The Tea Party and the debt ceiling

[Susan45]

I think this is something Obama didn't budget for. The Republicans are standing with the backs against the wall. They have no wiggle room at all.

The feeling of the average Tea Party person is that the reps were elected with a set of particular promises. They break their promises, they are unemployed.

Also, they have the expectation that Obama will fold. They feel they have seen him fold on issues more important than this.

One think I do think is universal in Tea Party folks like myself is the feeling that Obama has manufactured this crisis in order to play to the gallery.

So the Tea Party position on the negotiations is
1) Obama is not being sincere
2) They have their backs to the wall and they can't retreat even if they wanted to
3) Obama has no strength of conviction on anything, and he will fold

I honestly don't believe that there has been an issue more important. It hasn't been Obama's doing that has caused the right to say they will never compromise. I believe that politics is using compromise to come to a point where we can actually get things done.

But Baruch, from what I have seen there are several groups that call themselves the real tea partiers. And it seems to me they don't always agree. Is this what you think or is that impression of mine wrong?

I think you can divide the tea party into two main ideological groups. On the one hand, you have the independent, fiscal conservative, and libertarian wing that is concerned with small government, and does not look positively on foreign interventionism or government involvement in personal matters. On the other hand, you have the social conservatives, who are for small government in economics but still support socially statist policies and are less critical of the warfare state.

To me it is basically the Ron Paul side and the Michelle Bachman/Sarah Palin side.

Thank you very much. I know I've seen a lot from the social conservative tea partiers but I just wasn't sure what was going on. You post cleared it up considerably.

 

[oldsalt]

tea baggers are so scared of the President, they have to lie, make shit up, and just plain pout.

I hope "old saltie" doesn't represent typical intelligent liberal thinking ...but I fear that he does.

More intelligent than the sheeplebaggers. Y'all spent the last two years sniffing sarah's soiled panties and have nothing to show for it.

 

[oldsalt]

Well look what happened when the Dem's didn't listen to the voters about the Health Care Bill.
Dem's have totally forgotten that they work for the people. Republicans are doing what they were hired to do. Listen to their bosses, we the people.
We hire them ,we pay their salary's and we fire them. We the people are the boss.
Dem's are not suppose to be the leader of the people. That's why they got fired. They didn't listen to their bosses.

Is it really "we the people" who are unwilling to raise the tax rate on a hedge fund manager who pays 15% income tax on the $900 million dollars made in 2009? Is it "we the people" who don't want to close a tax break for a copmany's expense incurred in closing his American factory and shipping it over to China? Or is it the top 1% who currently own about 40% of the entire wealth of the country and still want more?

It's you who is believing that divide and conquer crap.
The wealthy pay 37% of the taxes. 50% of this counrty is paying taxes, that leaves the rest of us paying at 13%. They are paying their fare share already.
We the people want to change the tax system.
If it didn't cost so much in regulations, taxes and union bosses who make it way too expensive to hire people and health care costs, they would not have gone over seas.

No, they're not. that's bullshit and you know it. Let's flat tax, NO LOOPHOLES.

 

[Susan45]

Why is it okay for Obama to refuse to compromise on any issue and then express outrage that the GOP is unyielding?

Huh??

This president caves in more than a West Virginia coal mine!




(too soon?)

HAHAHAHA!! That post put me in a state of shock too.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why is it okay for Obama to refuse to compromise on any issue and then express outrage that the GOP is unyielding?

Huh??

This president caves in more than a West Virginia coal mine!


(too soon?)

But this time he would have to give up sending more and more money to constituencies and cronies and that could be a death knell for his re-election. On any other issue that doesn't put himself in jeopardy with them he seems to have almost no convictions about anything so it's easy to ignore that he reversed positions and trust the media to keep that low key or just shift a track and then pretend that was what he intended all along.

But having unlimited funds to direct to whomever he wants those funds to go is the only power he holds. He won't give that up easily.

 

[oldsalt]

I think this is something Obama didn't budget for. The Republicans are standing with the backs against the wall. They have no wiggle room at all.

The feeling of the average Tea Party person is that the reps were elected with a set of particular promises. They break their promises, they are unemployed.

Also, they have the expectation that Obama will fold. They feel they have seen him fold on issues more important than this.

One think I do think is universal in Tea Party folks like myself is the feeling that Obama has manufactured this crisis in order to play to the gallery.

So the Tea Party position on the negotiations is
1) Obama is not being sincere
2) They have their backs to the wall and they can't retreat even if they wanted to
3) Obama has no strength of conviction on anything, and he will fold

I honestly don't believe that there has been an issue more important. It hasn't been Obama's doing that has caused the right to say they will never compromise. I believe that politics is using compromise to come to a point where we can actually get things done.

But Baruch, from what I have seen there are several groups that call themselves the real tea partiers. And it seems to me they don't always agree. Is this what you think or is that impression of mine wrong?

I think you can divide the tea party into two main ideological groups. On the one hand, you have the independent, fiscal conservative, and libertarian wing that is concerned with small government, and does not look positively on foreign interventionism or government involvement in personal matters. On the other hand, you have the social conservatives, who are for small government in economics but still support socially statist policies and are less critical of the warfare state.

To me it is basically the Ron Paul side and the Michelle Bachman/Sarah Palin side.

A large faction of the baggers are non thinking fux news spouting sarah worshipping morons..Oh, you forgot those people, din'cha?

 

[peach174]

Is it really "we the people" who are unwilling to raise the tax rate on a hedge fund manager who pays 15% income tax on the $900 million dollars made in 2009? Is it "we the people" who don't want to close a tax break for a copmany's expense incurred in closing his American factory and shipping it over to China? Or is it the top 1% who currently own about 40% of the entire wealth of the country and still want more?

It's you who is believing that divide and conquer crap.
The wealthy pay 37% of the taxes. 50% of this counrty is paying taxes, that leaves the rest of us paying at 13%. They are paying their fare share already.
We the people want to change the tax system.
If it didn't cost so much in regulations, taxes and union bosses who make it way too expensive to hire people and health care costs, they would not have gone over seas.

No, they're not. that's bullshit and you know it. Let's flat tax, NO LOOPHOLES.

Go to the government site and it will tell you that.
I'm still looking and weighing in between a flat tax or sales tax.

 

[Trajan]

This is a great interview that explains a lot about why the Republicans are being so intensely obstinate.

The Tea Party and the debt ceiling
By Ezra Klein

Stan Collender is a former staffer on both the House and Senate budget committees, founder of the blog “Capital Gains and Games,” and a partner at Quorvis Communications, where he works with clients in the financial sector. He was also one of the first budget experts to address the House Republicans after the 2010 election. Looking back, he says, that meeting should have told him all he needed to know about how this budget battle has played out. We spoke earlier this afternoon.

Ezra Klein: How did you end up speaking to the Tea Party?

Stan Collender: You remember Snowmageddon? The next day, I was sitting at home with no power or heat and my cellphone rings. It was Michele Bachmann inviting me to be the first speaker at the first Tea Party meeting in the House. Now, you know my background. I was being considered for OMB in this administration. But where I come from, you don’t say no to a member of Congress.

The meeting finally took place on February 28th. This was the day before the vote on the first CR. So I spoke for 25 minutes, but it’s what came next that was interesting. After me were the Tea Party state chairs from Virginia, Pennsylvania and Florida. And they spent the next 45 minutes screaming at these members, saying, plainly, we elected you and we can unelect you. And this was at longtime members like Joe Barton, who long predated the Tea Party. I never have seen members of Congress treated like that. Especially by their friends.

EK: And was it a list of demands? What did the Republicans have to do in order to avoid being “unelected”?

SC: The marching orders were, first, you must not vote to extend the continuing resolution [that would keep the government open through 2011] unless it, in their words, “defunds Obamacare.” Number two, you must not, under any circumstances, vote for an increase in the debt ceiling. Period. No conditions. Number three, and they said this explicitly, we don’t trust John Boehner or Eric Cantor. And the state party chair from Virginia was from Cantor’s district. And, finally, the members themselves told me afterwards that what they thought they did wrong in 1995 and 1996 was they gave in too early to Clinton.

The next day, five Tea Party Republicans voted against the first extension. The second one lost 54 Republicans. The third one lost 59 Republicans. What I took from that was, first, that the debt ceiling was going to be a lot more trouble than anyone realized. They did not want a negotiation there. There was a religious-like fervor on that point: Voting for the debt ceiling was a sin, and you can’t just sin a little. Second, Boehner and Cantor were going to have a lot more trouble than anyone thought. And then the third thing was for all those who thought they could get a deal early, it was clear to me that there was no way they could come up with a compromise or agree to a deal before the deadline. Even if it was a great deal, the presumption would be that they gave up too much by not waiting till the last second, just like with Clinton. So there’s no way they won’t blow through the 22nd of July, the date that got set up for an early deadline.

EK: What do you think the chance is we see a deal before Aug. 2?

SC: Less than 50-50.

EK: What’s the scenario for that? Is it something like the talks seem like they’re going somewhere, and then whatever the negotiators come up with unexpectedly fails on the floor after the Tea Party whips on it?

SC: Something like that. In the back of my mind I keep remembering something Peter Orszag said, which was you were going to need a combination of Democrats and Republicans in the House, and the only way that vote would be acceptable for Boehner to schedule is after negative market reaction that spooks people. It’s not unlike how TARP got through. The average member of Congress has got to be sitting there saying if I don’t vote for this, it’ll be a disaster, and if I do vote for it, it’ll be a disaster. So without the negative market effect, there’s not enough pressure. But remember Bachmann is running around saying there will be no negative effect.

EK: Which suggests to me that a market reaction could have a more significant effect on the psychology of some of these members of Congress than we give it credit for. They’re not prepared for it, and if it comes, it disproves some of the assumptions they’re working with.

SC: Right. And remember the general idea on Wall Street right now is that there will be a deal because there’s always a deal. But Wall Street works off of expectations. So if the market realizes they got this wrong, the reaction could be larger than expected.

The Tea Party and the debt ceiling - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post

I am expecting a negative reaction in the markets if a deal is not reached. And it will probably be violent.

we will, but, lets be clear; when the 'deal' does go down, we will have only avoided the rocks and shoals, the waterfall lies dead ahead-

Will coming debt ceiling deal save America’s AAA credit rating?
Jul 15, 2011 07:34 EDT

Keeping America’s gold-plated credit rating may take both a deal to raise the debt ceiling (which will happen) and a meaningful deficit reduction plan of around $4 trillion (which is not happening).


Moody’s says it wants a ”deficit trajectory that leads to stabilization and then decline in the ratios of federal government to GDP and debt to revenue beginning within the next few years.”

And here is Standard & Poor’s in a report released last night:

If a debt ceiling agreement does not include a plan that seems likely to us to credibly stabilize the U.S.’ medium-term debt dynamics but the result of the debt ceiling negotiations leads us to believe that such a plan could be negotiated within a few months, all other things unchanged, we expect to affirm both the long- and short-term ratings and assign a negative outlook, If such an agreement is reached, but we do not believe that it likely will stabilize the U.S.’ debt dynamics, we, again all other things unchanged, would expect to lower the long-term ‘AAA rating, affirm the ‘A-1+’ short-term rating, and assign a negative outlook on the long-term rating.


and


Looking at the most likely scenario out there right now, Goldman Sachs has its doubts (bold is mine):

“Using our baseline projections as a starting point, the $1.7trn agreement we outline would represent substantial progress, but would probably fall short of Moody’s criteria. That said, we view any agreement that is reached this year as a first step; tax and entitlement reform efforts look likely following the election in 2013. With a cyclically-adjusted primary deficit of around 6% of GDP in 2011, additional consolidation clearly will be necessary, and thus we view this as the first round of what will ultimately need to be multiple deficit reduction measures over the next few years.”


James Pethokoukis | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters.com

 

[Mustang]

This is a great interview that explains a lot about why the Republicans are being so intensely obstinate.

The Tea Party and the debt ceiling
By Ezra Klein

Stan Collender is a former staffer on both the House and Senate budget committees, founder of the blog “Capital Gains and Games,” and a partner at Quorvis Communications, where he works with clients in the financial sector. He was also one of the first budget experts to address the House Republicans after the 2010 election. Looking back, he says, that meeting should have told him all he needed to know about how this budget battle has played out. We spoke earlier this afternoon.

Ezra Klein: How did you end up speaking to the Tea Party?

Stan Collender: You remember Snowmageddon? The next day, I was sitting at home with no power or heat and my cellphone rings. It was Michele Bachmann inviting me to be the first speaker at the first Tea Party meeting in the House. Now, you know my background. I was being considered for OMB in this administration. But where I come from, you don’t say no to a member of Congress.

The meeting finally took place on February 28th. This was the day before the vote on the first CR. So I spoke for 25 minutes, but it’s what came next that was interesting. After me were the Tea Party state chairs from Virginia, Pennsylvania and Florida. And they spent the next 45 minutes screaming at these members, saying, plainly, we elected you and we can unelect you. And this was at longtime members like Joe Barton, who long predated the Tea Party. I never have seen members of Congress treated like that. Especially by their friends.

EK: And was it a list of demands? What did the Republicans have to do in order to avoid being “unelected”?

SC: The marching orders were, first, you must not vote to extend the continuing resolution [that would keep the government open through 2011] unless it, in their words, “defunds Obamacare.” Number two, you must not, under any circumstances, vote for an increase in the debt ceiling. Period. No conditions. Number three, and they said this explicitly, we don’t trust John Boehner or Eric Cantor. And the state party chair from Virginia was from Cantor’s district. And, finally, the members themselves told me afterwards that what they thought they did wrong in 1995 and 1996 was they gave in too early to Clinton.

The next day, five Tea Party Republicans voted against the first extension. The second one lost 54 Republicans. The third one lost 59 Republicans. What I took from that was, first, that the debt ceiling was going to be a lot more trouble than anyone realized. They did not want a negotiation there. There was a religious-like fervor on that point: Voting for the debt ceiling was a sin, and you can’t just sin a little. Second, Boehner and Cantor were going to have a lot more trouble than anyone thought. And then the third thing was for all those who thought they could get a deal early, it was clear to me that there was no way they could come up with a compromise or agree to a deal before the deadline. Even if it was a great deal, the presumption would be that they gave up too much by not waiting till the last second, just like with Clinton. So there’s no way they won’t blow through the 22nd of July, the date that got set up for an early deadline.

EK: What do you think the chance is we see a deal before Aug. 2?

SC: Less than 50-50.

EK: What’s the scenario for that? Is it something like the talks seem like they’re going somewhere, and then whatever the negotiators come up with unexpectedly fails on the floor after the Tea Party whips on it?

SC: Something like that. In the back of my mind I keep remembering something Peter Orszag said, which was you were going to need a combination of Democrats and Republicans in the House, and the only way that vote would be acceptable for Boehner to schedule is after negative market reaction that spooks people. It’s not unlike how TARP got through. The average member of Congress has got to be sitting there saying if I don’t vote for this, it’ll be a disaster, and if I do vote for it, it’ll be a disaster. So without the negative market effect, there’s not enough pressure. But remember Bachmann is running around saying there will be no negative effect.

EK: Which suggests to me that a market reaction could have a more significant effect on the psychology of some of these members of Congress than we give it credit for. They’re not prepared for it, and if it comes, it disproves some of the assumptions they’re working with.

SC: Right. And remember the general idea on Wall Street right now is that there will be a deal because there’s always a deal. But Wall Street works off of expectations. So if the market realizes they got this wrong, the reaction could be larger than expected.

The Tea Party and the debt ceiling - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post

I am expecting a negative reaction in the markets if a deal is not reached. And it will probably be violent.

I saw Michele Bachmann react to all the talk by various credible sources that the US would likely see a drop in its credit rating if no deal was struck. She dismissed it. It reminds me of that show, "Jackass," ironically enough. For those who don't know of it, it's a show where young men do absolutely crazy physically dangerous stuff, seemingly oblivious or even possibly completely clueless to the very real possiblity that what they're about to do might just not go as they've planned and that they could get seriously injured, maybe even permanently injured.

Strident ideologues wouldn't bother me so much if they were only dangerous to themselves and their own followers. So, if a possible default could be structured in such a way that only the supporters of a default got economically hurt, I would say GO FOR IT!!! I mean, don't burn the rest of us when you decide to play with fire.

But that ain't the way of the world. And if this ends up happening (and I'll be really, really angry if it does), then I expect Bachmann and all the other loons (jackasses, really, in this case) to try to avoid not only blame, but any responsibility whatsoever. People like Bachmann have absolutely no business being in a position of responsibility for anyone other than her own family.

 

[EriktheRed]

I don't know why it surprises you guys about the TEA Party..



T axed E nough Already...





get it?

Doesn't surprise me at all about the TEA Party. The fanatical, ignorant, nihilistic behavior described in the interview sounds just like my perception of them and I'm obviously not the only one.

It also doesn't surprise me that the first thing you'd post in response to the OP doesn't really address the main point but just rehashes what you and other Teabagging wingnuts have said over and over again. We already get what "TEA" stands for, but you don't seem to get how foolish this uncompromising view is.

 

[Trajan]

This is a great interview that explains a lot about why the Republicans are being so intensely obstinate.

The Tea Party and the debt ceiling
By Ezra Klein


The Tea Party and the debt ceiling - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post

I am expecting a negative reaction in the markets if a deal is not reached. And it will probably be violent.

I give Ezra points for consistency....wellllll.....sorta

note the date please;

Why Democrats don't want to tie the debt ceiling to the tax cuts
By Ezra Klein
Posted at 4:06 PM ET, 12/ 9/2010

What's important to understand about the debt-ceiling vote -- where Democrats and Republicans will either strike a deal to increase the Treasury's borrowing cap or the country will collapse into default -- is that it's not like Democrats have simply forgotten about it. It's not that they haven't realized that they could tie it to the tax cuts, which Republicans want and which will add $900 billion to the debt. It's that they simply don't want to. “Let the Republicans have some buy-in on the debt. They’re going to have a majority in the House,” said Harry Reid. “I don’t think it should be when we have a heavily Democratic Senate, heavily Democratic House and a Democratic president.”

The theory goes something like this: Republicans will demand sharp spending cuts in return for lifting the debt ceiling. Let them. "Boehner et al have had the luxury of proposing all sorts of ideas that bear no relation to reality," says Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman. "Next year, they’ll have to lay it all out. No more magic asterisks, no more 'we’ll get back to you.’ "

In this telling, the debt ceiling vote represents a trap for Republicans more than an opportunity for Democrats. If Republicans want to cut spending, now's their chance. But that means passing a package of spending cuts, which they may find less enjoyable than simply saying that Democrats should stop spending so much. And if the American people aren't supportive of the Republicans’ spending cuts, the GOP will be caught defending an unpopular package as part of a political gambit that could lead to the bankruptcy of the United State of America.

more at-

Ezra Klein - Why Democrats don't want to tie the debt ceiling to the tax cuts

 

[peach174]

I don't know why it surprises you guys about the TEA Party..



T axed E nough Already...





get it?

Doesn't surprise me at all about the TEA Party. The fanatical, ignorant, nihilistic behavior described in the interview sounds just like my perception of them and I'm obviously not the only one.

It also doesn't surprise me that the first thing you'd post in response to the OP doesn't really address the main point but just rehashes what you and other Teabagging wingnuts have said over and over again. We already get what "TEA" stands for, but you don't seem to get how foolish this uncompromising view is.

Have you ever added up how much you pay in taxes?
Add Federal the one you send in every April. Then add all the bills you get, like your electric,gas,phone,cell phone,internet,water, all of that has federal tax.
Then add what you pay for you State,city and county and then say that you are not taxed too much.

 

[Susan45]

Well look what happened when the Dem's didn't listen to the voters about the Health Care Bill.
Dem's have totally forgotten that they work for the people. Republicans are doing what they were hired to do. Listen to their bosses, we the people.
We hire them ,we pay their salary's and we fire them. We the people are the boss.
Dem's are not suppose to be the leader of the people. That's why they got fired. They didn't listen to their bosses.

Is it really "we the people" who are unwilling to raise the tax rate on a hedge fund manager who pays 15% income tax on the $900 million dollars made in 2009? Is it "we the people" who don't want to close a tax break for a copmany's expense incurred in closing his American factory and shipping it over to China? Or is it the top 1% who currently own about 40% of the entire wealth of the country and still want more?

It's you who is believing that divide and conquer crap.
The wealthy pay 37% of the taxes. 50% of this counrty is paying taxes, that leaves the rest of us paying at 13%. They are paying their fare share already.
We the people want to change the tax system.
If it didn't cost so much in regulations, taxes and union bosses who make it way too expensive to hire people and health care costs, they would not have gone over seas.

 

[whitehall]

The first thing we have to do is determine whether the debt ceiling is a problem. That's pretty easy. It's more than a problem, it's a crisis. Next thing we have to do is determine if the Obama administration and the lock step mind numbed robots in the democrat party ever addressed the crisis while they had total majority in both houses of congress for four years and a democrat liberal in the white house for two of the four years. The easy answer is ...no. Blue state and red state Americans should be grateful to the Tea Party for forcing politicians to address the problem. There was no chance that the Tea Party could influence the glassy-eyed neo-socialists in the democrat party so they supported republicans and now the president admits that the debt is a problem and democrat leaders are prodding their membership to do something. Hooray Tea Party. The US would have gone down the tubes under democrat neo-socialists and cowardly republicans.

 

[Mustang]

Well look what happened when the Dem's didn't listen to the voters about the Health Care Bill.
Dem's have totally forgotten that they work for the people. Republicans are doing what they were hired to do. Listen to their bosses, we the people.
We hire them ,we pay their salary's and we fire them. We the people are the boss.
Dem's are not suppose to be the leader of the people. That's why they got fired. They didn't listen to their bosses.

Is it really "we the people" who are unwilling to raise the tax rate on a hedge fund manager who pays 15% income tax on the $900 million dollars made in 2009? Is it "we the people" who don't want to close a tax break for a copmany's expense incurred in closing his American factory and shipping it over to China? Or is it the top 1% who currently own about 40% of the entire wealth of the country and still want more?

It's you who is believing that divide and conquer crap.
The wealthy pay 37% of the taxes. 50% of this counrty is paying taxes, that leaves the rest of us paying at 13%. They are paying their fare share already.
We the people want to change the tax system.
If it didn't cost so much in regulations, taxes and union bosses who make it way too expensive to hire people and health care costs, they would not have gone over seas.

The wealthy are paying their fair share, huh?

Over time I've seen a lot of stats that I'm just too lazy to look up now. Basically, it comes down to the following. The wealthy in this country have done extraordinarily well over the last 30 some odd years due, in part, to public policies that favored them even as their taxes were slashed (that's one of the reasons they've done so well). Meanwhile, the middle class has lost ground as jobs were cut or shipped overseas etc.

But I'm sure that the wealthy are grateful that you're so willing to carry their water for them.

Maybe you should ask yourself where all those jobs are that the wealthy are supposed to produce when the tax rates for the wealthy have been going down, and down, and down over such a long period of time.

 

[Susan45]

Maybe this graphic will help some people see how the economy is split up.

 

[Trajan]

Is it really "we the people" who are unwilling to raise the tax rate on a hedge fund manager who pays 15% income tax on the $900 million dollars made in 2009? Is it "we the people" who don't want to close a tax break for a copmany's expense incurred in closing his American factory and shipping it over to China? Or is it the top 1% who currently own about 40% of the entire wealth of the country and still want more?

It's you who is believing that divide and conquer crap.
The wealthy pay 37% of the taxes. 50% of this counrty is paying taxes, that leaves the rest of us paying at 13%. They are paying their fare share already.
We the people want to change the tax system.
If it didn't cost so much in regulations, taxes and union bosses who make it way too expensive to hire people and health care costs, they would not have gone over seas.

can you explain your charts or is that it? you do realize that just posting those means, well, very little?

 

[Trajan]

Is it really "we the people" who are unwilling to raise the tax rate on a hedge fund manager who pays 15% income tax on the $900 million dollars made in 2009? Is it "we the people" who don't want to close a tax break for a copmany's expense incurred in closing his American factory and shipping it over to China? Or is it the top 1% who currently own about 40% of the entire wealth of the country and still want more?

It's you who is believing that divide and conquer crap.
The wealthy pay 37% of the taxes. 50% of this counrty is paying taxes, that leaves the rest of us paying at 13%. They are paying their fare share already.
We the people want to change the tax system.
If it didn't cost so much in regulations, taxes and union bosses who make it way too expensive to hire people and health care costs, they would not have gone over seas.

The wealthy are paying their fair share, huh?

Over time I've seen a lot of stats that I'm just too lazy to look up now. Basically, it comes down to the following. The wealthy in this country have done extraordinarily well over the last 30 some odd years due, in part, to public policies that favored them even as their taxes were slashed (that's one of the reasons they've done so well). Meanwhile, the middle class has lost ground as jobs were cut or shipped overseas etc.

But I'm sure that the wealthy are grateful that you're so willing to carry their water for them.

Maybe you should ask yourself where all those jobs are that the wealthy are supposed to produce when the tax rates for the wealthy have been going down, and down, and down over such a long period of time.

if you are dissatisfied with your station in life or earning power etc. I suggest more education, ambition, motivation etc.

 

[kiwiman127]

Well look what happened when the Dem's didn't listen to the voters about the Health Care Bill.
Dem's have totally forgotten that they work for the people. Republicans are doing what they were hired to do. Listen to their bosses, we the people.
We hire them ,we pay their salary's and we fire them. We the people are the boss.
Dem's are not suppose to be the leader of the people. That's why they got fired. They didn't listen to their bosses.

Is it really "we the people" who are unwilling to raise the tax rate on a hedge fund manager who pays 15% income tax on the $900 million dollars made in 2009? Is it "we the people" who don't want to close a tax break for a copmany's expense incurred in closing his American factory and shipping it over to China? Or is it the top 1% who currently own about 40% of the entire wealth of the country and still want more?

It's you who is believing that divide and conquer crap.
The wealthy pay 37% of the taxes. 50% of this counrty is paying taxes, that leaves the rest of us paying at 13%. They are paying their fare share already.
We the people want to change the tax system.
If it didn't cost so much in regulations, taxes and union bosses who make it way too expensive to hire people and health care costs, they would not have gone over seas.

So the wealthy pay 37% of the taxes. The Top 1% alone owned 42.7% of this national's wealth. And people defend the wealthy as like the are victims.
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

And things are getting worse for the working class,,,,but the wealthy are victims.

Workers’ share of national income plummets to record low

Over the last decade, the share of U.S. national income taken home by workers has plummeted to a record low.

Check out the chart below, compiled by the Labor Department, and posted this week by conservative writer David Frum. It shows that the decline began with the brief recession that followed 9/11 in 2001. But it continued even as the economy picked up again, and got even worse once the Great Recession hit. In the weak recovery since then, workers' share of income just kept on falling.

Workers
Click on chart to enlarge:

 

[Foxfyre]

The first thing we have to do is determine whether the debt ceiling is a problem. That's pretty easy. It's more than a problem, it's a crisis. Next thing we have to do is determine if the Obama administration and the lock step mind numbed robots in the democrat party ever addressed the crisis while they had total majority in both houses of congress for four years and a democrat liberal in the white house for two of the four years. The easy answer is ...no. Blue state and red state Americans should be grateful to the Tea Party for forcing politicians to address the problem. There was no chance that the Tea Party could influence the glassy-eyed neo-socialists in the democrat party so they supported republicans and now the president admits that the debt is a problem and democrat leaders are prodding their membership to do something. Hooray Tea Party. The US would have gone down the tubes under democrat neo-socialists and cowardly republicans.

One gentle correction here, though by implication you said it, the Tea Party did not support Republicans. They have supported people who embrace Tea Party concepts. Almost all of those, however, have been Republicans because most Democrats, even those who agreed with Tea Party concepts, could not afford the political fallout by being connected to a Tea Party endorsement. Those who had the cajones to do that, though have almost all been elected.