Tea Party Plummeting

[Mr. Shaman]

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!

You noticed that, too, huh??

Ol' Pale Rider surely does get descriptive about such things.

​

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Has anyone notice that the right wingers have posted nothing but trolling posts? Look at Pale rider talking about his gay sex when it was a Tea Party follower that first called Teabagger a Teabagger.

 

[ShackledNation]

Has anyone notice that the right wingers have posted nothing but trolling posts? Look at Pale rider talking about his gay sex when it was a Tea Party follower that first called Teabagger a Teabagger.

Has anyone noticed that the leftwingers have been doing the same thing? Lately all posts have been trolling posts. Its called partisan party politics. Many people on this site are simply mimicking our own government with their trolling.

 

[Flopper]

Only the unintelligent believe that....

You need to read the statement that S&P released to explain why they did it.

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

I suggest you listen to the explanation from the horse's mouth.
S&P Credit Matters TV

S&P based their decision on two factors.
1. their projection for rising debt over next 10 years

2. their view that the two political sides can not work together to solve the problem.

All parties bear a share of the responsibility for not being able to agree on a plan to reduce the deficit sufficiently. However, the Tea Party with it's intractable position on raising revenue bears most of the responsibility. S&P established a negative outlook because of their belief that two sides will not be able to work together to take further steps to reduce the deficit.

IMHO, there will be no progress on further deficit reduction as long as the Tea Party is a force in the House. With an economic slowdown and possible recession on the horizon, there will be a call for more federal aid from states and local government, not less. Additional spending cuts would be devastating. In this environment there would be no progress in reducing the deficit without revenue increases which the tea party would oppose. All negotiations are based on the premise that that the two sides would rather agree than disagree. That does not seem be the case with the Tea Party.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

IMHO, there will be no progress on further deficit reduction as long as the Tea Party is a force in the House. With an economic slowdown and possible recession on the horizon, there will be a call for more federal aid from states and local government, not less. Additional spending cuts would be devastating. In this environment there would be no progress in reducing the deficit without revenue increases which the tea party would oppose. All negotiations are based on the premise that that the two sides would rather agree than disagree. That does not seem be the case with the Tea Party.

An accurate assessment.

Indeed, there was no ‘crisis’ prior to the TPM’s contrivance of one. Debt reduction factors nowhere in the calculation of economic recovery. It’s an issue better addressed after the economy is back on solid ground. The failure of the House, crippled by the radical extremism of the TPM, to enact meaningful jobs legislation and a comprehensive economic reform package caused the downgrade and the general pessimistic mood of investors wreaking havoc with the markets today.

 

[Mustang]

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...

I first heard the figure of 60% from Howard Dean. I usually check numbers from people I don't know, but over the years I've found that Dean is spot on with his facts and figures. Finding the info myself is proving more difficult, especially since pdf files are not quite as user friendly.

I've got a couple of links.

The US Deficit for 2012 is about $1.1 Trillion

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2012 - Charts

The Bush tax cuts have been estimated to have cost the treasury about $2 Trillion over ten years. However most of those cuts came in the later years.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12187/ChangesBaselineProjections.pdf

 

[saveliberty]

Howard Dean? The guy makes folks in straight jackets look sane.

 

[Meister]

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....

Because S&P waited to see what the Bill would consist of, Synth.

 

[Dr.House]

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...

I first heard the figure of 60% from Howard Dean. I usually check numbers from people I don't know, but over the years I've found that Dean is spot on with his facts and figures. Finding the info myself is proving more difficult, especially since pdf files are not quite as user friendly.

I've got a couple of links.

The US Deficit for 2012 is about $1.1 Trillion

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2012 - Charts

The Bush tax cuts have been estimated to have cost the treasury about $2 Trillion over ten years. However most of those cuts came in the later years.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12187/ChangesBaselineProjections.pdf

Screamin' Howie Dean?

Seriously?

So you admit you got nothing to backup the 60% claim...

Thanks, I figured as much....

 

[Political Junky]

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!

That's some vivid image he's got going.

 

[Synthaholic]

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....

Because S&P waited to see what the Bill would consist of, Synth.

Exactly! And when they saw that there were no revenues (due to tea party political brinksmanship), they downgraded us.

Absent the teabaggers' intransigence, there would have been and end to some subsidies, and closing of loopholes, at the very least.

 

[Synthaholic]

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...

I first heard the figure of 60% from Howard Dean. I usually check numbers from people I don't know, but over the years I've found that Dean is spot on with his facts and figures. Finding the info myself is proving more difficult, especially since pdf files are not quite as user friendly.

I've got a couple of links.

The US Deficit for 2012 is about $1.1 Trillion

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2012 - Charts

The Bush tax cuts have been estimated to have cost the treasury about $2 Trillion over ten years. However most of those cuts came in the later years.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12187/ChangesBaselineProjections.pdf

Screamin' Howie Dean?

Seriously?

So you admit you got nothing to backup the 60% claim...

Thanks, I figured as much....

Bush shit the bed for eight years, but you hang onto one blown-up, media-exaggerated incident in front of a bunch of college students.


You have no integrity.

 

[ShackledNation]

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

Because S&P waited to see what the Bill would consist of, Synth.

Exactly! And when they saw that there were no revenues (due to tea party political brinksmanship), they downgraded us.

Absent the teabaggers' intransigence, there would have been and end to some subsidies, and closing of loopholes, at the very least.

The raise of the debt ceiling is why there was a downgrade simply because if the debt ceiling needed to be raised, it meant government did not raise revenue or cut spending enough. The debt ceiling was going to be raised for sure. The reason the US government was downgraded is because it is going more and more into debt.

 

[Full-Auto]

I first heard the figure of 60% from Howard Dean. I usually check numbers from people I don't know, but over the years I've found that Dean is spot on with his facts and figures. Finding the info myself is proving more difficult, especially since pdf files are not quite as user friendly.

I've got a couple of links.

The US Deficit for 2012 is about $1.1 Trillion

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2012 - Charts

The Bush tax cuts have been estimated to have cost the treasury about $2 Trillion over ten years. However most of those cuts came in the later years.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12187/ChangesBaselineProjections.pdf

Screamin' Howie Dean?

Seriously?

So you admit you got nothing to backup the 60% claim...

Thanks, I figured as much....

Bush shit the bed for eight years, but you hang onto one blown-up, media-exaggerated incident in front of a bunch of college students.


You have no integrity.

You are not one to be discussing integrity.

 

[oreo]

New CNN poll, just out:

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

Blaming the Tea Party movement in this country for the S & P downgrade is like blaming the Betty Ford Foundation for alcoholism.

It's very clear from this poll that there are a lot of uninformed Americans in this country--that continually listen to one line comments from the likes of John Kerry and David Axelrod--and Barack Obama that the tea party somehow caused this downgrade--when just opposite is the truth. The Tea Party movement in this country has been out there for over 2 years warning of this oncoming train wreck in federal government (borrowing and spending.)

Barack Obama and his administration were warned by his own congressional budget office over a year ago that his spending was unsustainable. Moody's has been threatening to downgrade US debt for over a year now--if the President and democrat congress did not act. All of this happened long before the new freshmen tea party members entered congress.

Furthermore--with tea party support--the house passed a bi-partisan bill that had democrat support--it was called the CUT-CAP--and Balance bill that according to a CNN poll had a 66% approval of the American public.

Two-thirds of Americans support House Cut Cap and Balance Plan | Conn Carroll | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

Democrat senate leader Harry Reid immediately tabled it--refused to discuss it on the floor--and Barack Obama threatened to veto this bill if it got to his desk. This bill would have more than satisfied the S & P and all other rating agencies.




The FACTS are--Clinton spent 432 million a day--G.W. Bush spent 1.6 BILLION a day--and Barack Obama is spending 4.3 BILLION dollars a day. The Federal Government is currently borrowing .43 cents on every dollar it spends.

 

[Flopper]

I have not yet heard anyone with an answer to the key question, how do you provide economic stimulus to the economy while reducing the deficit? The two most power tools we have for stimulating the economy are tax cuts and increased government spending. Both would increase the deficit insuring another downgrade and still may not provide sufficient stimulus to fuel an economic expansion. The person that can answer that question satisfactory should be the next president.

 

[oreo]

I first heard the figure of 60% from Howard Dean. I usually check numbers from people I don't know, but over the years I've found that Dean is spot on with his facts and figures. Finding the info myself is proving more difficult, especially since pdf files are not quite as user friendly.

I've got a couple of links.

The US Deficit for 2012 is about $1.1 Trillion

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2012 - Charts

The Bush tax cuts have been estimated to have cost the treasury about $2 Trillion over ten years. However most of those cuts came in the later years.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12187/ChangesBaselineProjections.pdf

Screamin' Howie Dean?

Seriously?

So you admit you got nothing to backup the 60% claim...

Thanks, I figured as much....

Bush shit the bed for eight years, but you hang onto one blown-up, media-exaggerated incident in front of a bunch of college students.


You have no integrity.

It must be hard for you to move forward when you're continually looking out your rear view mirror?--

Bush is no longer President--and he hasn't been in office for close to 3 years now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

None of this stuff on three pages negates that the Tea Party is plummeting in popular approval.

 

[Meister]

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

Because S&P waited to see what the Bill would consist of, Synth.

Exactly! And when they saw that there were no revenues (due to tea party political brinksmanship), they downgraded us.

Absent the teabaggers' intransigence, there would have been and end to some subsidies, and closing of loopholes, at the very least.

When they saw that the spending reduction was all smoke and mirrors they downgraded it, Synth.

 

[saveliberty]

None of this stuff on three pages negates that the Tea Party is plummeting in popular approval.

None of it shows how many people are involved, joining or leaving either. What it did show was 21% of the respondents don't know who Harry Reid is and about the same percentage don't approve of Mr. Obama. Guess his numbers are plummeting huh?