Tea Party Plummeting

[Dr.House]

It's amazing. Every once in a while, if I listen to conservative talk radio, I hear some host making a mountain out of something that's not even high enough to be considered a mole hill. I could hear it at least twenty times a day if I chose to listen long enough.

Now, when the S&P report is delivered, and it's abundantly clear what S&P is saying (even though they do not mention any particular person or group by name), you're going to claim that not mentioning a particular group by name means that the report couldn't possibly be pointing to the how that one group was willing to take America right to the edge of default, regardless of the consequences? I ask that question especially since the report mentions the brinksmanship that was going on, and everyone knows from which side of the political spectrum that brinksmanship was originating.

IF THE REPUBS HAD NOT TAKEN THE HOUSE THE DOWNGRADE WOULD HAVE HAPPENED MONTHS AGO. Part of the concern was not being able to address the issues we face, If not for the house the issues would not have been faced at all.

You are speaking directly out of your ass.

^^ Ironic Post of the Day....



(you sure do win a lot of these, Synthia)

 

[Meister]

Yeah, TEA PARTY politicians. And the kook, Michele Bachmann, who's actually running for president voted against the compromise deal. Does that mean she would have vetoed it if she were sitting in the Oval Office? If she had, where do you think the DOW would be right now? Maybe around 7,000 (which is about where it was when Obama took office)? How about America's credit rating? In the cellar, probably.

Drink some more Kool-Aid, sonny. Our deficit and our spending got us where we are today. Not the few that really tried to address the problem and not just put a bandaid on the wound.
If not for the fact that we keep having to raise the debt ceiling and out of control spending we still would have had the AAA rating.
If not for the fact that we didn't address the spending in a serious way and not with the smoke and mirrors from the politicians we would still have our AAA rating.
Now just go spin and blame like you have been doing since teflon obama has been in office. I get it....but it's not fooling anyone.

If that were true, then they would have downgraded us last month or 6 months ago or a year ago.

They didn't.

They waited until the agreement, which called for no additional revenues or taxation or ending any subsidy, THEN decided to downgrade us.

It's the Tea Party Downgrade. They own it, and they celebrated it!

And I thought it was because it was the smoke and mirrors spending cuts....forgive me.

 

[ShackledNation]

Wait...are you really trying to base an argument off a poll controlled by CNN? Is this really the best you can do?

 

[jgarden]

Currently, there are 3 political parties in America under the guise of 2.

Many members of the Tea Party in Congress are not career politicians and therefore owe no real allegiance to the GOP. The traditional means which Majority leaders were able to assert party discipline (earmarks, withholding campaign support) no longer apply.

The fact that the Tea Party and the GOP have banded together is strictly a marriage of convenience - the Republicans need the TP members to achieve their majority status in the House and the price of this support is that it allows the TP to exert far more political influence on legislation than their numbers would otherwise warrant.

Whether the public rewards or punishes the Tea Party in the next election, 3rd parties, in some form, will continue to be a fact of life on American political landscape.

 

[Mustang]

IF THE REPUBS HAD NOT TAKEN THE HOUSE THE DOWNGRADE WOULD HAVE HAPPENED MONTHS AGO. Part of the concern was not being able to address the issues we face, If not for the house the issues would not have been faced at all.

That's merely conjecture. In FACT, if the Republicans hadn't taken controll, it's quite likely that the Bush tax cuts (responsible for something like 60% of the debt) for the wealthiest Americans would have been gradually phased out, thereby lowering America's debt to GDP ratio and preventing the S&P downgrade.

Got a link for that, sparky?

I meant to say 60% of the deficit.

But I can provide a link to a chart that shows how the Bush tax cuts have impacted our debt to GDP ratio. While the link takes you to the progressive site, The Center for American Progress, the chart itself is from information provided by the CBO and the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy, both of which are nonpartisan sources of information.

The Bush Tax Cuts Are the Disaster that Keeps on Giving

 

[ShackledNation]

Currently, there are 3 political parties in America under the guise of 2.

Many members of the Tea Party in Congress are not career politicians and therefore owe no real allegiance to the GOP. The traditional means which Majority leaders were able to assert party discipline (earmarks, withholding campaign support) no longer apply.

The fact that the Tea Party and the GOP have banded together is strictly a marriage of convenience - the Republicans need the TP members to achieve their majority status in the House and the price of this support is that it allows the TP to exert far more political influence on legislation than their numbers would otherwise warrant.

Whether the public rewards or punishes the Tea Party in the next election, 3rd parties, in some form, will continue to be a fact of life on American political landscape.

I would argue there are more or less only two parties. Democrats and Republicans sing a different song but end up pursuing similar policy. They both support big government. The Tea Party is the only party that seriously calls for limited government, and the only reason any Republican is saying the same is because the Tea Party has enough influence to force them to.

 

[Oddball]

Currently, there are 3 political parties in America under the guise of 2.

Many members of the Tea Party in Congress are not career politicians and therefore owe no real allegiance to the GOP. The traditional means which Majority leaders were able to assert party discipline (earmarks, withholding campaign support) no longer apply.

The fact that the Tea Party and the GOP have banded together is strictly a marriage of convenience - the Republicans need the TP members to achieve their majority status in the House and the price of this support is that it allows the TP to exert far more political influence on legislation than their numbers would otherwise warrant.

Whether the public rewards or punishes the Tea Party in the next election, 3rd parties, in some form, will continue to be a fact of life on American political landscape.

Currently, there is one political party in this country, masquerading as two.

We don't need a 3rd party, we need a 2nd.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Hang on a moment, I think I just laughed up a kidney.. ROFLMAO!!!!! I can see 2012 from my window!!! WOoooOOOooOOOoooOOot.. Team Tea Party Rockz!!

 

[jgarden]

..... I would argue there are more or less only two parties. Democrats and Republicans sing a different song but end up pursuing similar policy. They both support big government. The Tea Party is the only party that seriously calls for limited government, and the only reason any Republican is saying the same is because the Tea Party has enough influence to force them to.

I would argue that despite the political rhetoric, when it comes to "big government" and government spending, the Democrats and the Tea Party may have far more in common than meets the eye! The main criticism that can be directed at Democratic presidents is that they haven't been able to reduce the debt/GDP ratio as fast as their Republican counterparts keep adding to it!

1. When Carter left office in 1980, the debt/GDP ratio was 32.5%, the lowest point since WW2.

2. Despite his renounciation of "big government, Reagan left office with a debt/GDP ratio of 53.1% - up 20.6%

3. GHW Bush increased the debt/GDP ratio to 66.1% - up 13.0%

4. Clinton, the first Democratic president since Carter, decreased the debt/GDP to 56.4% - down 9.7%.

5. GW Bush increased the debt/GDP ratio to 84.2% - up 27.8%.

6. Obama is the only Democratic president since 1945, who has actually increased the debt/ GDP ratio. By the end of 2010, the debt/GDP ratio had increased to 93.2% - up 9.0%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

 

[Dr.House]

That's merely conjecture. In FACT, if the Republicans hadn't taken controll, it's quite likely that the Bush tax cuts (responsible for something like 60% of the debt) for the wealthiest Americans would have been gradually phased out, thereby lowering America's debt to GDP ratio and preventing the S&P downgrade.

Got a link for that, sparky?

I meant to say 60% of the deficit.

But I can provide a link to a chart that shows how the Bush tax cuts have impacted our debt to GDP ratio. While the link takes you to the progressive site, The Center for American Progress, the chart itself is from information provided by the CBO and the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy, both of which are nonpartisan sources of information.

The Bush Tax Cuts Are the Disaster that Keeps on Giving

Your link doesn't say that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for 60% of the deficit...

Got anything else to backup this claim?

One that actually says what you say, if you don't mind...

 

[Mr. Shaman]

As you can see, the more that people become familiar with the teabaggers, the more they don't like them.

Are you sure it isn't just the soundtrack?????

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p37MmbLgMH4]‪Tea Party Racism: The New Klan?‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

​

 

[JakeStarkey]

Please show us in the statement from S&P where it cites the Tea Party. Go ahead show all of us okay?

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.
S & P statement on U.S. debt downgrade - CBS News

It's amazing. Every once in a while, if I listen to conservative talk radio, I hear some host making a mountain out of something that's not even high enough to be considered a mole hill. I could hear it at least twenty times a day if I chose to listen long enough.

Now, when the S&P report is delivered, and it's abundantly clear what S&P is saying (even though they do not mention any particular person or group by name), you're going to claim that not mentioning a particular group by name means that the report couldn't possibly be pointing to the how that one group was willing to take America right to the edge of default, regardless of the consequences? I ask that question especially since the report mentions the brinksmanship that was going on, and everyone knows from which side of the political spectrum that brinksmanship was originating.

IF THE REPUBS HAD NOT TAKEN THE HOUSE THE DOWNGRADE WOULD HAVE HAPPENED MONTHS AGO. Part of the concern was not being able to address the issues we face, If not for the house the issues would not have been faced at all.

Not so, bozo. You have nothing to base that comment on. Such silliness by you and your comrades is one of the reasons the Tea Party plummets in popularity.

 

[saveliberty]

Observations:

1. The poll did not disclose party affilliations.
2. There is no actual Tea Party.
3. It makes no estimate of number changes in affilliation for the Tea Party.
4. The S&P reasoning for the downgrade reads like a Tea Party Primer.
5. The numbers are remarkablly close to the number of people who have an unfavorable opinion of Obama.

 

[thereisnospoon]

New CNN poll, just out:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/08/09/poll.aug9.pdf

A CNN poll?..yep there's a really good chance there were unbiased questions.
Ok, we've lost a nano-second of sleep over this one.
As though we really care about what a bunch of uniformed boobs who actually have time to answer these idiotic polls, believe.
You libs actually thought the 2000 Presidential election was decided a week before Election Day 2000 based on polls.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

*yawn*

No doubt!!​

"Americans For Prosperity, the Tea Party astroturf group “founded and funded by infamous GOP rainmakers Charles and David Koch, rolled into Jacksonville Tuesday, and only roughly 15 people showed up” to their “Running on Empty” tour."

Running On Empty​

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you don't like CNN, post a general poll that supports the Tea Party position.

You won't find one.

Go to RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Videos and Polls and see what you find.

 

[Synthaholic]

Drink some more Kool-Aid, sonny. Our deficit and our spending got us where we are today. Not the few that really tried to address the problem and not just put a bandaid on the wound.
If not for the fact that we keep having to raise the debt ceiling and out of control spending we still would have had the AAA rating.
If not for the fact that we didn't address the spending in a serious way and not with the smoke and mirrors from the politicians we would still have our AAA rating.
Now just go spin and blame like you have been doing since teflon obama has been in office. I get it....but it's not fooling anyone.

If that were true, then they would have downgraded us last month or 6 months ago or a year ago.

They didn't.

They waited until the agreement, which called for no additional revenues or taxation or ending any subsidy, THEN decided to downgrade us.

It's the Tea Party Downgrade. They own it, and they celebrated it!

And I thought it was because it was the smoke and mirrors spending cuts....forgive me.

OK - why weren't we downgraded the week or month before the deal? The economic situation hasn't changed since the end of June....

 

[JakeStarkey]

The American population clearly see it as the Tea Party Downgrade.

 

[007]

As you can see, the more that people become familiar with the teabaggers, the more they don't like them.

And the more times you find to say "TEABAGGER," the more you get excited about the thought of some homo dropping his huge, sagging, sweaty BALL SACK in your fucking mouth.

Moron.

 

[Synthaholic]

As you can see, the more that people become familiar with the teabaggers, the more they don't like them.

And the more times you find to say "TEABAGGER," the more you get excited about the thought of some homo dropping his huge, sagging, sweaty BALL SACK in your fucking mouth.

Moron.

Well, we know what's on YOUR mind!