Tea Party Downgrade???

[mjmjpfaff]

i dont see why the democrats (john kerry, david axelrod...) are pointing fingers at the tea party because of the credit downgrade when the tea party was the first to give notice to the huge debt. if we would have gotten a balanced budget maybe they wouldnt of downgraded us because that shows we wouldnt of had to worry about paying off new debt. what are your thoughts on this?

 

[dogman_1234]

Or maybe if our congress wasn't filled with parasites who fight instead of compromise, maybe we would not be in this mess.

 

[MysticMiner]

The first??? Stop re-writing history, even accepting the early dates for the Tea Party origination, which would be in the early 2000s, the debt has been an issue for quite a while, decades even. Certainly since Reagan skyrocketed it.

But your mistaken representations of history aside, no, the Tea Party doesn't actually want to do anything about the deficit, if they did, they'd not worship Grover Norquist, but would consider the days of Clinton and the original George Bush.

They're not willing to do that, though, because they oppose any restoration of tax levels, and what's worst is they don't really do anything about spending, because they only want to destroy the programs they hate (often for specious reasons, and often over trivial amounts), but actually increase those they do like.

At least that's been my experience with the reality of the Tea Party. Perhaps you might say that's because of other corrupt politicians, or because of other circumstances that don't reflect the genuine intentions of the Tea Party, but then I would say that you have shown that idealism often fails when it meets reality, and that the Tea Party needs to revamp its focus and stop being shills for those exploiting it.

 

[mjmjpfaff]

The first??? Stop re-writing history, even accepting the early dates for the Tea Party origination, which would be in the early 2000s, the debt has been an issue for quite a while, decades even. Certainly since Reagan skyrocketed it.

But your mistaken representations of history aside, no, the Tea Party doesn't actually want to do anything about the deficit, if they did, they'd not worship Grover Norquist, but would consider the days of Clinton and the original George Bush.

They're not willing to do that, though, because they oppose any restoration of tax levels, and what's worst is they don't really do anything about spending, because they only want to destroy the programs they hate (often for specious reasons, and often over trivial amounts), but actually increase those they do like.

At least that's been my experience with the reality of the Tea Party. Perhaps you might say that's because of other corrupt politicians, or because of other circumstances that don't reflect the genuine intentions of the Tea Party, but then I would say that you have shown that idealism often fails when it meets reality, and that the Tea Party needs to revamp its focus and stop being shills for those exploiting it.

the first??? i never said the tea party just formed. i said that nobody has made a bigger fuss about the debt then the tea party and they in the end drew some attention to it. i know it has been a problem for a long time.....

and they do care about the debt just look at there candidates they are all about bringing down the debt...

 

[mjmjpfaff]

and they would love to get taxes down to the levels bush had them at. they would think that would be a great start to resolving a lot of our problems.

 

[blackhawk1928]

The first??? Stop re-writing history, even accepting the early dates for the Tea Party origination, which would be in the early 2000s, the debt has been an issue for quite a while, decades even. Certainly since Reagan skyrocketed it.

But your mistaken representations of history aside, no, the Tea Party doesn't actually want to do anything about the deficit, if they did, they'd not worship Grover Norquist, but would consider the days of Clinton and the original George Bush.

They're not willing to do that, though, because they oppose any restoration of tax levels, and what's worst is they don't really do anything about spending, because they only want to destroy the programs they hate (often for specious reasons, and often over trivial amounts), but actually increase those they do like.

At least that's been my experience with the reality of the Tea Party. Perhaps you might say that's because of other corrupt politicians, or because of other circumstances that don't reflect the genuine intentions of the Tea Party, but then I would say that you have shown that idealism often fails when it meets reality, and that the Tea Party needs to revamp its focus and stop being shills for those exploiting it.

Certainly since Reagan skyrocketed it.

Nothing compared to our current president...he takes the top spot for most debt.

But your mistaken representations of history aside, no, the Tea Party doesn't actually want to do anything about the deficit, if they did, they'd not worship Grover Norquist, but would consider the days of Clinton and the original George Bush.

They CAN'T do anything because they aren't a official political party...

 

[MysticMiner]

the first??? i never said the tea party just formed. i said that nobody has made a bigger fuss about the debt then the tea party and they in the end drew some attention to it. i know it has been a problem for a long time.....

and they do care about the debt just look at there candidates they are all about bringing down the debt...

Let's see...

when the tea party was the first to give notice to the huge debt.

Except the debt has been huge for a long time, and people have been giving notice about it for a long time. The Tea Party is the latest, not the first. Your expression was not that they were making a big fuss about it, you were expressing that they were the first. That is in error.

And no, the candidates are not all about bringing down the debt. They are about other things too, and they don't seem to be giving debt reduction a priority.

 

[MysticMiner]

Nothing compared to our current president...he takes the top spot for most debt.

Fraid not. When controlling for inflation and GDP, it's George W. Bush, then George H. W. Bush, then Reagan then Obama. Of course, Obama's numbers include George W. Bush's off the books wars, so...

Then there's deficit spending, and the gap is bad for Republicans too.

They CAN'T do anything because they aren't a official political party...

Political parties have no official powers. They can't do anything officially. There have been plenty of purported Tea Party candidates elected to office, though.

They've kept their promises about as well as the Contract with America was fulfilled.

 

[Reynod]

I blame the TEA party for what is happening this week with the global stock markets continuing to slide.

If they had been more moderate then the republican party would have come to the table earlier with regard to the debt ceiling, and possibly averted the S&P downgrade decision ... which would have meant the stock market would not have gone berserk with fear.

Thanks for stuffing up the global economy guys ... we really appreciate the results.

 

[MysticMiner]

Indeed, the American people didn't want what the Tea Party wanted to do. So the politicians, sensing what it would cost, caved enough to let things happen, though some still took the path of refusal.

Sometimes I will agree this was due to principles, Ron Paul for example. Other times they're just using it as a propaganda tool.

But no, Obama was not given more money to spend. The money was already allocated. The Downgrade happened because S&P wanted it to happen, the justification was questionable enough, but their decision was made.

What will result from it is an open question.

 

[mjmjpfaff]

Let's see...

when the tea party was the first to give notice to the huge debt.

Except the debt has been huge for a long time, and people have been giving notice about it for a long time. The Tea Party is the latest, not the first. Your expression was not that they were making a big fuss about it, you were expressing that they were the first. That is in error.

And no, the candidates are not all about bringing down the debt. They are about other things too, and they don't seem to be giving debt reduction a priority.

im sorry i meant to use those words differently.....

 

[MysticMiner]

I would suggest you use different words.

 

[mjmjpfaff]

i did in my next post.....

 

[Silmarunya]

Nothing compared to our current president...he takes the top spot for most debt.

Check your facts. Obama added 2,4 trillion to the US government debt, a vast sum. However, the absolute 'champion' is Bush Jr. with 6,1 trillion.

Reagan added 1,x (I believe 1,8 trillion to the debt). That is a smaller sum than Obama, but it was decades ago. In today's money, he added far more than Obama did.

Granted, Obama's term isn't finished yet, but even with a second term it's unlikely he will break Bush' record. Also, a lot of Oboma's borrowing was done not because of his own measures, but simply to continue paying for Bush' mistakes like Iraq.

Conclusion: whatever your opinion about Obama might be, he still didn't raise the debt my nearly as much as his Republican predecessors.

 

[MysticMiner]

i did in my next post.....

uh, no, in your next post, you claimed you never said it. But you did. If you were trying to say you misspoke, then you misspoke
when saying that.

I'd say he is well on his way to breaking that record.

That article didn't control for inflation.

Get one that does.

 

[greenrider02]

So, Old Man, you're saying that Obama should not have authorized emergency measures already approved by Congress to keep our economy from flatlining? I think it's proper that the government takes a trillion dollar hit rather than the small business owners, low-wage earners, and the poverty stricken in general. I think it was improper that Congress, this time, let our economy take a hit, risking another recession, just because they couldn't compromise.

Then again, you'd still be whining if Obama/Congress/The Fed hadn't approved any emergency measures to stimulate our struggling economy, so the whole argument's a wash.

I'm perfectly OK with the federal government spending another 5 trillion all at once if it gets the economy going and gets people back to work. It's called the greater good...

It's also been my impression that if the Tea Party hadn't made all of the hubbub about the debt ceiling to get attention, then nobody, most importantly the credit rating people, would have bothered with just raising the debt ceiling again like a hundred times before... The Tea Party freshman then proceeded to strangle the Republican party away from a decent compromise because, like little children, it was their way or no-way.

 

[mjmjpfaff]

i never said i misspoke until just recently i corrected my statement so it didnt sound like they were the first to spot the debt. i know i pretty much said that in my first post but i corrected myself.....

 

[greenrider02]

^A truly full and complete response. I like how you specified those points of mine which are flawed and addressed them with counter arguments that clearly show why your point of view is more valid...

 

[MysticMiner]

i never said i misspoke until just recently i corrected my statement so it didnt sound like they were the first to spot the debt. i know i pretty much said that in my first post but i corrected myself.....

Yes, you just recently admitted you misspoke.

You denied what you said first, when you could have just said something like:

"Oh my, that wasn't what I meant to say, let me try again" and then go on to express whatever idea you had.

 

[blackhawk1928]

Check your facts. Obama added 2,4 trillion to the US government debt, a vast sum. However, the absolute 'champion' is Bush Jr. with 6,1 trillion.

Reagan added 1,x (I believe 1,8 trillion to the debt). That is a smaller sum than Obama, but it was decades ago. In today's money, he added far more than Obama did.

Granted, Obama's term isn't finished yet, but even with a second term it's unlikely he will break Bush' record. Also, a lot of Oboma's borrowing was done not because of his own measures, but simply to continue paying for Bush' mistakes like Iraq.

Conclusion: whatever your opinion about Obama might be, he still didn't raise the debt my nearly as much as his Republican predecessors.

You misunderstood me, you took a specific meaning out of my vague statement. Perhaps obama hasn't spent more then bush. However he spends at a much higher rate. If this rate continues then obama will make george bush look like a house wife coupon collector. Obama has spent more in his first year of presidency then any other president, and if keeps going, he'll demolish the world record of most spent by a leader.

It's unlikley that obama WONT break bush's record.

Moreover, congressional control has been in democratic hands since 2006, where was congress to stop bush's spending then?

Please stop the hipocrisy.

 

[Reynod]

Check your facts. Obama added 2,4 trillion to the US government debt, a vast sum. However, the absolute 'champion' is Bush Jr. with 6,1 trillion.

Reagan added 1,x (I believe 1,8 trillion to the debt). That is a smaller sum than Obama, but it was decades ago. In today's money, he added far more than Obama did.

Granted, Obama's term isn't finished yet, but even with a second term it's unlikely he will break Bush' record. Also, a lot of Oboma's borrowing was done not because of his own measures, but simply to continue paying for Bush' mistakes like Iraq.

Conclusion: whatever your opinion about Obama might be, he still didn't raise the debt my nearly as much as his Republican predecessors.

Thnaks for that.

I see you post a lot over at TG News ... welcome !!!

 

[NuclearShadow]

i dont see why the democrats (john kerry, david axelrod...) are pointing fingers at the tea party because of the credit downgrade when the tea party was the first to give notice to the huge debt. if we would have gotten a balanced budget maybe they wouldnt of downgraded us because that shows we wouldnt of had to worry about paying off new debt. what are your thoughts on this?

The credit downgrade also happened because of the clear inability for our government to work this problem out within itself. To blame the Tea Party alone is of course absurd and just trying to escape any responsibility themselves. However the Tea Party wasn't willing to work with anyone not even the Republicans on this one.
So they certainly were part of the problem but due to their size it is clear that they are the smallest of the reason compared.
Not that any of their plans (or lack of) would have done any good if they had their way either.

 

[wanamingo]

yes S&P did cite that one of the reasons they downgraded was because of the political difficulties in raising the debt ceiling. So of course fingers would be pointed at the Tea Party.

Besides what the hell does S&P know? These are the same people who gave AAA rating to Mortgage Back Securities.

 

[brentkhack]

Didnt S&P want 4 trillion cut and only did 2.4 trillion? And dont forget Dems also voted against the bill.

 

[dogman_1234]

Did they also tell you the major points they talked about was taxes?