Obama announces debt deal--GOP/Tea Party members WIN big!

[Liability]

The Tea Party is now finished as ineffective force in American politics. Why? Obama and the Dems get to raise the ceiling by another two trillion. Obama et al don't have to worry about this debt until after 2012. The BBA is a dead duck that won't float in Congress now. The Dems will go after and may well get increased revenues. The Dems may get up to five hundred billion in defense spending cuts.

Right.

It's just BEGUN as an EFFECTIVE force.

In actuality, the Tea Party movement will now begin to GAIN strength and seats in Congress.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Harding and Coolidge had a much worse situation than FDR did, especially since FDR refused to work with Harding to stop the bank runs between Nov 1932 and his inauguration in March 1933. Not only that but to make matters worse, Congressional Democrats released the names of banks taking loans from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to help accelerate the panic. Hitler's invasion of Poland, the low countries and France did more for the US economy than FDR ever did.

1. Harding died in 1922.

2. FDR refused to be bound by Hoover's failed programs.

3. Dems demanded transparency in the RFC.

4. Rearmaments and war preparations propelled Germany, Italy, and Japan out of Depression more quickly than the western powers, yes.

5. Relief for the needy and economic reform of banking and stock market exchange were right on.

 

[manifold]

Yup. They won. America lost. Congrats to big business, special props to your man Cantor.

Isn't it a bit early to be drawing any conclusions now? Shouldn't we wait to see how it works out first? As a patriotic American I can only say that I really hope you're wrong.

However this works out over the next year plus is likely to factor big in whether the Tea Party movement picks up influence in 2012 or ends up a minor footnote in future history books.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

It's definitely a Win for the GOP/Tea Party but i don't think it's a 'Big' Win. They did get some cuts and also prevented Tax Hikes. So they won but this deal doesn't really solve our shocking Debt problem. The biggest Losers in this are the President and the Socialist/Progressive radicals. They wanted big Tax Hikes but even their own Democrats told them "HELL NO!!" So the Tea Partiers should celebrate this Win but they should make it a short celebration. Because there is much much more work to be done.

 

[Liability]

This might be worthy of its own thread:

Sen. Lee threatens to filibuster debt ceiling vote – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Filibuster the bullshit!

 

[Oddball]

It's definitely a Win for the GOP/Tea Party but i don't think it's a 'Big' Win. They did get some cuts and also prevented Tax Hikes. So they won but this deal doesn't really solve our shocking Debt problem. The biggest Losers in this are the President and the Socialist/Progressive radicals. They wanted big Tax Hikes but even their own Democrats told them "HELL NO!!" So the Tea Partiers should celebrate this Win but they should make it a short celebration. Because there is much much more work to be done.

This is no win.

It's a big fat....

 

[P@triot]

The reason this thing should not have gone this far is that the Chinese are watching, Putin is watching, the Iranians are watching, Dear Leader Kim is watching this farce. The guy responsible for our national security was made to fold like a cheap umbrella despite having all the cards.

This is very bad news

Please! Barack Hussein "folded" with regards to national security on the campaign trail - before he ever took office. He talked endlessly about reaching out to Iran and making nice-nice with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Found it hysterical when he did so and Ahmadinejad slapped him square in the face! When it comes to national security, Barack is a typical idiot liberal community organizer who thinks you can make peace with any tyrant simply by caving into their every demand. He also reached out to Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, all while insulting both England and Israel.

Bottom line, he belongs in the inner city with a bull horn, not in the oval office.

 

[P@triot]

No it is not a win for America. The dimocrats have taken future generations and held them hostage. We still have a huge debt crisis.

Shut the fack up WillowTeabastard, the last thing this country needs is more partisan hack talk and finger pointing.

In other words, "Shut the fack up Willow because you speak the truth and the last thing my Communist liberal propaganda party needs is the truth".

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The reason this thing should not have gone this far is that the Chinese are watching, Putin is watching, the Iranians are watching, Dear Leader Kim is watching this farce. The guy responsible for our national security was made to fold like a cheap umbrella despite having all the cards.

This is very bad news

Please! Barack Hussein "folded" with regards to national security on the campaign trail - before he ever took office. He talked endlessly about reaching out to Iran and making nice-nice with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Found it hysterical when he did so and Ahmadinejad slapped him square in the face! When it comes to national security, Barack is a typical idiot liberal community organizer who thinks you can make peace with any tyrant simply by caving into their every demand. He also reached out to Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, all while insulting both England and Israel.

Bottom line, he belongs in the inner city with a bull horn, not in the oval office.

Harsh but true. This President is great at stirring up hate & bitterness by way of Class Warfare,but he can't lead. Divide & Conquer is what "Community Organizers" are all about. It's all they know. It's what they were trained on. All Americans should read Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals.' It really does give you great insight into Marxist Community Organizing. Alinsky wrote the book as a training manual for Community Organizers. Your 'bull horn' comment really does nail it.

 

[8537]

That's it? UE fell by 1/3 in 4 years and you think that's an accomplishment?

Yes! It fell more than 8 points. That would be the equivalent of about 12 million people finding jobs right now.

Harding and Coolidge knocked it down by 75% in 18 months and then dropped unemployment to virtually 0% 18 months after that!

That's a record.

Harding and Coolidge were dealing with a completely different crisis, one caused by the drop in demand from WW1 and fixed by a resurgence in spending to rebuild Europe. There was no crisis in the financial sector, there were no 4000 bank runs, investment spending didn't drop to zero etc....

Comparing 1921 and 1933 is just silly. Actually, it's worse than that.

True. Harding and Coolidge had a much worse situation than FDR did.

Lol.

GDP:
1918: 75.8B
1919: 78.3B
1920: 88.4B <- government spending on defense increased by about 6B. Without WW1, this figure would be about 82B.
1921: 73.6B
1922: 73.4B
1923: 85.4B
Change from peak to trough: -16.9% (and the peak was during our most active participation in WW1)

1929: 103.6B
1930: 91.2B
1931: 76.5B
1932: 58.7B
1933: 56.4B <-----FDR takes office.
1934: 66.0B
1935: 73.3B
1936: 83.8B
Change from peak to trough: -45.5%

 

[shintao]

The Tea Party is now finished as ineffective force in American politics. Why? Obama and the Dems get to raise the ceiling by another two trillion. Obama et al don't have to worry about this debt until after 2012. The BBA is a dead duck that won't float in Congress now. The Dems will go after and may well get increased revenues. The Dems may get up to five hundred billion in defense spending cuts.

Hmm, I brought that up last night when all the retards were getting drunk on the koolaide. Also, abortions not tied to funding, more money for children, free birth control for women, and no cuts to major entitlement programs, PLUS gutting the military in two phases, one now, and one at the end of the year. And because you can spend for every dollar you reduce, the military money can be used to beef up social spending.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes! It fell more than 8 points. That would be the equivalent of about 12 million people finding jobs right now.



Harding and Coolidge were dealing with a completely different crisis, one caused by the drop in demand from WW1 and fixed by a resurgence in spending to rebuild Europe. There was no crisis in the financial sector, there were no 4000 bank runs, investment spending didn't drop to zero etc....

Comparing 1921 and 1933 is just silly. Actually, it's worse than that.

True. Harding and Coolidge had a much worse situation than FDR did.

Lol.

GDP:
1918: 75.8B
1919: 78.3B
1920: 88.4B
1921: 73.6B
1922: 73.4B
1923: 85.4B
Change from peak to trough: -16.9%

1929: 103.6B
1930: 91.2B
1931: 76.5B
1932: 58.7B
1933: 56.4B <-----FDR takes office.
1934: 66.0B
1935: 73.3B
1936: 83.8B
Change from peak to trough: -45.5%

The idiots of the far right think they know enough to educate those who are better informed and think more clearly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Tea Party is now finished as ineffective force in American politics. Why? Obama and the Dems get to raise the ceiling by another two trillion. Obama et al don't have to worry about this debt until after 2012. The BBA is a dead duck that won't float in Congress now. The Dems will go after and may well get increased revenues. The Dems may get up to five hundred billion in defense spending cuts.

Hmm, I brought that up last night when all the retards were getting drunk on the koolaide. Also, abortions not tied to funding, more money for children, free birth control for women, and no cuts to major entitlement programs, PLUS gutting the military in two phases, one now, and one at the end of the year. And because you can spend for every dollar you reduce, the military money can be used to beef up social spending.

What a deal for the poor, the sick, the needy, the lame, and the brain dead like the TeaPots who are going to need all of it.

 

[P@triot]

I don't see why you guys keep thinking that cutting spending is the only solution, is it because you guys have really taken a course in economics or is it because thats what the rightwing propaganda machine has programmed you to believe? Its not about how much money you spend as opposed to how and where you spend that money, I say the government should invest more money in small businesses instead of these uber rich big business and do away with tax cuts for the uber rich, let their "creativity" not the government make them more money.

Because it's the only solution to the overspending.

And if we want to see unprecedented economic growth we would cut spending and taxes.

It's called history. You go with what works. And you eliminate what doesn't.

Government shouldnt be investing our money. we should.

You do realize, that FDR got the country out of the Great Depression by SPENDING more money than ever before, right? Particularly by setting up, SS, and unemployment, and by starting dozens of different governmental organizations that provide hundreds of different services, millions of jobs, and made the country better?

Your statement is 100% false. FDR's Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. was the key architect of FDR's "New Deal" and testified before the House Ways and Means Committee that the economic policies created by he and FDR failed the United States.

&#8220;I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. &#8230; And an enormous debt to boot! " - FDR Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr.

&#8220;We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.&#8221; - FDR Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr.

Unemployment never fell below 20% during his Administration, and after the second phase of the "New Deal", unemployment actually went up (phase 2 begins in 1937 with unemployment at 21%. By the 1938, unemployment is at 27%).

Is there no end to the misinformation and propaganda from the liberals? And how many times do liberal policies have to fail until liberals will accept that they are failed policies? We've had over 100 years of profound failed liberal policies - from the U.S.S.R. to Cuba to Greece to current state of the US. Nobody can possibly be this stupid - not even the Dumbocrats. I have to believe these are policies are planned specifically to collaspe the US.

 

[8537]

Because it's the only solution to the overspending.

And if we want to see unprecedented economic growth we would cut spending and taxes.

It's called history. You go with what works. And you eliminate what doesn't.

Government shouldnt be investing our money. we should.

You do realize, that FDR got the country out of the Great Depression by SPENDING more money than ever before, right? Particularly by setting up, SS, and unemployment, and by starting dozens of different governmental organizations that provide hundreds of different services, millions of jobs, and made the country better?

Your statement is 100% false. FDR's Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. was the key architect of FDR's "New Deal" and testified before the House Ways and Means Committee that the economic policies created by he and FDR failed the United States.

&#8220;I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. &#8230; And an enormous debt to boot! " - FDR Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr.

&#8220;We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.&#8221; - FDR Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr.

Unemployment never fell below 20% during his Administration, and after the second phase of the "New Deal", unemployment actually went up (phase 2 begins in 1937 with unemployment at 21%. By the 1938, unemployment is at 27%).

Is there no end to the misinformation and propaganda from the liberals? And how many times do liberal policies have to fail until liberals will accept that they are failed policies? We've had over 100 years of profound failed liberal policies - from the U.S.S.R. to Cuba to Greece to current state of the US. Nobody can possibly be this stupid - not even the Dumbocrats. I have to believe these are policies are planned specifically to collaspe the US.

Where do you come up with this shit? The unemployment rate fell from 25% to about 16%. The economy grew at record pace (See my earlier post with pre- and post-1933 GDP data. We went from losing 3,000 banks per year to losing 7. 7! But in true conservatarian fashion, you believe anything that confirms your bias and Heritage will confirm absolutely any rightwingnut bias.

Is there no end to the misinformation and propoganda from conservatarians?

 

[ShackledNation]

Harding and Coolidge had a much worse situation than FDR did, especially since FDR refused to work with Harding to stop the bank runs between Nov 1932 and his inauguration in March 1933. Not only that but to make matters worse, Congressional Democrats released the names of banks taking loans from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to help accelerate the panic. Hitler's invasion of Poland, the low countries and France did more for the US economy than FDR ever did.

1. Harding died in 1922.

2. FDR refused to be bound by Hoover's failed programs.

3. Dems demanded transparency in the RFC.

4. Rearmaments and war preparations propelled Germany, Italy, and Japan out of Depression more quickly than the western powers, yes.

5. Relief for the needy and economic reform of banking and stock market exchange were right on.

Hoover's failed interventionist policies you mean? You do realize that when campaigning against Hoover, FDR criticized his policies as too socialist, don't you? Hoover was not a "do nothing" president. He intervened heavily in the economy in unprecedented ways. And it led to disaster. FDR then pursued even more radical policies that led to even more disaster.

The War ending the Depression is also a myth. What was produced was tanks and war materials largely useless outside of war. Cities were destroyed in Europe. Exactly how is the destruction of thousands of homes and businesses economic growth?

 

[8537]

Hoover's failed interventionist policies you mean? You do realize that when campaigning against Hoover, FDR criticized his policies as too socialist, don't you? Hoover was not a "do nothing" president. He intervened heavily in the economy in unprecedented ways. And it led to disaster. FDR then pursued even more radical policies that led to even more disaster.

GDP (nominal)
1929: 103.6B
1930: 91.2B
1931: 76.5B
1932: 58.7B
1933: 56.4B <-----FDR takes office.
1934: 66.0B
1935: 73.3B
1936: 83.8B

49% increase in GDP in four years. You were saying something about "disaster"?

 

[BDBoop]

Yup. They won. America lost. Congrats to big business, special props to your man Cantor.

Isn't it a bit early to be drawing any conclusions now? Shouldn't we wait to see how it works out first? As a patriotic American I can only say that I really hope you're wrong.

I'm wrong. But that was my gut reaction when I first got the news, with no specifics.

 

[ShackledNation]

Hoover's failed interventionist policies you mean? You do realize that when campaigning against Hoover, FDR criticized his policies as too socialist, don't you? Hoover was not a "do nothing" president. He intervened heavily in the economy in unprecedented ways. And it led to disaster. FDR then pursued even more radical policies that led to even more disaster.

GDP (nominal)
1929: 103.6B
1930: 91.2B
1931: 76.5B
1932: 58.7B
1933: 56.4B <-----FDR takes office.
1934: 66.0B
1935: 73.3B
1936: 83.8B

49% increase in GDP in four years. You were saying something about "disaster"?

Some of the slowest growth in US history coupled with massive unemployment. The reason: FDRs policies. I call that disastrous.

 

[8537]

Hoover's failed interventionist policies you mean? You do realize that when campaigning against Hoover, FDR criticized his policies as too socialist, don't you? Hoover was not a "do nothing" president. He intervened heavily in the economy in unprecedented ways. And it led to disaster. FDR then pursued even more radical policies that led to even more disaster.

GDP (nominal)
1929: 103.6B
1930: 91.2B
1931: 76.5B
1932: 58.7B
1933: 56.4B <-----FDR takes office.
1934: 66.0B
1935: 73.3B
1936: 83.8B

49% increase in GDP in four years. You were saying something about "disaster"?

Some of the slowest growth in US history coupled with massive unemployment. The reason: FDRs policies. I call that disastrous.

Huh? That period between 1933 and 1937 is the fastest multiyear period of growth in modern US history. It's not "some of the slowest", it's "the fastest".

Unemployment fell by over 8 points, in modern terms a creation of about 10 million jobs.