 if by line item. So, if I may offer just this… which will probably be a digression from the otherwise recent conversation…

    And of course, you meet payroll every month with cash on hand. You finance nothing with a bank, you have no line of credit with the bank, and you have never had a line of credit with a bank. So your hands are clean and your heart is pure.

    The good news is that unemployment benefits have been capped and cut back. So you have seen an influx of applications over the past two months because you’re right, people would rather collect $200 in unemployment compensation than $1000 or $2000 in a paycheck. So, since unemployment benefits were cut back, all those lazy suckers on unemployment have re-applied for work, and employment is way up.

    If anything I have noted is inaccurate, would you let us know?

    Like

  55. S. Griffith says:

    I confess, I bowed out of this conversation a while ago and I’ve just been skimming since.

    But, one comment about whether Morgan has ever had to meet a payroll recently caught my eye, so I will part with this…

    I am a business executive and I do have to meet a payroll. Actually, seven payrolls if broken up by department, and 14 if by line item. So, if I may offer just this… which will probably be a digression from the otherwise recent conversation…

    I can say that each time our country raises the minimum wage, it costs jobs. (All of my company’s employees make more than the minimum wage). More importantly, my company has jobs to offer, but the continual extension of the unemployment benefits has kept applicants to an all-time low for us, even though unemployment is so high. We did have an in-flux of recent college grads willing (and happy) to take entry level work, but they kept looking for work and left as soon as they found something better (good for them). We ended up filling about 20 positions with H2B employees (visa workers from out of the country) which was an increase from this labor pool for us in the past. (75% of them went AWOL).

    The way SUTA and FUTA (payroll taxes) have been formulated and accounted for raised our payroll expenses greatly. So, when I adjusted the budget to account for this new information, I had to figure out where to cover this added expense. Some of it is just what it is, a greater expense that is not made up. Some was a cut in existing hours and we gave no wage increases. More was a cancellation of capital improvements we have budgeted for out of our reserve money to keep our cash reserves in a strong position.

    My point is, the government’s willingness to keep extending unemployment benefits is not necessarily working. We are only one business, but we have to be one of many facing similar challenges. The increase of payroll taxes is a direct result of an increase in benefits (because they counted part-time, temporary, and seasonal employees against us). This added expense encouraged us to hire less and spend less in payroll otherwise. The extension of benefits discourages people to actually look for work when it exists. And, the canceling of some of our capital improvement projects hurts the economy since those projects involve the hiring of outside companies to perform work on our property. In particular, we postponed the sealing and painting of the exterior of the building and cut our carpet installation in half. Those contractors and their suppliers lost all that profit as well. Which means some of their employees, or potential employees, lost out as well.

    (Do not bother drilling me on this. This is all true, but I will not get into a tit for tat with you on this. I have not had a day off work since the first week of May, and I’m not going to defend myself here when I do it monthly in financial meetings with my boss. Just take this information for what it is worth.)

    Like

  56. Of course it isn’t, Ed. When you regard the federal government’s annual commitment as “money” it makes sense, it a weird sort of way, that you think the people who didn’t want to raise the debt ceiling must have wanted a credit downgrade. What a convenient, one-dimensional view that is. Ceiling goes up; money. Ceiling goes down; no money. Debt — I suppose there just isn’t any such thing?

    I see Mark Steyn is making a special effort to speak your language in defining what all this debt does to us. I suppose you’re going to say he doesn’t understand the basics either:

    When interest payments consume about 20 percent of federal revenues, that means a fifth of your taxes are entirely wasted. Pious celebrities often simper that they’d be willing to pay more in taxes for better government services. But a fifth of what you pay won’t be going to government services at all, unless by “government services” you mean the People’s Liberation Army of China, which will be entirely funded by U.S. taxpayers by about 2015.

    Starting to get the picture yet? You can put up post after post after post insisting that the source of any & all good things is government spending, and anybody who wants to bring that spending down for whatever reason must be trying to destroy civilization as we know it. Well, your efforts to desensitize the masses to the mind-blowing debt, as Steyn points out, are at odds with that…Darrell versus Darrell.

    Now, I have to wonder something, Your friend has really put me in my place by letting me know I’m in the presence of a bunch of profs. Gee, with the sincere desire to learn more that surrounds me, I couldn’t have possibly guessed. When do I get to see a debating tactic more mature than what I’d find on an elementary school playground? The “voracious” thing was funny, but I’m willing to let that one go; I’ve seen professors “catch” people for their incorrect use of words, find out suddenly that they’re in the wrong, and try to make a punchline out of it. But the “all the vices on the other side” thing is troubling. I, and people like me, are frequently heard & seen conceding that there are valid reasons for raising the debt limit to avert defaults; there are other people who disagree with me like the dickens, who will nonetheless concede there are valid reasons for wanting to have left the debt limit where it was. You and your esteemed ivy league compatriots, however, have consistently insisted not only on cherry-picking which facts matter over which ones that don’t, but also the intricate details of what one is to conclude from them. Of those among us who do not comply, it seems no single brand of derogatory labeling is sufficient to tell the whole story, nor can any be left out in describing exactly what is wrong with us. It would be entirely inaccurate to suggest we are stupid and yet well-intentioned; it would be similarly insufficient to say we are trying to destroy America, but are a great threat because we know a lot about what we’re doing. No, any among your colleagues who offer such a mixed-bag assessment, it seems, will be immediately ejected from the snotty-NPR-male club and their dues forfeited. It’s not hard to pick up the sense of desperation. Everyone who doesn’t want what your little club wants, or is merely undecided about it, is — let’s really get out some entertainment for your pal here — dilatory, desultory, detrimental, deleterious and dumb. We have nefarious motives AND we’re far too simplistic to see them carried out and we don’t know how to use spell checkers and our entertainment is all wrong and we eat the wrong foods and we don’t know how to extract the meat from the pickled pig knuckles from between what few teeth we have remaining, and we smell. Oh sure nobody’s suggesting such a thing — but once it’s suggested it has to be substantiated, it’s a hard and fast rule, and it shows exactly the kind of intransigence Matt Damon would love to see blamed on the other side…ever since last week when he found out what “intransigence” meant.

    My point is this is not how adults argue. It does seem to be how people in the White House argue, though…pass my stimulus or unemployment will go up, raise the debt limit or our credit rating will fall — what’s that? They passed the stimulus and unemployment went up anyway? They raised the ceiling and the credit rating fell anyway? There must be some stupid people involved somewhere because there’s no way I could have been wr-wr-wr-WRONG in what I said. Find me some stupid people so I can blame it on them. S&P — stupid! Grrr! so mad at them! Except for that one page all the libs keep quoting that makes it look like we should have raised taxes. That part is sage-like wisdom, everything else S&P did is stupid. What’s that? ObamaCare is unconstitutional again? That makes the judges stupid! Grrr again!

    See, this is why people feel very uncomfortable with profs running anything…and oh, our President is one, isn’t He? That’s right. But this is what people say about them isn’t it? When you are one, of course you’re right all the time…because you always are…except for those emperors-clothes moments when you’re wrong and everyone can see it. Then you just use a lot of rhetoric and invective and Stephan Colbert punchlines to sort of slide it under the rug, and blame it on some guy you’re going to call stupid. Hey it works in the classroom, right? You get final word on who’s going to be called stupid, in there, right? It’s in the job description. So that must be how the whole world works outside the classroom.

    Ah…how I wish you were right. Then we’d have an unemployment rating of 5.5 percent, gas $2.50 a gallon or less, and a AAA credit rating.

    But the pattern holds. Professors learn how the world works outside the classroom…and the rest of us pay.

    Like

  57. Ed Darrell says:

    So, Morgan, you regard money as toxic waste?

    How long you been runnin’ with Lenin?

    I think your commenter’s analogy is completely false, inadequate and inappropriate, and it comes from your commenters’ inability to understand business and complete lack of experience in running any sort of business.

    You should have picked that up. Have you ever run a business and had to meet a payroll? That experience is not showing in your comment.

    Like

  58. Want us to take you seriously? Then you will agree [everything we say and drop any ideas that aren’t ours.] Until then you can go to hell.

    Actually, a sensible middle-of-the-road compromise would be:

    We don’t really know if we’re capable of raising the revenues in this country needed to cover the reckless madcap spending by our government now…so let’s cut cut cut until it’s back to the last year where the government ran a surplus. And not a Nixon/Clinton phony-baloney “put Social Security on the table so it looks like a surplus”; a REAL one.

    Keep it that way for ten years. If we can’t run a surplus within those ten years, then let’s talk about what to do with the tax code. Aw heck, I’m feeling generous, let’s make it five.

    That would be centrist, moderate, objective, balanced, reasonable. To say “keep on spending, let’s raise the taxes and hope against hope we can somehow manage to cover it” would be the very definition of extremism.

    From a comment entered on my site this morning:

    If you can answer this correctly, you can answer the question on what action to take on raising the Federal debt ceiling.

    You come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup and you have sewage up to your ceilings.

    What do you do … raise the ceilings, or pump out the shit?

    Political science professors generally can’t answer that question correctly. They know too much to learn anything about how the world actually works.

    Like

  59. Right on James and Ed, right on.

    Like

  60. James Kessler says:

    To quote:
    “As for the Tea Party being right — no explanation necessary. They said debt was a problem; they’ve criticized Bush about this about as often as Pangolin has criticized democrats for other things, in fact even more often than that. Now our debt is a crisis. They’ve been anti-debt since the beginning…which, I guess your voracious reading failed to inform you was after President Bush was out of office.

    No…they’ve only been anti-debt since obama became President. Before that those same people were cheering on Bush’s running up the deficit and the debt. The same exact people that are the “tea party” are the same exact people that ran up the deficit and the debt in the God damn first place.

    And you say the tea party says that our debt is a crisis..and yet you and your tea party won’t give up anything on your side of the political aisle to do anything about that debt. You do not raise taxes on the rich, you do not close any loopholes, you cut no corporate welfare, you cut nothing from the military and you end no wars. And when US companies pay nothing in taxes…you want to reward them for it.

    Your party wants to sacrifice nothing. So until your party get its head out of its ass and make sacrifices like your party is demanding that we Democrats agree too then you and your party are nothing but hypocrites, liars and need to shut the **** up.

    Want us to take you seriously? Then you will agree to raising taxes on the rich, ending corporate welfare, cutting the military, closing tax loopholes, and ending the wars. You will ask the rich and the businesses to also sacrifice instead of just the middle class and the poor.

    Until then you can go to hell.

    Like

  61. James Kessler says:

    To quote:
    11, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    My gosh, I have to admit I never looked at it that way. You’re absolutely right. We need our government to spend money it doesn’t have, to drive up its debts sky high to such an extent none of the rest of us would dare dream if we were accountable to such debts. We need the politicians to show the fearlessness one only shows around debt when one…isn’t…ultimately…personally…responsible?

    And yet you and yours wont raise taxes, wont cut the military, will kvetch from here until doomsday about ending the wars, won’t dare touch corporate welfare and do everything in your party’s power to protect every single tax loophole and company that skirts paying taxes.

    So to be blunt…when you take personal responsibility and your party does so too and agrees to do all of those things then and only then will you be in a position to preach. Until then, child, you are nothing but a stupid dimwitted hypocrite. You want to lower the deficit?

    Because until your party does that your party isn’t serious about dealing with the deficit.

    Your party will make sacrifices and compromise or your party can go to hell.

    Like

  62. Pangolin says:

    Ed, I don’t think there’s anything that I could add to that last comment but my admiration and thanks.

    Salud!!!

    Like

  63. Ed Darrell says:

    My gosh, I have to admit I never looked at it that way. You’re absolutely right. We need our government to spend money it doesn’t have, to drive up its debts sky high to such an extent none of the rest of us would dare dream if we were accountable to such debts. We need the politicians to show the fearlessness one only shows around debt when one…isn’t…ultimately…personally…responsible?

    Duh, hey, waitaminnit. Who ultimately has to pay that anyway?

    Yeah, it’s about time you began to use capitalist economics. Who ultimately pays? The people of the nation do. Either way, the people of the nation ultimately pay the bills, either through taxes, or through “creative destruction” of their accumulated wealth.

    The questions you need to be asking all revolve around which way makes the nation strongest, which way puts the fewest widows, orphans, families and family breadwinners out into the streets as homeless, which method is cheapest in the short run and the long run.

    If you ask the right questions, your sarcasm suddenly isn’t sarcastic.

    But if you practice Tappit Brothers Cheapskate Economics instead of Smithian capitalism, you’ll fall victim to the Ray’s Rule: The Cheapskate always pays more.

    Dammit. I’m tired of your demanding that I and all the other workers pay more for some silly political point of yours, when we could simply pay less and make a great nation.

    I do not believe, as the philosophy of the Tea Party and House Republican caucus demands, that the U.S. is finished as a great nation, that we must pull in our horns, that we must retire from the marketplace of ideas and the marketplace of freedom, and eat cold gruel and water. I refuse to do what the Tea Party demands and snuff out the lights of the Shining City on a Hill.

    Snuff out your own lights. Don’t curse the candle that banishes the darkness, even if the candle is borrowed.

    Like

  64. Still want to know what you have to say about these FACTS:

    We were downgraded for a few reasons:

    1) They called for $4 Trillion in spending cuts – The bill passed was nowhere close to that.

    *(Both the fault of Democrats and Republicans alike)

    2) There was nothing in the legislation passed in which the US Government increased REVENUE (i.e. taxes)

    *(Republicans and Tea Party all the way)

    3) The political gridlock involved through the debt ceiling talks worried the rating agency that any future legislation would be passed to address points 1 and 2 above.

    *(Republicans and Tea Party all the way again thanks to Boehner and the overly ambitious Cantor)

    Like

  65. Sure, you were right in contest that never even existed.

    “As for the Tea Party being right — no explanation necessary. They said debt was a problem; they’ve criticized Bush about this about as often as Pangolin has criticized democrats for other things, in fact even more often than that. Now our debt is a crisis. They’ve been anti-debt since the beginning…which, I guess your voracious reading failed to inform you was after President Bush was out of office.

    In short, everything in your critique can be answered with: WHATEVER. Their position turned out to be correct, and everything else is just a lot of static.”

    Your statement has the effect similar to the “Because I said so” statement everyone’s parents have used. Last time I checked our debt wasn’t a crisis, and a lot more politicians besides the Tea Partiers were talking about spending. You just don’t get that because Fox News won’t tell you that. In fact, our debt is so secure that the entire world buys it up. Stock market falls, and what do investors buy: Our Debt. The crisis is people like you creating non existent crisis after non existent crisis. Unemployment is a crisis, health care in our country is a crisis, 5% of the US population controlling a disproportionate amount of the country’s wealth is a crisis.

    The Tea Party was in existence way before Bush left office, you all called yourselves different names back then.

    This whole “I’m right and you’re wrong” stance is amusing and predictable. Rand Paul took office threatening to take the country hostage over the debt ceiling because Government spending is rampant. I agree that government spending is out of control, but it would be in control if we taxed the rich a-holes who think they shouldn’t be taxed (they create jobs, you know?). Ridiculous, just like your response. In short, everything in your critique can be answered with: Just as I suspected.

    My questions to you:

    “Do you all get dressed up like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin to get girls?”

    “Where do you find the powder wigs nowadays?”

    “What party will you piggy back once the Tea Party experiment fails?”

    Like

  66. Not sure why you’re making a Stephen Colbert comedy moment out of “voracious”; I was right and you were wrong. Ridicule sometimes has no effect on the outcome, and this is one of those times.

    As for the Tea Party being right — no explanation necessary. They said debt was a problem; they’ve criticized Bush about this about as often as Pangolin has criticized democrats for other things, in fact even more often than that. Now our debt is a crisis. They’ve been anti-debt since the beginning…which, I guess your voracious reading failed to inform you was after President Bush was out of office.

    In short, everything in your critique can be answered with: WHATEVER. Their position turned out to be correct, and everything else is just a lot of static.

    Like

  67. “I dunno about that. The Tea Party’s position was that the spending was out of control and debt is bad. And what happened…we ran into our statutory debt limit and then our credit was downgraded.

    Now if you really think there’s something wrong with the Tea Party and they can’t understand things — might be a good idea to wait awhile before trying to point it out, because they were right here.”

    So where was the Tea Party when President Bush raised the debt ceiling FOURTEEN times? We got downgraded because we reached our statutory debt limit? Did you read S&P’s reason for the downgrade? We were downgraded for a few reasons:

    1) They called for $4 Trillion in spending cuts – The bill passed was nowhere close to that.

    2) There was nothing in the legislation passed in which the US Government increased REVENUE (i.e. taxes)

    I’m pretty sure the Tea Party was wrong on that one.

    3) The political gridlock involved through the debt ceiling talks worried the rating agency that any future legislation would be passed to address points 1 and 2 above.

    In fact, in my voracious reading I came across multiple Tea Party representatives who balked at the idea that America would default on their debts and that Secretary Geithner was wrong to say we didn’t have any more money after August 2 to pay the bills. Also, it was Tea Party representatives who wanted to US Government to default.

    How was the Tea Party right?

    Like

  68. That would make me a constituent of the Tea Party, right?

    I dunno about that. The Tea Party’s position was that the spending was out of control and debt is bad. And what happened…we ran into our statutory debt limit and then our credit was downgraded.

    Now if you really think there’s something wrong with the Tea Party and they can’t understand things — might be a good idea to wait awhile before trying to point it out, because they were right here.

    Like

  69. “That’s okay, we saw that you “nailed” me on voraciously and then it turned out I was right, no need to keep reminding everyone.”

    I was authentically impressed with your use of the word voracious. Never questioned that you knew what the word meant. But you can put the tick mark in the W column you’ve been keeping.

    “If you were any smarter, I guess you wouldn’t understand anything at all.”

    That would make me a constituent of the Tea Party, right?

    Like

  70. That’s okay, we saw that you “nailed” me on voraciously and then it turned out I was right, no need to keep reminding everyone.

    If you were any smarter, I guess you wouldn’t understand anything at all.

    Like

  71. How very nice of you to finally agree with me on something, or passive aggressive. I get those two mixed up while I’m pretending read voraciously and think deeply.

    Like

  72. Your repeated failures to understand what you’re reading, have convinced me you are an intellectual powerhouse. I bow to your clearly superior wisdom.

    Like

  73. “That’s twice in the space of a few minutes you’ve claimed not to be doing something, and then later on in the very same paragraph gone on to do that very thing.”

    What are you talking about?

    “2. very eager or unremitting in some activity: voracious reading”

    I am aware of what voracious means, but thanks for the link to clarfiy.

    “Okay now you’re dinging someone on something in which, according to the reference material, he knows exactly what he’s doing, because you disagree with his politics. Nice. Classy.”

    Clarification please? Who knows exactly what they are doing? Glen Beck? Sure, I trust that he knows what he is doing, because you said so.

    “We’ve got about four or five people here, plus the proprietor, who put on airs pretending to be cheerleaders and voracious readers and deep-thinkers, but all they’re really doing is cheerleading for the democrats who’ve made the problems in the first place.”

    Those are your words, and you speak about “Nice,” and “Classy.” It’s a “consider the source” type of scenario here.

    Like

  74. Pangolin says:

    You’re too much of a toxic pissant for DU?

    Just damn…

    _Morgan

    Proud of it too. I’m somewhere to the left of Derrick Jensen. ;~)>

    Like

  75. You’re too much of a toxic pissant for DU?

    Just damn…

    Like

  76. Pangolin says:

    Anybody who thinks the left-leaning commenters around here aren’t critical of Democratic Party actions has a serious reading comprehension problem.

    If you want to see pissed-off leftists go over to Democratic Underground. (where I got kicked off for b_ing about Al Gore and John Kerry’s giant friggin houses with no solar panels or energy retrofits) They’ll tell you that Obama is traveling somewhere to the right of Ronald Reagan and they can back that up with facts too.

    Like

  77. G says:

    and I do not believe that you are a blind idiot following your party to our own doom. I believe that both parties have their strengths and weaknesses. I believe that if you think everything from one party is 100% the right way, or the gospel, then you are blindly following. Does that make sense?

    Like

  78. G says:

    Bennett,

    I didn’t mean to take sides, and I am not offended at all. I enjoy these conversations. The Glenn Beck comment for example. I do not know a Democrat who is the same way. I agree with a lot of things he says, but I also cannot stand the religious aspect of it. Does that make me a follower?

    Like

  79. Jim,

    I totally agree with your post. I will always defend the right of free speech, because, without it, we are not who we say we are. I welcome people to challenge what I say, even if it is incorrect or taken out of context. My problem is how people absorb and project what they think is truth. For example, my ultra religious friend who takes his pastor’s words as gospel truth. Or how people will distance themselves from others because they don’t believe the same. Free speech is what makes our country great, and in that aspect I couldn’t disagree with what you posted even if we knew each other and you stole my girlfriend, Jim :)

    G,

    So you are a rational thinker. Me too. I’m not a cheerleader, and I don’t think anybody here is. I believe in what I “say” here, and I have taken the time to determine if what I am saying is truly what I believe, the same as you, and the same for others on this post. I don’t get offended by what anyone says on this post, and I don’t think you should either, that is if you are offended. I’m making the incredible assumption that you are no longer focusing on the issues we are discussing and solely focusing on our “cheerleading” and lack of original thought, which indicates you might not like our responses to you. I don’t really get that everyone is “following a party blindly,” or trying to excuse what they do. But I don’t think there is anything we can say to convince you otherwise. It seems, from your comments, that you are convinced we all are blind idiots following a party to our own demise. Not true.

    Like

  80. I was thinking of Michael Moore myself. Awfully big for someone who doesn’t exist anymore??

    Like

  81. G says:

    I guess the Democratic version of Glenn Beck followers would be, people who watch Chris Matthews I guess???

    Like

  82. G says:

    I don’t know, describe to me what a Glenn Beck follower is? Since they are all the same right?

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: