Congratulations, Americans, we have a debt ceiling deal. It wasn’t easy, it wasn’t pretty. Mostly that’s because Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republican caucus in the Senate considered the threat of default on the debt “a hostage worth taking” so that his friend John Boehner in the House could bet “98% of what I wanted.”

Of course it isn’t over yet. Senate Conservatives are using their filibuster to make sure Democrats can’t make any constructive changes to the House budget that would destroy Medicare along with many other services of value to average Americans. Since passing an American Legislative Exchange Council/Koch brothers wish list is of no interest to Senate Democrats (and can’t get signed by the President) the budget is apparently also “a hostage worth taking.” Plus another round of required deficit reduction, with the GOPTP making it clear that their masks and assault weapons will come out for that round as well.

How’s this working out for the United States who all our representatives supposedly serve? Not too well. Standard & Poors downgraded our debt, a decision which, should it become reflected in interest paid on Treasury securities will cost American taxpayers billions of dollars per year. S&P couldn’t have been more clear about the reason why. They believe the government is paralyzed by extremists who refuse to compromise, refuse to see that the only real solution will have to combine spending cuts with revenue increases. Conservatives will surely be along to tell us it’s because the amount of deficit reduction is insufficient. That isn’t true, though if it were the GOPTP would only be highlighting their own failure. After all, their the ones who walked away from a deal offering $4T in deficit reduction.

Democrats are ready for a balanced approach. Republicans have their hearts set on an extremist approach. Given their immense failure on this issue Conservatives will next be anxious to spread the blame, claim both sides are culpable. They’re that one crazy neighbor who spoils the enjoyment of your home in spite of the nice neighborhood. One of my favorite little-known writers said it best;

The commentators who say that the two sides were for so long “unable to come to an agreement” are laughable.

It’s as though your unpleasant neighbor has come to your door and said: “Give me your dog.”

“No,” you say. “I like my dog.”

“If you don't give me your dog I will shoot him,” the neighbor says.

“You can't do that. It would be wrong,” you say.

At which point the neighbor shoots your dog. You take him to court to seek justice and the judge says, “It seems to me your dog is dead because you two couldn’t reach an agreement.”

How would you feel about that? Like a Senate or House Democrat, I suppose.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110807/OPINION01/308070013/Donald-Kaul-Blame-No-Way-Party-debt-ceiling-collision

John B: That spot was saved just for you. Glad you found it.

John B:

Excellent post. The GOP/TP is still trying to "Cut and Run". They just refuse to admit that this is the "tea bag downgrade". Once again they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar only to deny it.

Sorry Tea Baggers, but the facts are the facts. You are the ones that are responsible for the down grade not President Obama.

You cannot consistently oppose and block everything he tries to do to move this country forward and then come back here and blame him for not getting things done when you are the ones that stopped him.

Repugnant hypocrites the lot of them. They make Karl Rove proud every day.

Funny how Democrats refusal to cut so-called "entitlements" rather than stop buying their votes leads to what they call "The Tea party downgrade".

What else would you expect from a party that still blames Bush for it's own failures and who's official "strategy" has been to label the Tea party "extreme" since they suffered massive losses to them in 2010 midterms.

"However, one of S&P's explicit criticisms of the compromise was that it didn't address the biggest drivers of the nation's debt -- Social Security and Medicare"

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/07/news/international/sp_rating_budget_expert_analysis/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

Awesome metaphor, JohnB. You know it's YOUR fault your dog got shot.

These are far worse than INTERESTING times,...unfreakingbelievable. And they want to say Obama failed? PRICELESS.

Was there ever a first ACT?

Obamacare inhibits job growth. Obama has overspent. Clinton mandated banks give home loans to unqualified buyers without a down payment and created the housing bubble. The Tea Party is about spending less. Can you keep spending your credit cards without the credit card company cutting you off if you can't pay them?

US Navy and John B:

The reason no conservatives have addressed the issues here is because there are NO conservatives here to address the issue.

What we have is ideologues who continue to repeat an ideology that has been empirically shown to be a failure. Here are a few facts that simply crush their arguments. At this moment we were supposed to have a national debt of zero dollars. That was straight from the CBO when George W. Bush took office. However, instead of paying down the debt, a Republican-controlled government INCREASED the debt by borrowing money to fund a massive tax cut, two wars, a prescription drug "freebie", and the increased interest expense occasioned by reckless spending and consequent borrowing. THEN, after they have accelerated spending to untenable levels, tank the economy, and shrink the GDP, they blame the incoming President.

In 2001, Eric Cantor comes to office and joins the Republican spending spree along with John Boehner who has already been in the House for more than a decade, the same House that will soon be led by convicted felon Tom DeLay. In the Senate, the wild spenders include Senator Mitch McConnell, another long-time fiscal wastrel. With this gaggle of drunken spenders, we have not-very-bright Republican President named George W. Bush - a "compassionate conservative". All these guys are self-proclaimed conservatives. They have also been feeding at the government trough for at least 20 years - ALL OF THEM!

To believe they are conservatives, we have to believe that creating a massive national debt is a conservative principle. To believe they are conservatives, we have to believe that politicizing the debt ceiling and taking the country to the brink of disaster - AGAIN - is a conservative principle. To believe they are conservative, we have to believe that continuing to increase military spending is a conservative principle. To believe they are conservatives, we have to believe that EXPANDING government to look into your bedroom, to look into your womb, to trample personal rights, to deny privacy is a conservative principle.

The truth is that these are the RINO's. They are Republican in name only. They are NOT conservatives.

It is a mistake to think that President Obama is a shoo-in because he is the best candidate. Hell, the G.O.P. put up a senile warmonger and a perpetual victim/economic illiterate, and last election was fairly close. Being the best candidate is not a slam dunk, and Obama is by far the best candidate.

The hard right is NOT going to budge. The math-illiterate TEA Party, the evangelical crazies, the bigots will not come over to Obama. The job is to capture the true independents. Make no mistake, as sure as there are right-wing extremists who self-identify as conservatives, there are self-identified independents who are also right-wing. You see them all the time in these threads.

It is a waste of time to argue with these guys. As I've pointed out before, if Obama walked on water they'd whine about the ripples. If he levitated, they'd want to see a flight plan. The fight has to be to pick up the true independents AND true Republicans. It is a pity, but there are many who simply haven't looked at what Republicans are all about these days. We must get these folks to look at facts and to examine where their party has gone. We also have to reassure wavering Democrats that President Obama may not have given them everything they want, but it's sure not going to be better under the dictatorial lackeys of the Big Money boys and Megabuck Monstrocorp.

The G.O.P. must be stopped until it is reclaimed by true conservatives. That isn't going to happen in the near future. Control of government must be returned to Democrats and we must demand that they do their job.

The T party Republicans will not admit they were wrong. A psychopath will always think of himself as deserving. Psychopaths they never admit doing evil. Terrorists never say they did it to do harm, they compare themselves with saviors. That is how they see themselves.

In the US the top 2% shares 80% of the wealth. It has been happening for the last 30 to 50 years. The rest of us have been sharing only 20%. So, if those 2% or 10% or 20% have been sharing in the biggest %age of the wealth, why should they share in the biggest % age of the tax burden when the numbers show that the policies designed have benefited them more than anybody else. Some say that 47% do not pay taxes, no it is less than that but lets say it is.

Those 47% who pay no taxes is not because they have more , but because they make less. Those 47% which it is not a real #, did not benefit from the tax policies. They are not in the top 2% or 10% (put what ever %age you want, it is a variable). Those 47% are part of the 80% of the population of the US who only share 25% of the wealth. So now, imagine their per year salary and compare.

David, for the moment, lets assume you are correct in that whatever label you want to attach, the republicans during Bush's era dropped the ball. I think many of us fiscal conservatives were never happy with the manner in which the republican congress spent like sailors and took an economy that was in good shape although somewhat inflated by the internet bubble when Clinton left. Now lets move to 2008, without putting labels on who voted for what and whose fault it really was to create the housing bubble etc, the fiscal policies of the last 3 years havent 1) improved matters 2) made them worse or 3) worked. The problem with politics is that nobody on this board who wants to see Obama reelected is really willing to state that some of his fiscal policies were not effective. If anything, Obama and many of the democratic congress have succeeded in pitting zealots on both sides against each other avoiding real compromise. Its just not true that many of us dont want compromise or dont blame both sides. I have done it many times. Its just not true that many of us fiscal conservatives are against revenue or tax increases, we want it as part of an overall solution that makes tax policy more fair and inclusive for everyone. We also want progressives to come to the table and be honest with real spending discussions and reform. Not just cuts to the rate of growth or solutions to social security and medicare around the edges. We want real discussions around politically incorrect issues that Afrommi is afraid to address in her post about income and wealth inequality. She assumes for the moment that 47% of us dont pay tax because they make less but goes on to assume that tax policy benefited the wealthy or higher income earners and ignores all other factors. Lets discuss how legal and illegal immigration impact income and wealth inequality. Lets see what factors such as the education gap, behaviorial choices, unions etc impact that gap. I am not advocating one position or another but people start screaming when you raise these issues but they are issues that need to be addressed. We continue to invest huge sums and increases in money in our education system with very little to show for it but we get resistance from the progressives to change the system and resistance from the conservatives to continue to invest more money. I dont blame either side but lets face it, a huge portion of that income and wealth gap are that college educated workers earn alot more than noncollege educated workers and as technology advances needing a higher skilled work force, its not surprising that the top end of middle class that used to be made up of union manufacturing jobs with a high school education. Those jobs just dont exist anymore. Its not surprising to me that we have 20 million legal and illegal immigrants with little education and lower job skills that drag down those equality statistics but we cant come up with a policy to deal with this issue so we blame it on tax policy.

Obama's fiscal policies whether they helped a little, made it worse or not at all is somewhat irrelevant because he owns it now whether he wants to or not. Any discussion to fix it has to have an honest evaluation of his spending and regulatory policies and is fair game for discussion. To just blame one side is not just helpful because, he does have a legacy of policies at this point that can be evaluated. The stimulus, HCA, Dodd Frank and the many thousands of regulatory restraints on business such as new EPA, Clean Air, medical insurance mandates increasing the cost of doing business etc. Whether those will be absorbed or good for the economy or not I guess will be judged in the future as they arent helping yet.

Keep it up you Progressive/Socialist Lib Dems. Meet ya' in 2012. Your President? The one everyone kept expounding as so 'intelligent'. NOT. He, Larry Summers, Christina Roma...remember his "Economic Advisors" know NOTHING about business economics that run this country. They, and he, have done their ultimate to tank and destroy our country. They are indeed deterents to our economic health not to mention they are running the country with "Governance" rather than "Government". The Tea Party were the ONLY people in Washington that had it RIGHT! And S & P has told you so with the downgrade. So keep it up. These Dem incumbants and the RINOS will be gone. The PEOPLE will speak at the polls.

From the article:

This is a leadership moment. Will Obama seize it?

Nope, he's clueless.

With Republican approval at 33%, disapproval at 59%,and no intention of changing the behaviors that have made their constituents mad I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for Republicans in 2012. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/09/cnn-poll-time-to-clean-house-in-congress/?hpt=hp_t2

Your Country is in a financial mess, you are in wars that will never end in the results you want, the people who helped put you in this mess are free and still profiting and here you are arguing who is to blame and keep blaming each other. Well while your concentrate on who did what to who and now who should take the blame, so he or she can win an election that is over a year away, while the entire so called free world is going to hell in a hand basket. Can't you get together and admit that each side has some good ideas and each side has some very selfish ideas and do something for the good of the working class so they wouldn't go broke every time one of them get sick or has an accident and gets sewed for more then he will ever make and the rich be happy with a reasonable rate of profit instead of taking what ever the market will bear and if that don't work buy out the opposition so you can control the market. Why do the super rich have to manipulate everything in their favour all the time? You are acting just like the big rancher that dams up the creek and charges everyone more and more, down stream to let a little water to run through for their cattle and if you don't he will buy you out at his price. Really there is enough for everyone if a few didn't want it all.

Not to mention, these rating agencies sat by idly, while the entire Wall Street Ponzi scheme was in 'full speed ahead' mode!

IR:

Great post to start the week. Watching the guy from S&P this morning defending his position and he said that the S&P is watching and very well could have another downgrade in 6- 18 months if the politicians do not get their act together.

He laid out pretty much what President Obama offered in his $4 Trillion Dollar proposal as the bench mark they are looking at. Hope they can do basic math the next time around.

Was does this sound like McConnell and the "Hostage" ideology that he is so proud of. Is the S&P trying to play the same game to get what they want??

I read the entire S&P release and what follows are excerpts that I find pertinent:

“The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plans 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.”

Note: S&P was looking for a $4 trillion dollar cut. The debt ceiling bill was $2.8

“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.” (Emphasis added)

“The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.” (Emphasis added).

“Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge…. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options.”(Emphasis added).

So the rationale for the downgrade can be broken into 2 arguments.

First, from S&P’s perspective, there was only modest savings and no new revenues. They got $2.8 trillion but, based upon their math, which they concede is wrong by $2 trillion, wanted $4 trillion. Given that their math is off $2 trillion, and if added back to their computation, that’s the $4 trillion they were looking for. That would have decreased the ratio of debt to GDP that S&P gave as one of the reasons for the downgrade. S&P has now conceded that their calculations were wrong and they still went ahead with the downgrade knowing, by law, we could not default.

Second. Both Fitch and Moody’s came to a different conclusion based on the same data S&P used and did not downgrade, what was S&P’s conclusion based on? I believe that the S&P downgrade was a condemnation of “The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable”. It was a downgrade based on the current state of US politics. It was a condemnation of a government so divided and so dysfunctional that the ability to compromise and do the necessary things to maintain the stability of the US has been brought into question….and rightly so.

During the debt ceiling debates, I wrote a post the said that no matter the outcome of that debate, the damage was done. The global markets have no doubt that we have the ability to pay but will now forever wonder whether we were willing to pay our debts. S&P made this the focal point of their rationale for the downgrade.

This downgrade was well deserved and, say what you like about S&P and all their past mistakes, I think they got this right. We brought this on ourselves…both sides…and if this silliness continues, look for another downgrade by all 3 rating agencies in a year to 18 months. The GOP needs to reign in their fringe and learn to compromise. The Democrats, simply, need to learn to show some leadership. The consequences of a failure to find a middle ground will lead to more hatred and divisionism and will only bring the country down the now very short road to a double dip recession or worse. I’m betting nothing changes until the 2012 elections after the American people have had to say and a new Congress is sworn in.

For those of you at FR, that claimed that default and brinksmanship had no consequences, that a cuts only philosophy was good for the country, I truly hope you folks have come to the realization that you were unequivocally wrong. That question has now been asked and answered. (See Addendum below)

The one thing that I can say with certainty, and not to be redundant cause I’ve said it over and over again, that if we had just let the Bush era tax cuts expire (that’s $4.5 trillion over 10 years) and had a clean debt ceiling bill, we would not be having this conversation.

What did Lincoln say…”a house divided against itself cannot stand”

This is history repeating itself.

Addendum:

“Standard & Poor’s offered a full-throated defense of its decision, calling the bitter stand-off between President Obama and Congress over raising the debt ceiling a “debacle,” and warning that further downgrades may lay ahead.

In a conference call with reporters, senior S&P officials insisted the ratings firm hadn’t overstepped its bounds by focusing on the political paralysis in Washington as much as fiscal policy in determining the new rating. “The debacle over the debt ceiling continued until almost the midnight hour,” said John B. Chambers, chairman of S&P’s sovereign ratings committee.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44047844/ns/business-us_business/#.Tj8gl2G-bts

An hour before the bell, Dow futures were down 226 points, around 2%.

Asian markets took a beating overnight.

I think the Bond markets hold or may even gain some ground. This is business as usual for Treasuries and, if anything, investors will be moving their holdings to the safety of the Treasury market. Fed rules on collateral and reserves have NOT changed. The Treasury is worth as much today as it was on Friday.

You can’t help but think that there will be a knee jerk reaction at the opening to sell. This is a very volatile market no confidence and the psyche of the market is unpredictable. My best guess is a sell-off at the opening followed by an afternoon rally. I think today will be bad but not a 500+ bad day. Most optimistic view is we could end up with only a small gain or loss I just don’t see that. I see a triple digit loss day but not a 500 point loss day.

Same as Friday, I see a midday or afternoon rally to soften the blow.

If I had a choice, I would move my holdings to the relative safety of the bond market or use the Anna Molly’s under the mattress cash alternative.

This is history repeating itself.

Excellent, lucid analysis, Ira. History repeating, indeed.

Party like it's 1937.

But where the geek? I mean, Greek.

And good morning.

p.s. Maybe I should rent out the space under my mattress. And thanks for the referrals. ;-)

Nothing is going to change until the hostage takers get on board and we raise revenue.

Anna Molly..

χαρούμενος, ευτυχισμένος από Δευτέρα έως σας

This is totally uncharted waters for the market so any guess is going to be just that....a guess.

I don't think there will be a mechanical sell-off today, but the opening is going to be scary.

You only interest in renting out space under your mattress?

Job1

That sums it up pretty much. The AINOS on the right prayed for this moment and their Gods have answered their prayers. I am surprised that Perry is not saying "HIS God has Spoken".

Dysfunctional is now looking like a compliment - the AINOS are well below that level.

Buy low, sell high. Isn't that the mantra? Smart money is scooping up deals right now. Stupid money is hiding it under a mattress. (Sorry Molly and Ira.) Maybe it's because I still have a job, but I see exciting developments in wind energy, in stem cell medicine and in infrastructure improvements. Our town recently renovated the public library and it is such an improvement in our lives. It really lifts ones spirit to enter a well designed building, and have all that knowledge at your fingertips. We live in a wonderful country. Wall Street goes up and down so much, it's more sensitive than a Hollywood actor, and not an accurate barometer of real wealth.

Where were the agencies when the Democrats established the sub-prime mortgage market which led to this recession. Democrats are yelling about the agencies giving good ratings to the pyramid scheme of sub-prime mortgages they started.

Amy B. Portland, ME..

Do yourself a favor.

Move your holdings to the bond market or if you are looking to invest, buy Treasury obligations. The return isn't great but it's a nice safe and conservative play.

When this blows over...and it will....go after those sales you think you see. Make sure you are looking at a long-term strategy cause if your investment plan is short term, you could get hurt.

Then again, what the hell do I know.

Ira ~

Και σε σας, κύριε.

Looks like I need to put a new item in my bookmark bar.

γελούν δυνατά

Then again, what the hell do I know.

A wise man once told me ....

ποτέ τον εαυτό σας αμφιβολία

Ira now if you and Anna are going to negotiate for mattress space then I'm going to start blushing. Seriously thank you and Anna for bringing up some good points this morning. Also thank you for your efforts back a few threads on the loss of of some members of our Military Family.

Anna Molly..

Γεια σου, είσαι το πιο έξυπνο άτομο στην αίθουσα.
Ποτέ μην το ξεχνάμε αυτό.

Ω. Marcus Bachmann. Ewww.

S&P made valid points in their explanation by pointing out the partisan politics that have crippled the country for too long. The GOPTP has certainly crippled Government's ability to improve the economy because defeating President Obama took priority over the pain and suffering of the people.

For 30 years, Congress has been kicking the can of difficult issues down the road. For 30 years, Congress has become increasingly partisan resulting in gridlock--compromise has become a four-letter word. Friday evening, the results of rigid ideology were made clear. Congress can no longer kick the can down the road. The best way to reduce the deficit and the debt is to pass spending bills targeted at creating jobs, jobs, jobs but it is likely that until the 2012 election, the GOPTP--a warped bunch of rigid ideologues--will continue holding American people "hostage".

This week it is the blame game. To whom do we owe this US credit rating downgrading? History provides an answer: Reagan, and Bush's I & II, "deficits don't matter", "tax cuts solve every problem", "starve the beast", demonize government, pit one segment of our population against another, Grover Nordquist. While democrats share some blame in kicking the can down the road, it is also democrats who fixed the debt and deficit messes of Reagan, Bush 41 and are trying to fix the Bush 43 disaster which resulted in a near Depression.

"United We Stand; Divided We Fall"; sadly it seems "divided" is winning.

Ω. Marcus Bachmann. Ewww.

γελούν δυνατά

You read that, huh?

It was just a reminder to count my own blessings. ;-)

You only interest in renting out space under your mattress?

γελούν δυνατά

Missed this earlier.

The space above the mattress is free, depending on who's asking. ;-)

Anna Molly..

Κατ 'αρχάς, ευχαριστώ γι' αυτό, τώρα μπορώ να συγκεντρωθώ.

Μετρήστε τις ευλογίες σας.
Θα συνεχίσω αυτό κατά νου, όπως το καπέλο πυροσβέστης συνεχίζεται και το γραφείο πιάνει φωτιά.

Count your blessings.
I will keep that in mind as the fireman hat goes on and the office catches fire today.

Ira:

Τι διασκεδαστικό είναι αυτό;

Have a great day. I'm off to work now, myself.

...and we got the knee jerk reaction.

The DJIA is alreadt down 326.

IR, great post to open Monday.

Ira, that's a really good analysis of what S&P REALLY said.

Anna Molly, thanks for putting your your take on it as well.

This whole thread has been very much worth reading.

Ira - Why did you leave out the part where S&P sited unsustainable entitlement spending as the main driver of our debt and the downgrade?

"However, one of S&P's explicit criticisms of the compromise was that it didn't address the biggest drivers of the nation's debt -- Social Security and Medicare"

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/07/news/international/sp_rating_budget_expert_analysis/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

Because it did not fit the narrative, pjam. For Obama worshippers, only those things that support their idol worship are worth recounting. Anything negative, or that even challenges their religion, must be redacted.

It hurts their faith.

pjam09..

Actually, I didn't leave it out.

Of the $2.8 trillion in cuts, most of that will be in entitlement spending cuts.

Obama said nothing was off the table and referenced entitlements in his national address.

Also if the Super Committee can't agree on cuts, that's another half billion cut from Medicare.

I made the assumption that entitlement cuts were already included and were also going to be cut deeper in the public debt negations.

S&P said they weren't deep enough. Since no one ones what the amounts are yet, that's hard to know and hard to quantify.

Damned good point though and I hope I answered your question.

For those of you at FR, that claimed that default and brinksmanship had no consequences, that a cuts only philosophy was good for the country, I truly hope you folks have come to the realization that you were unequivocally wrong. That question has now been asked and answered.

Sorry Ira, If your waiting for the Tea Bags to admit they were wrong forget it.

Nice post and thanks for the information.

The reason the market is down is because it NEVER should have been UP. It isn't correct to say it is a correction, it's not. Once again, the little guys are stuffing the pockets of the guys at the top. This is classic profit-taking. I still don't understand why anyone is in the market. It's damned near been gutted.

The underlying problems of the economy have not yet been addressed. Home prices STILL do not reflect value. Corporate profits have increased NOT as the result of increased sales, but as a result of cuts in employment. There's nothing wrong with lean and mean, but there is no serious increase in sales growth. Banks are still holding over-valued real estate. There are many other factors, but the most important is one of towering irony. It is the Republicans who have been singing the song of uncertainty. Businesses won't invest because of uncertainty. Right. So what do they do? They make uncertainty systemic? We still don't know where the budget will be cut, and even Standard and Poor's figured this out. (Yeah, I'd like to see S & P cut off at the knees, but they got it right.) They could have issued a single sentence to explain the downgrade. "Congress scares the crap out of us!"

What really bums me out about all this is that I'm getting that old "lesser of two evils" feeling again. I don't like the Democrats, their inaction, and their general gutlessness, but I really, really, really hate the Republicans and their lies, their deception, and their ignorance.

David Walker..

You wrote: The reason the market is down is because it NEVER should have been UP. It isn't correct to say it is a correction, it's not.

With all due respect..

Look at corporate balance sheets...in good shape. There is more excess cash...idle cash...almost $2 trillion sitting on the books of the major corporations.

Despite the weak economic growth, corporate PROFITS, not losses are very respectable.

This market is not being priced for a recession and this in not a correction.

We...the royal we...keep shooting ourselves in the foot and wondering why things are not better.

If the investment public has doubts about our willingness to re-pay our debt...not our ability to pay...this is the result.

but I see exciting developments in wind energy

Amy, Last thing I saw on the news about wind energy was people complaining about the ugly props, the noise, the shadow reflection, the constant humming of the turbines.....they (the designers) are having trouble putting up turbines on Cape Cod. Looks like it is one of those "not in my backyard" things....Oh, and btw, if you think the president's health care plan is a good one, why are all of these special waivers being handed out by the president and his cronies to their friends / contributors? I would think they would want to be in on this "great deal"?

Ira:

Sound businesses operate on the basic model of a "going concern". Sitting on cash hardly speaks to a successful investment/business strategy. Waiting for the "consumption" economy to go back into high gear is not going to meet with success.

The energy component of our economy has changed dramatically and it is going to ripple through time and time again. Most Americans don't begin to grasp the importance of energy in the economic equation. Food and energy are going to claim an ever-increasing share of consumer budgets.

I hate to use the hackneyed "jobless recovery" term, but unfortunately, it is accurate. We have a work force that grossly overvalues its worth. Investment money is going to go where it promises the best return.

Our chance at reclaiming a leadership role in the world economy declines daily because we refuse to admit that our education system is a horrible failure, and when we do it's for all the wrong reasons.

To add to that, we have a fairly large cohort that doesn't understand the role of government in the "capitalist" economy.

We'll just have to wait and see. For the time being, I see those cash reserves as having very little future value.

pjam, you're not quoting S&P, you're quoting a CNN columnist. Even in that you're cherry-picking the language in an attempt to spin this as something other than a Tea Party downgrade. Here's some other, more complete language from the same link;

S&P is pessimistic. It points to the reckless debt ceiling debate, which artificially tied the longer term need to reduce the debt with the immediate need to raise the borrowing limit to ensure the United States makes good on all its bills.

"The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed." S&P said Friday in downgrading the United States to AA+ from AAA.

S&P rating downgrade: FAQ

In some ways, it's easy to see why S&P is so pessimistic. Throughout the struggle to raise the debt ceiling, some lawmakers repeatedly suggested it would be better to risk default and not raise the ceiling until Congress passed a spending-cuts-only plan to reduce debt. (Read: Who is in the AAA club?)

Again, this is a crisis entirely of POLITICAL CREATION and nothing having to do with the fundamental solvency of the American economy. Just look at the last link in the above, "Who is in the AAA club?" It's a Who's Who of the European socialist economies Conservatives love to demonize. What's the difference? They're willing to match revenue with expenditures instead of trying to drown the government that helps support the world's richest economy in Grover Norquist's bath tub.

David..

Agree to disagree on this...we are as far apart as a liberal and a TP member

Obama OWNS this economy! Just remember you libs, beginning in 2008 when you Dems took control the spending spiked and never quit. Stimulus. Obamacare. You had 4 years to do a budget, hell you didn't even have a plan. And just like yesterday's pathetic narcissitic Obama speech, he still doesn't have a plan. You have managed to decimate our country. We're 'leaderless'.

Keep it as is, and take the difference out of YOUR pocket.

We're liberals, remember? We don't pay taxes.

Well said Anna Molly:

I wonder if Alan ever plans to grow old. Probably not, he can't think that far ahead. His other option is to refuse Medicare. Doubt if he will use that option. All the people I know, Republicans and Democrats alike are happy to have Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Alan, Joe in Albany, and Bill from Fairfax:

Your three posts above focuses on your belief that the solution for our economic crisis is to "restructure medicare" "put these programs in their final resting place" and "baby boomers unimaginable fiscal demands on entitlements"

The baby boomers have always been the biggest population cohort in the economy starting in 1945. The first boomers are now approaching retirement age and there will be 15 more years baby boomers behind them.The economy went on a building boom to build schools in the 50'60's; They went to college and the graduation rates increased across the board in their twenties ; they bought houses, had children , contributed to the economy and paid taxes.

Now you are saying that SS and Medicare need to be restructured?? What if we as a country figured out how to make sure that health insurance of Medicare is properly funded, that SS remains solvent for this generation and future generations? There is a number of ways to reform these programs without killing them . There is a distinction between reform and transform when you are talking about change.

Ryan's plan of restructure is as Ron said "voucher care".

The thing to remember is that the baby boomers are also voters and they vote in record numbers.

.

All the people I know, Republicans and Democrats alike are happy to have Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Not only glad to have them, Ron, but if things keep going like they're going, more people will be depending on the safety net in the future. Too often, conservatives fail to consider the consequences of their own actions.

I believe it was Alan, in fact, who told me when I mentioned that Wisconsin might be cutting out the school milk program, that poor people could just turn to other programs to make up the difference.

Forgetting, of course, that those programs had also already been cut.

And also, apparently, his own conservative principles that poor people shouldn't get handouts in the first place.

Complete disconnect from reality in favor of their own not-so-rose-colored ideological view.

Such an empty argument by the right--where's the democrat's plan? The democrats have one, it is called Medicare, it was passed into law years ago and it works. The liberal alternative is to keep medicare where it is and fix it for the future. Ryan and the GOP's plan destroys it and places it in the hands of private insurance companies traded on Wall Street. What a great plan the GOPTP has--continue trading "health" as a commodity.

Alan

What are your suggestions? Other than knocking the programs! Solutions?

I told you mine. It will work, and you know it.

You just keep refusing to admit it even exists. How unhelpful is that?

Not sure what Ron's plan is but here is mine: Let workers retire at 62 with full ss and medicare benefits, that gets older, higher paid workers off the payroll, reduces unemployment as those high school and college grads get the jobs we retire from and the medicare and ss fund stay solvent. Also, if someone makes over 1 mill a year they do need or deserve medicare or ss. And if we just stop using the medicare and ss money for other programs (bush 1's dirty little war), make those other programs pay back the money to medicare and ss we should be good for a very long time. help make it more solvent - tax the hell out of any corporation who moves even one job offshore, then make it illegal for us to purchase their product - can't buy a good cuban cigar, why should we have our bank service phones answered in India? and of course, close that tax gap the rich get after they earn $180,000. The only way someone weatlhy should get a tax break is if it is proven they create long term, high wage jobs with that tax break savings.

And S & P, Dow Jones, and Nasdac are all just a bunch of rich man's balogna - you don't have to eat that crap, it is not healthy for the working people of this nation, so put it down, buy local government bonds, help your community and get a solid (even if it is small) return on your monitary investment plus better roads and sidewalks to go with it.

time to have a real tea party boycott, stop drinking tea, drink lemonaid, soft drinks, hard liquor, water, coffee and milk!

All the people I know, Republicans and Democrats alike are happy to have Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

All the kids I know are happy to have free candy.

The medicare fix is simple. Fund or eliminate part D. Mediare wouldn't be underfunded if Part D were funded. How to fund it you might ask? Simple, raise revenues to fund it, which means an addition to the tax. Of course, the GOP/TP would never seek something so simple. We all agree that Part D adds value to coverage, but the GOP/TP way of paying for it is to slice and dice rather than doing the obvious.

AM, my little law review compassionate protector of the disenfranchised and union steward, it couldnt be your rose colored ideological view could it? You again use that tired argument that any review of spending must mean that us fiscal conservatives are making granny walk uphill both ways to the soup line without any realistic discussion of spending. Did you ever consider that entitlement payments such as social security and medicare are wealth transfer payments to seniors who already hold 80% of the country's wealth? What is wrong with having a discussion about entitlement spending reform? At least Ryan had the guts to offer a reform solution? It could be a horrible one, nobody really knows but the progressive have the same old tired responses as they do with education reform. They are scared of even having the discussion because the status quo is what they really want even if its not working. If democrats dont like Ryan's plan, stop whining about it and offer up your own solutions? The only solution that is offered up ever by the progressives on this board is to put their hands in someone else's pocket and say you pay for it not me. They are all for keeping someone away from a woman's body but have no problem picking that woman's pocket if she makes too much money as defined by them or is too successful again as defined by them.

What is wrong with unions contributing to states fisc in Wisconsin to make sure those milk programs dont get cut even further? What is wrong with the wisconsin state government unions having the same collective bargaining rights as their brother and sisters in the federal government? You always conveniently ignore the real discussion to personally attack. The progressive paid gang here spent the whole post blaming the teaparty for this mess and not offering up any solutions? They didnt offer any up during the debt debate and continue to avoid offering any up now. But I know, I am not as compassionate as you and see it through my own idealogical view that will never live up to your lofty standards

KIRK -- At least you are admitting that there is a problem with the issue of HEALTHCARE. The one good thing that came from Ryan's plan is that now all politicians are at least agreeing their is a problem!!! Do some research and see what the entire world is doing to answer the question of "HEALTHCARE". We would be a better country if we resolve this issue once and for all. Arrogance leads to piss poor solutions.

Bill in Fairfax - Your reply sums it up! We cannot continue to pay entitlement programs such as SS, Medicare and Medicaid, unless they are revamped or payroll taxes are changed significantly! The current model is flawed. Even the creator of Medicare claimed that!

P.S. SS is entitlement program as long as more money flows out then flows in!

Kirk:

I no longer have any interest in responding to the points you raise. It's not productive of anything, not to mention that you are unfair in your characterizations of me and the other liberals here. The only "solutions" you ever countenance are YOUR solutions; the only ideas you ever admit having any validity are YOUR arguments.

In the end, it all comes down to this. You can call me whatever you like, and accuse me of anything you like, but I'd MUCH rather have my "lofty standards" than think like you.

But I'll grant you this much. At least you seem to recognize the difference.

By the way, only my friends, some of whom are conservative, call me AM. So far, you haven't earned that right.

So can someone clear this up once and for all? Are social security & medicare entitlements or not? I see comments on the board swearing up one side and down the other that they are not, they are insurance programs that we pay into now for a benefit down the road. I can make sense of this right up until you then turn around and argue that a certain segment of society should be denied the benefits that they have paid for for as long as anyone else because they've made more than some arbitrary amount of money that you've decided is the upper limit for their benefit worthiness. At this point it becomes no different than food stamps, rent assistance, medicaid or welfare. I'm sorry but you cannot have both sides of this one.

Does the 0bama regime ever accept responsibility for anything??? It's either Bush's fault, the S & P, the Tea Party - you name it 0bama will not take responsibility for anything that goes wrong. No one will ever mistake him for Harry Truman.

Anna, I am just lazy so I apologize for calling you a pet name that I havent earned. Whats so interesting is that your reply is exactly the problem and you are correct that the only solutions I countenance and the only ideas with validity are mine because no one else debates me on the issues. You have never responded to me, neither as Navy, Fiesty, John A, Stupid. David, Clara and John B, every once in awhile we actually debate around the issues but everyone is always so ornery and full of personal attacks or afraid of being politically incorrect. Think of how you have responded to me by always pulling one sentence or one turn of phrase out of some long post and call me a bad guy of some sort. You never actually debate the issue because you get personally incensed by what you think my intentions are. You have no idea how I think but you like to think so, you have no idea how I actually live my life but you like to make fun of it and think your being cute and knowledgable about it. You have never actually responded to the points I make because to actually debate it would give it credence I suppose. If I really wasnt open to understanding your point of view why wouldnt I just spend time on some right wing board and give myself group hugs like you guys do to each other. If you dont spend the time to really understand the person's background and experience and viewpoints, how do you learn. If your point is to spend time on this just spouting off what you want to get off your chest to a group of like minded friends, then I agree, there is no use for someone like me. By the way, I am not conservative. I am fiscally conservative but very liberal socially on many topics. And I like to point out hypocrisy on both sides those who are conservative and are pro capital punishment but so pro life on abortion at all costs. Or those who are pro choice but against any limits on it ie late term etc based on the slippery slope argument but then dont understand the slippery slope argument on gun control. Or just like those who make fun of Perry's grades but if Obama released transcripits and were found to have a F in Econ 101 from Occidental College they would be defending him at all costs which clearly was the point you guys were missing yesterday. No different than those of you who I am sure are poking fun at Bachmann for her anti homosexuality church, but would have no problem with Obama attending Jeremiah Wright's anti american church. People miss the hypocrisy points because they are so caught up in the defense of their candidate at all costs.

I know you dont think you would like me and feel I think a certain way. Its too bad, that you and the others on here dont really want to have friendly although spirited discussion without personal attacks because there are some of us who actually could learn from you and you might even pick up a tidbit from us sometime.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have throughout their existence been subject to occasional changes in detail to account for changing demographics and projections. That's not new. What IS new is the Conservative opportunism that leads them to attempt to dismantle these programs rather than adjust withholding, benefit rates, and eligibility rules to deal with changes in projected need.

It's a change that is fully reflective of the attitude which created the Tea Party downgrade of the debt rating. It's brinksmanship in its purest form, absolute disaster capitalism.

Anna, I am just lazy so I apologize for calling you a pet name that I havent earned. Whats so interesting is that your reply is exactly the problem and you are correct that the only solutions I countenance and the only ideas with validity are mine because no one else debates me on the issues.

Kirk -- Our recent exchanges have not been in character for me, but believe it or not, I care about that, and so I'm taking this time to try to explain where I'm coming from as it relates to you.

You say you want civil discussion, but you evidently fail to recognize what you do that discourages exactly that. First, remember that I was not talking to you this morning, but you decided that you needed to respond to me. Then, read the entire opening -- and condescending -- first line of your post to me and try to understand what put me off immediately. Poisoning the well in this way is a bad habit you seem to have learned from JoAnna and Fairfax Bill and to a lesser extent from Albany Joe -- and it is not conducive to civil discussion.

I learn things out here all the time, and when I hear a good idea I acknowledge it. I try to be fair about the shortcomings of my own side, as I have just done up above with Bag Boy about President Obama's dissonance. You can tell me all you want about people who are "so caught up in the defense of their candidate at all costs," but you are not describing me. You only think you are because your ingrained stereotypes refused to acknowledge any other possibility. Your opening line also suggests just a touch of the misogynist, although I doubt you see it the same way. I'm not "your" "little" anything. Only one man can claim that. And even if you were he, I'm still your equal.

Your discussions -- at least with me -- are never "friendly." If I don't seem to you to be debating the issues, consider whether that might be because, whenever anyone happens to disagree with you, you accuse them of "personal attacks." You don't agree with what I say, so you dismiss it out of hand and accuse me of ducking. You react to everything I say by just regurgitating the same old stereotypes you arrived with, demonstrating to me that YOU have learned nothing here, and certainly not from me. For example, if you knew me or actually read my posts, you would know, among other things, I am no more comfortable with the President's concentration on his own religious views than I am with Michele Bachmann's.

In failing to convey those sorts of things more clearly, I have obviously failed, and I fully acknowledge that.

I will also concede one thing that has bothered me a little since Friday. I did take the position with regard to President Obama's birth certificate that he should have released the long form immediately. This may seem a bit inconsistent, but I think that's distinguishable from his college transcripts. His place of birth was a potential disqualifier, and when the drumbeats continued even after he released the short form, releasing the long form seemed like a logical and simple thing to do to put the matter to bed, once and for all.

Undergraduate grades, by contrast, are not a disqualifier, although they can be illuminating, as they certainly were in Perry's case. So I don't think any urgency applies to seeing President Obama's transcripts, any more than it did to Sarah Palin's. We know that she attended a bunch of schools over a period of years, and that she was no honors graduate. Enough said. We also know that President Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review. We know that he graduated magna. So did you, and that's a very big deal. Congratulations. But I'm not asking to see YOUR transcripts, Kirk. Magna says enough to me, as does the fact that the President then received a VERY plum teaching position at U of C, which I'm not sure that either one of us could have done. And so, at least in my opinion, that's enough to prove his academic prowess. If he released his transcripts, there are some who would then accuse him of bragging, and it would do absolutely nothing to put the issue to bed or advance the discourse. Heck, Rush Limbaugh still questions whether he was born here.

Let me just apologize for any part I have played in making this experience less than you were hoping for. I'm willing to start again, if you are, but you need to know where I'm coming from. If you're not, I understand completely.

Anna, Ok, if your willing to start over, I definitely am willing to start over and I will be the first to admit, I have been very snarky with you for a couple of weeks when you went after me and I cant even remember why. You took one sentence out of the entire post and ignored the substance and made it about me. Then I get accused of being too sensitive by Pietro who basically tells me I have to give it right back. You like to use something I say and make it into a cute slam so I guess I have been trying to do the same and I apologize. I have never denied that many times I am sure my posts come off the wrong way. To be honest, I am not sure how to respond to many of the fiscally liberal posters on here because you tell me whats the best way to reply to someone who has embellished, misstated etc some position or fact in a friendly way that will convey your thoughts in a manner that says respect? Maybe your reply would be that all of us progressives really arent interested in hearing from you Kirk which is fine but I dont get the purpose of posting here then. But I am open to a better form of communicating to the progressive gang on here. Explain to me how not to poison the well especially when responding to posts from Navy, John A, Fiesty Amy and others where lets face it their original post put poison in the water to start with and clearly are asking for a poisoned response. But I am definitely open to a different form of communicating.

As for you, I havent been on here long enough to have a history nor am I reading all the posts so I probably miss a ton. So I cant say I know your views to the extent you state. I also feel whether accurate or not, that any time my experience, knowledge or opinions are stated, that mine are dismissed out of hand just as you feel I do to you and I feel the same about regurgitating the same old stereotypes. I have to admit that I used to debate on a website that was alumni based and it was slightly left leaning but mostly on social issues and definitely not on fiscal issues. Whether people agreed or not, the respectful aspect and factaul or opinionated debate was much more insightful. I did learn a ton from people who I learned to respect that had differing views than me. Yes, I was looking for that here, but no I probably havent learned anything because there is no give on either side at all. The other board was closed down because the personal attacks got too mean spirited but it was just a few bad apples. Whether Fiesty, Navy and the gang are paid bloggers or not, it certainly comes across that way as none of them actually enter into any sort of discussion with anyone besides thanking the other person for being brilliant.

As for some of your thoughts. I always thought the birther issue was stupid and to be honest I am not sure I would have cared if they found out after the fact that he was born somewhere else. Just didnt care. I also dont care about his college transcripts and I know several people who know Barack personally from his chicago days and they say he is very intelletual and I trust their opinions so I definitely agree with you. I dont really think his law school performance means much good or bad. I knew alot of Harvard grads at the law firm earlier in my career, and I can truly say that legal performance (different than true intellectual legal pursuits) has nothing to do with pedigree. My guess is you probably agree. My point on the grades was all about making fun of Perry. To me all that is irrelevant. No different than calling Bush stupid when his SAT score was higher than Gores or Kerrys who lost to him. Did that make Bush a better president, clearly not as I think he was a horrible president. I dont agree with Bachmann's views on homosexuality at all and she should be criticized for them. If you thought Obama was wrong on the Jeremiah Wright issue then good for you, I just think the criticism should be consistent which doesnt mean you still cant be a huge Obama supporter. I know several wonderful people who go to Wright's church today and I still like them even though they still attend. Doesnt mean you cant disagree with his choices which is my point on consistent views and hypocrisy but I always get attacked immediately for saying anything that is perceived negative about Obama.

As for discussions with you or anyone, let me give a few examples and explain why I am interested because I am interested in learning about differing positions and also why its been difficult. I am not asking you to respond or discuss any of these topics at the moment just using these as examples because they are past attempts in which intellectual discourse was never provided. Lets say I asked you or someone else who is mad about what took place in Wisconsin and lets say I am asking honestly the questions outside of what you think of Walker or other politicians but asked "What is wrong with the state unions having the same collective bargaining rights as federal unions and second why do you think unions are needed for state employees in Wisconsin or anywhere else for that matter? Please dont answer this as I am using that as an example. Or like I have asked in the past, what spending cuts would any progressives on here support or advocate? I have already said many times I am all for tax reform with the result of tax increases so put the revenue aside. In the past I get no progressives to bite. Or someone will provide a statement like the Reagan era was a total depression and I will cite the GDP numbers from his 8 years and I get slammed as providing RNC talking points. Or someone goes after the so called wealthy as stealing from the middle class or income and wealth inequality and I will say we also need to discuss the reasons behind that inequality besides just fleecing one pocket for another and discuss the legal and illegal immigration, education gap, behaviorial choices etc and I get told I am not compassionate when my statement has nothing to do with compassion. John B once gave me statistics showing the growing income gap, which I never denied but said you want to fix it via the tax code and make bold statements like the rich are stealing from the middle class but I asked lets discuss the impact of legal and illegal immigration on the bottom quartile, lets discuss how the education gap might impact those numbers etc and I get accused of being a very bad guy. John A makes bold statements all the time that are just not accurate or are opinions of radical left wing college history professors or economists and his response is basically to ignore me and call me a thug. So Anna, maybe I am too sensitive but where is the intellectual beef from the progressives to debate (and I am definitely not calling anyone stupid) as opposed to having a group hug all the time. Refusing to have real discussions on topics chases people like me away and keeps this board for like minded folks. But I am open and I promise to be less snarky and petty. But give me some help here

Heck, Rush Limbaugh still questions whether he was born here.

Anna Molly Rush is an entertainer just like olberman, maddow, beck and the rest. They give their point of view and most of the time they are biased one way or the other. Anyone who puts stock or belief into those people as well as far left websites and far right websites are just as stupid as they are. By the way van Jones and others still believe our government blew up the towers on 9/11. We have idiots on both sides, and they just muck up good debates.

Wisconsin I see both the democrats and the republicans are crying foul. Americans for prosperity sent out a mailer for absentee ballots with wrong date and the DNC used robocalls doing the same thing. Why can't everyone just play fair. Wouldn't you agree?

@Richard ~ Yes. But then, what would we all talk about?

@Kirk ~ That was very helpful, and thank you. I hear what you're saying about other sites. This is a tough room, which in some ways makes it more entertaining, as well as more frustrating. But we can be civil when we want to be.

Okay. Let's start over. Just don't classify me with everyone else and assume what I think, and I'll try not to do the same. Listen to me, and I'll listen to you, and we'll get along just fine.

As for intellectual beef, I make no promises. ;-)

@Richard ~ Yes. But then, what would we all talk about?

Anna Molly Good Point. How about Oj or casey anthony. Not. I guess without the craziness a lot of people here would be bored. Kinda wish the rabid name calling could calm down a bit. I didn't vote for President Obama and when I refer to him or other politicians I do so respectfully but credibility gets lost with the constant political name calling. Have a nice day. Good Luck Tuesday. I think you are going to need it.

Recall in Wisconsin may not turn out like you hope.

Hey Dummy, socialism has been tried and failed, so give it up.

The Tea Party faction, as well as, many conservatives believe in smaller government.

Of course, the Tea Terrorist are way off base.

JobNone - Did the Democrat Caucus issue a new strategy of calling their replacements "Terrorists" instead of "extreme" since that one got leaked to the public?

I have never seen a political party so afraid for it's own survival.

JobNone - Did the Democrat Caucus issue a new strategy of calling their replacements "Terrorists" instead of "extreme" since that one got leaked to the public?

It's amazing at how out of touch these Republican/Tea Terrorist are as far as who has a job and who doesn't. The moment you disagree with any of them, they start pulling their stuck on stupid act and say someone who disagrees with them is on welfare or on food stamps or doesn't have a job.

The truth is the Republican/Tea Terrorists don't realize that welfare, food stamps or the unemployed situation hits people of all walks of life, and doesn't hit people according to their political views.

Of course the people that make the ridiculous statement aren't likely the brightest of the bunch. They most likely are people who just want what they can get and they don't give a Damm about others who have had a patch of bad luck.

I dough a single mom who is on welfare cares who the President is. All they know are they have to survive.

I just consider myself lucky because I have a nice home, a good paying job and money in the bank, and I do care about the people that are less fortunate and I support the President.

So, unless you know the facts about another person life, don't make such stupid statements.

Gee Nash

I make a lot of comments about how Obama is just like Bush Now his supporters, you, are just like Republicans during Bush Calling your political opponents traitors. Now where have I heard that before?

Dear Alan:

If you can't deal with the substance of the post, by all mean, be offended. dangerfield tried the same trick Friday deciding that he was a racist. Now you want to play the "political opponents are traitors" card.

Whatever is required to talk about something other than the reality of what the problem is and who is contributing to it.

I'm not playing that game anymore. My post speaks for itself and you haven't refuted a word of it.

NF: President Obama has been right about all the economic initiatives that he has been trying to get through Congress. . . investing in infrastructure and green jobs, extending unemployment, restructuring our health care system, calling for the end to tax cuts/breaks for the top 2%.

You have got to be living on another planet. Obama has got nothing right about any of his economic initiatives. None. It's the same mantra with you, "infrastructure, green jobs, more unemployment, health care", on and on it goes, and none of them work! 1.3% GDP - do you understand how bad that is? S&P downgrade - do understand how serious that is? A seventh of the population on food stamps - do you understand what kind of human tragedy that is? Unemployment at 9%+ - do understand why people go to bed hungry at night?

Do you understand anything? Anything at all?

traitor:

- one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

- a person who betrays his or her country

- One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country

Puts pledges to special interest groups ahead of oath to uphold the Constitution . . . works for the collapse of the Executive branch and declares their desire to see the President of the United States fail . . . cheers for the bankruptcy of American manufacturers like GM . . . gives corporations new rights of "free speech" not listed in the Constitution . . . threatens to not honor American debts in violation of the 14th Amendment . . .

Traitor is the word and it is perfectly applied.

Alan, NJ

Gee Nash

I make a lot of comments about how Obama is just like Bush Now his supporters, you, are just like Republicans during Bush Calling your political opponents traitors. Now where have I heard that before?

When did any Democratic leader gleefully talk about taking "hostages" the way Mitch McConnell did? Holding the country's economy hostage with the threat of destroying it if the ransom isn't paid comes as close to treason as anything since Benedict Arnold. McConnell also said previously that his number one priority was keeping Obama from being reelected rather the job senators are elected to do: governing the country. You've got to give McConnell credit for one thing, though. For a thoroughly evil man, he's refreshingly honest.

JoAnna:

I am flattered that you care enough to poop on my porch weekly.

What are you proposing to alleviate all the troubles you take such joy in listing? How do you suggest President Obama address all of these problems without any leadership from Congress, the body enpowered by the Constitution to pass laws? This obsession with President Obama is fruitless, but of course, the goal is just to keep everyone distracted from the bought and paid for Congress, Supreme Court, and yes media.

Thanks for reminding me why ignoring you is the only way. . .

Well said, Nashville. As you said, President Obama has for nearly three years been asking for the various things the analysts now want to claim as their own ideas. One only needs to listen to our President's speeches pre-2008 election, the State of the Union addresses and others as well to realize, the media and analysts are a day late and a dollar short.

I am flattered that you care enough to poop on my porch weekly.

You whined that no one would comment on the substance of your post, and I took care of that problem of yours. Now you still whine. Grow up.

NF: Congress, the body enpowered by the Constitution to pass laws?

They do, at least the House does. Paul Ryan. Remember him? Came up with a budget a few months ago, one that saved $6 trillion over ten years. Harry Reid and the Senate wouldn't even take it up. Remember the Debt Commission - lots of Representatives and Senators on that committee. Obama created it correct? They provided leadership on what to do economically, and what did Obama do? Ignored them. So quit you're b!thcing and complaining about Congress. We need something out of Obama, the man is AWOL.

NF: Thanks for reminding me why ignoring you is the only way.

You are too weak to withstand any criticism. Maybe you should start filling up that Ignore list of yours.

Well, Nash, to start with, he could fire his EPA director- whose policy edicts have killed about a million jobs in the energy sector alone.

Then, he could fire all his appointees on the NLRB- whose policy initiatives have killed at least a thousand jobs. I only mention a thousand because Boeing is big enough to take them on in the media. There are smaller companies that just duck and cover.

He could stop giving billions to his donors in patently transparent payoffs.

Although, actually, the most effective thing he could do would be to resign, and take Biden with him. Then, all the things I mentioned would happen- and faith in this country would be restored. If we really have to wait for January 2013, I fear we may not have a country left.

Nash:

The rightes running loose here every day just cannot stand the truth. Too bad, theirs deeds are all the proof we need. The GOP/TP has renounced almost every principle, value and virtue that has made this Country the Great Nation it used to be. Now they are on a systematic conquest of this country destroying its very fabric from within.

We said this was how it was going to happen.

Yea Obama's ideas have been awesome.... if you enjoy high unemployment and insurmountable debt.

Spending money, spewing rhetoric, and reinforcing to the handout dependent that he is the "hand that feeds" are all he does.

"Well if I don't get my debt ceiling increase I MAY NOT be able to pay you for your vote... I mean send your Social Security or welfare check"

Well, it's official- the left has lost its collective mind.

Navy's response to JS1, or me, or both of us, is some rambling, incoherent mess of words.

I will try to spell it out as simply as I know how-

Obama has FAILED.

On unemployment. On GDP growth. On foreign policy.

He has succeeded only in bankrupting this country, and paying off his donors with funds stolen from American taxpayers.

There might be some small glimmer of hope for the majority of us, who are not membersmof Obama's cult- seems the media is noticing that he might be bad for their party. If they actually start reporting his failures, tantrums, and corruption, he might just stomp out the door sooner rather than later.

That will certainly be good for a country ill served by someone who was not qualified to be elected to the Senate, let alone the presidency.

No sense of irony whatsoever that 4 Trillion was apparently the S&P's 'magic' number and that was what the President attempted, right?

They twitch and they squirm; but they simply CANNOT refute the facts,...so they try to 'take down' the messenger,...

Yes, President Obama KNOWS what is needed; but it will be an igloo kind of day in HELL before the TRAITORS make any effort or attempt at working toward THOSE ends.

When they fail and stall and stomp their feet,...their supporters send them more money and pat them on the back. And by 'supporters' I'm talking about Koch and Co.

We know what's what and we know what to do,...get out the Dem base and vote in 2012. Cuz' if there's one thing we Dems have learned, we can't negotiate with crazy when they are on a suicide mission.

Clara KCMO-

So right about the suicide mission.

Does Michelle Bachman know that we have her on numerous campaign ads screaming about how she would never vote to increase the debt limit?

Only fools would vote for this woman for President now that she has declared that she is for "default".

She should just drop out now!

Oh no! The evangelicals just love her so she will be the next POTUS.

This country is on a collective suicide mission thanks to the likes of Bachmann and her followers.

That makes what S & P did acceptable because they have seen crazy and it does not bode well for the country's economy!

THERE IS NO MONEY!!!! STOP TRYING TO STEAL FROM MY CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN!!! The pie in the sky temp. union and "green" jobs are unaffordable. Unlimited handouts for everyone(healthcare) are unaffordable. Wake up and watch the news of Europe!

Clara: No sense of irony whatsoever that 4 Trillion was apparently the S&P's 'magic' number and that was what the President attempted, right?

Paul Ryan had the "magic number" to $6 Trillion for the House's FY2012 budget. What did the Senate do with that bill again? Yeah, what the Senate usually does, nothing.

Clara: Yes, President Obama KNOWS what is needed;

Yeah, raising taxes on the "rich" and taxing corporate jets.

Clara: get out the Dem base and vote in 2012

For what? 10% unemployment? 12% unemployment? Obama is hiding under his desk today hoping something of his will go good today. Lets hope he packed a lunch, he's not getting out from there anytime soon.

Yeah, Clara, I noticed the "magic number".

I guess it's an eery coincidence that it was the same as the amount Obama added to the debt in two and a half years.

Weird, right?

I'm not in panic mode. Just because First Read has decided it knows how a President is supposed to act, under all conditions, doesn't mean I buy their perspective. I'm fine with the President being quiet over the weekend, considering that every action I have seen him take - including trying to compromise with Republicans in Congress, has been well-thought out, rational, and to the point. FR doesn't speak for me: I like this President, I didn't expect an all-powerful Daddy who would it all right, I trust President Obama, and, most of all, I am furious with the Teapublicans. Why in the world would anyone give them more power after what they did during the debt crisis?

Of course Amy is fine with it- she's so fine with it I sometimes winder if Michelle has her under surveillance.

Thinking people, however, are not fine with it. In this crisis, Obama finally seems to have broken his response pattern- we are not even going to get his usual three-days- out inane response to the downgrade.

What, exactly, did Obama do last week? Well, he signed the debt ceiling compromise,(while whining and complaining about it).

Then he had a birthday party/fundraiser. Then he flew back to D.C., and had another birthday bash- he invited some cabinet members and congressional representatives, so we got to pay for it. Then he went to Camp David to celebrate his birthday weekend.

It's not like the market crashed, or our national credit got downgraded, or a helicopter with Seal Team 6 on board got shot down by the enemy, or anything.

Today, he has a heavy schedule- he gets briefed this morning, then he's open until two fundraisers tonight.

When the going gets tough, party hearty!

Little note to Mark Murray, Chuck Todd, et als- Mitch Daniels did not get in the race because he feared the devastation his family would face- at the hands of you and your cohorts. The fact that the man's love for his wife was so strong he was able to forgive her for what most men would never consider forgiving was, in the eyes of the media, something too juicy to pass up. He was a great candidate, and could have saved this country from the economic disaster that is Barack Obama.

The man you were instrumental in getting elected.

Forget asking if he or any others regret not getting in the race- I'm more interested in knowing if you regret what your obeisance to Obama has wrought- and if you, finally, brushed off those unbiased, professional journalism skills.

“Then he had a birthday party/fundraiser. Then he flew back to D.C., and had another birthday bash- he invited some cabinet members and congressional representatives, so we got to pay for it. Then he went to Camp David to celebrate his birthday weekend.”

No Joe tells another tall tale aka lie. Actually our President paid for the party not the taxpayers.

AP: Obamas will pay for the president's birthday party at the White House.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-08-04/news/29849626_1_birthday-serenade-debt-debate-birthday-greeting

Right, Dennis.

The proof is that they said so.

As I recall, Obama also said that the majority of his donors in 2008 were "the little people". Turned out, they accounted for less than 25% of his donors.

He also claimed that he would bar the door to lobbyists, and all his appointments would be merit based. I guess donating over $200,000 gives you a lot of merit. And those lobbyists? Well, they don't count.

He also claimed he would have the most transparent administration evah! Except, well, not quite.

So, you expect me to believe that those cabinet officials and congressional reps were there because they are such close, personal friends?

I'll believe that the very day elephants roost in trees. Which will be the same day I take Obama's word for anything at all.

I'll believe that the very day elephants roost in trees. Which will be the same day I take NJNB's word for anything at all.

Same can be said for you honey! ;o)

Say, why don't you float your Navy Seal conspiracy theory again for us...

We could use the laugh! ;o)

Funny how Democrats refusal to cut so-called "entitlements" rather than stop buying their votes leads to what they call "The Tea party downgrade".

What else would you expect from a party that still blames Bush for it's own failures and who's official "strategy" has been to label the Tea party "extreme" since they suffered massive losses to them in 2010 midterms.

"However, one of S&P's explicit criticisms of the compromise was that it didn't address the biggest drivers of the nation's debt -- Social Security and Medicare"

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/07/news/international/sp_rating_budget_expert_analysis/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

Correction Bob,

It was the Tea Terrorist down grade.

I love how Teabaggers always bash Obama over the $4 trillion he added to the debt.

They have yet to admit that the President had to put all the sh!t on the books that GW spent like a fool on with no way to fund it. Let's name them again:

2 wars

Medicare Part D

2 tax cuts

This board sounds just like congress! Lets all blame each other for the problems that are and neither party admit that they had a hand in any part of it. How dumb to they think we are? We as calm, rational adults (unlike them) should be able to see that there is a huge problem and come up with a way to handle it. It's time that government starts operating as a business; not a free for all. Special interest groups should be against the law so they stop getting hand outs for god knows what. Big businesses and unions should not be allowed to contribute to any ones campaign so later they can "call in favor's". The era of the good old boys have got to end now.

But everyone needs to agree that you cannot cut peoples entitlements that are receiving them now. Changes need to be made no doubt, but make them the right way. First off, let's stop paying all of past and present Senators pensions (including raises) for the rest of their lives. They should be able to earn a living when they leave office or live the way the rest of Americans do. If these are the people that make the decisions on our lives, then they should be living exactly the same way.

Secondly, we need to bring in revenue from somewhere. That is simple economics and the poor and middle class who are struggling to get by cannot afford to pay anymore, so it should be up to those that have more to help out.

Anyone that feels somehow this is Presidents Obama's fault is being both foolish and ridiculous. These problems started long ago with deregulation of banking, then 911. When the markets opened after that we fell and then with that war that never stopped and the housing market crashing (which cannot be blamed on President Obama). GWB bailed out the banks and no one is screaming about that and what kind of debt did that add to this mess? President Obama has tried numerous ideas to help get this nation back on it's feet and if anything, it is the banks that were bailed out that seem to be continually holding us back.

Stop complaining about who's mess this is, it's everyone's. The thing to do now is come up with real constructive ideas on how to fix it.

Demonomics plain and simple... with an emphasis on Demon.

Non party owned sheep know its the "Democrat vote buying" downgrade:

"However, one of S&P's explicit criticisms of the compromise was that it didn't address the biggest drivers of the nation's debt -- Social Security and Medicare"

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/07/news/international/sp_rating_budget_expert_analysis/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

Congratulations pjam, you've managed to not quote S&P in exactly the same way as another Conservative did further up the page. That must be the chosen Conservative talking point to get out of responsibility for the mess they created. Let's look at what else the writer said;

S&P is pessimistic. It points to the reckless debt ceiling debate, which artificially tied the longer term need to reduce the debt with the immediate need to raise the borrowing limit to ensure the United States makes good on all its bills.

"The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed." S&P said Friday in downgrading the United States to AA+ from AAA.

S&P rating downgrade: FAQ

In some ways, it's easy to see why S&P is so pessimistic. Throughout the struggle to raise the debt ceiling, some lawmakers repeatedly suggested it would be better to risk default and not raise the ceiling until Congress passed a spending-cuts-only plan to reduce debt. (Read: Who is in the AAA club?)

That's a direct statement that 1) it was a crisis of POLITICAL creation, just as John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have admitted and 2) it was a crisis created by Republican Conservatives, just as John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have admitted.

Congratulations Tea Party partisans, you got 98% of what you wanted. Too bad America has to pay for your reckless ideology.

Thanks, Anna Molly, for the links. What a hoot! After the drivel I've been reading in so many of these posts from the tea baggers it's good to have a little levity!

As you will notice, the two nominations Johnson has moved to block are a woman and an African American man. I don’t know anything about the woman beyond what is written in the article, but her list of achievements is pretty impressive. Johnson dismisses her as “unqualified.”

Anna Molly Maybe Johnson knows alot more about the candidates then ordinary citizens like you or I from past experiences there is a lot of research done on these candidates and there could be something there. Not saying there is but there could be. I do know that there is a litmus test for dems to vote for a candidate (Roe v Wade Test), if you don't believe it is good law then they will vote against you. Personally, I think that if you are qualified you should be accepted. The republicans after all voted in the head of the ACLU to SCOTUS Ruth Bader Ginsburg knowing full well her ideology. The only reason things are so whacked now is the dems treatment of Bork. Since then conservatives vote for their own and dems their own to get their ideology on the Courts. So stupid, how many could have made great justices on Federal or State level if this was not the case.

What I found fascinating Nash, is there are 30 comments on the Navy Seal FR thread over the weekend, versus 1800 on some bible banging ignorant TX Governor & his prayapalooza!

PS: And NJNB was right in the middle of it, weaving one of her half assed conspiracy theories...

*shakes head*

Amen, and bless our troops and their families.

Feisty, I posted something similar this morning on the Navy Seals. It greatly disturbs me that their sacrifice is not more recognized. These are true American hero's and they deserve our loyalty and respect.

These are true American hero's and they deserve our loyalty and respect.

They sure do, along with their families...

lisa s-1749992 and Feisty...

Ditto that. You can't help but feel the hurt their families, comrades and the entire country feels.

Thoughts and prayers to the families of our military personnel who lost their lives this past weekend.

Why does the media feel it necessary to bring spouses of the lost on TV when those spouses are clearly grieving and have difficulty doing the interview? The Today Show did that again this morning. I find it insensitive and disrespectful--viewers do not need to see the grief to understand it is there.

Great honorable brave men. We are grateful to them for their service and to all who serve.

Donations are needed: Navy Seals Foundation & Woundedwarriors.com

My thoughts and prayers go out to their families. I saw a heart wrenching interview on the Today show this morning with the family of one of these hero's. His father begged the country to keep politics out this and just remember their sacrifice. Wounded Warriors is a wonderful way to honor the men and women who serve. I encourage all to donate their time and money.

Jody-

One would think with all of that audio and video of Republican leaders coming off like "job killing" crazies that they would stop talking. But they simply cannot help themselves.

They have made it perfectly clear for the past 30 months that they only care about defeating President Obama and voting "no" on all of his policy initiatives.

S & P was right on the "dysfunction"in Washington but wrong on the remedy!

Right. On. Jody!

Well said Jody. Well said.

Dan:

Kudos!!!

Excellent post Dan!

The darn facts are impossible to dispute! ;o)

S&P said a minimum of $4 trillion. Both Cut, Cap, and Balance and the Ryan Plan called for over $7 trillion in cuts. Along with the cuts, both plans balanced the budget and capped spending which were labeled as necessary step for long term economic success and health by S&P. Democrats is the Senate tabled both bills which S&P says would have saved our rating . They did not say the bill Obama backed would have saved the rating. It met the bare minimum. All that plan would have done is delayed the downgrade. Moody's is now warning the same downgrade. What can the Democrats say, they presided over the downgrade. What S&P and Moody are complaining about are the results of the Obama agenda. If the Tea Party had not come to Washington, would we even have been talking about cuts at all. They are the ones who have been pushing the cuts which S&P wants.

@Dan -- It is the failed leadership of the president. His inability to bring all sides together -- no matter how stubborn they are. He had no plan. He would never talk to factions and explain the issues as he sees them. He ignored them, He made fun of them. He talked down to them. He failed. He acted like a high school principal ala Maureen Dowd. He was Luke Skywalker but the Tea Party took his light saber -- truer words have never been spoken.

Ray

Way to spin the S&P rating into something its not.

Many experts say, cutting too much government spending would reverse our economic recovery. The President's 4 trillion plan included some reasonable increases in revenue, like retiring the subsidies the most profitable industry in the history of the world receives.

The Teapublicans rejected reason, took the economy hostage, played chicken with the President, and frightened investors, the global markets and consumers, in the process. Why would anyone vote to give these crazies more power to disrupt our economy?

@Amy -- and the president showed his ineptness, his inexperience, his arrogance in dealing with the situation. He failed this country.

Terrific post, Dan. President Obama did want the grand bargain. S&P supported a balanced approach.

The Ryan Plan actually added more deficit and debt spending, it was not a balanced approach--it was strictly cuts including more tax cuts which decreased revenues further.

Yesterday, GOPTP Senator Lindsay Graham tried to paint the Tea Party as the ones who came up with the $4 Trillion plan and that they supported it. Nice try by Graham but the entire country knows it was the Tea Party that refused our President's plan because it contained revenue increases.

Balanced Budget Amendment Another trip to the twilight Zone

First: To become law, proposed constitutional amendments must be approved by two-thirds majority votes in the House and the Senate, and then ratified by three-quarters of the 50 states (38 States must ratify). That is just not going to happen in this century.

The GOP/TP is trying to use this as a tactic to try and claim who is for a Balance Budget and who is not. This proposal is not about balancing the budget via a constitutional amendment. It is about taking just about everything that was in the Ryan Bill and putting it into concrete. Even more and larger cuts up to 70%, virtually guarantees that you can never raise taxes (needs 2/3 vote to do so), etc see below. This is like asking somebody when was the last time you beat your wife, and not do you believe in a Balance Budget or not. Again, this is not about Balancing the Budget and more than the Ryan Bill was about Fiscal Responsibility. This is another example of smoke and mirrors, anything to stall talking about jobs, the economy and education.

President Clinton managed to give Bush a “Surplus” and he did not need a constitutional Amendment, neither did the other President that either balanced the budget or created a surplus.

How bad is this bill?

http://www.cbpp.org/files/6-6-11bud.pdf

“The constitutional balanced budget amendment that the House Judiciary Committee began considering June 2 and is expected to pass next week is a highly ideological measure that would force Congress to enact the Republican Study Committee’s extreme budget plan or something similar to it. Even the House-passed budget plan of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan would not pass muster under the proposal; the more draconian Republican Study Committee (RSC) budget1 or a close equivalent would be required”.

“The RSC budget secures all of its deficit reduction through spending cuts and none through revenues; it cuts federal expenditures by more than $9 trillion over the coming decade, relative to a continuation of current policies. To ensure that policymakers follow this cuts-only approach, the Judiciary Committee’s version of the constitutional amendment requires supermajority votes of two thirds of both the House and Senate to raise any taxes, which would make it virtually impossible to raise revenue”

More of what is in the Bill from above URL:

● It cuts total funding for non-defense discretionary programs by approximately 70 percent in 2021, and by more than $3 trillion over the next ten years, relative to the already reduced funding levels that Congress recently approved for fiscal year 2011 (adjusted for inflation).5

This is the part of the budget that includes veterans’ medical care, most homeland security activities, border protection, and the FBI. It also includes education, environmental protection, protecting the nation’s food and water supply, and medical research, as well as services for disadvantaged or abused children, frail elderly people, and people with severe disabilities.

● It contains deeper Medicare cuts than the Ryan budget. The RSC budget includes the Ryan proposals to convert Medicare to vouchers and raise its eligibility age from 65 to 67, but it raises the eligibility age sooner than the Ryan budget would.

● It raises the Social Security retirement age to 70.

● It also contains cuts of almost unimaginable depth in the core programs for the poorest and most disadvantaged Americans: in 2021, Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), and Supplemental Security Income would all be cut in half.

●The budget slashes Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years; Medicaid funding would be cut by 54 percent in 2021. (This is on top of the more than $600 billion in Medicaid cuts it would impose by repealing the Affordable Care Act and its coverage expansions.) It cuts SNAP by a remarkable $350 billion — or 50 percent — over ten years. And it cuts Supplemental Security Income, which provides poor people who are elderly or severely disabled with benefits that raise them to about 75 percent of the poverty line, by $238 billion over ten years; SSI would be cut in half in 2021.

● It cuts at least $86 billion over ten years from Pell Grants, which help low-income students afford college. Other cuts include $84 billion in farm programs.

To vote in favor of this Bill is going farther off the reservation than voting for the Ryan Bill. Let the GOP/TP bring this up for a vote. Let the GOP/TP all lock step to the same tune again and vote yes and then come 2012 they can defend why they voted to repeal Medicare and Medicaid, cut Social Safety Nets by 70%, raise the retirement age on Social Security, trash education and give even bigger tax cuts to the top 2% not once but TWICE. I can hardly wait for this one. The unemployment rate could be 10% and the GOP/TP would still be toast ifthey support this one.

To see just how much more extreme this plan is compared to the Ryan Bill see: http://www.cbpp.org/files/6-6-11bud.pdf

“When Congress was considering a constitutional balanced budget amendment in 1997, more than 1,000 economists, including 11 Nobel laureates, issued a joint statement that said, “We condemn the proposed ‘balanced-budget’ amendment to the federal Constitution. It is unsound and unnecessary. . . . The proposed amendment mandates perverse actions in the face of recessions. In economic downturns, tax revenues fall and some outlays, such as unemployment benefits, rise. These so-called ‘built-in stabilizers’ limit declines of after-tax income and purchasing power. To keep the budget balanced every year would aggravate recessions.”

If that paragraph does not scare you read what this report says about;

Potential for Serious Economic Harm

A Host of Other Problems

Effects on Social Security and Military and Civil Retirement

Effects on the Banking System

Mistaken Analogies to States and Families

Requiring a Supermajority to Raise Taxes

The report ends with this warning:

“Policymakers need to begin to change our fiscal trajectory. As various recent commissions have indicated, we need to stabilize the debt as a share of GDP in the coming decade, and to keep it stable after that (allowing for some fluctuation over the business cycle). But establishing a balanced budget amendment in the Constitution would be exceedingly unwise. It would likely exact a heavy toll on the economy and on American businesses and workers in the years ahead. It is not the course the nation should follow”.

Ben

I don't see the President as being inept. He got the debt ceiling raised, in order to pay for past spending, the bulk of it Bush era bills.

Teapublicans had threatened not to raise the ceiling, which would have resulted in a downgrade from all three agencies, not just S&P, and it wouldn't be down to AA+, either.

6.1 trillion for Mr. Bush.

VERY well said. We need a functioning MSM.

But you left out the part that says we need an MSM that isn't in the pockets of the conservative corporatists.

Because we can't have one without the other.

Matthew:

Nice post good to see you again.

We need more real impartial journalists and less theater pandering to the ratings. We are in trouble as a Nation, we are slowly bleeding to death and the MSM crowd keeps opening new wounds. For them the more we bleed the more money they make.

Now there is a business model that would make the Koch Brothers proud.

Navy -- Good to see the mutual admiration society is in full-swing again today.

I would be interested to see a list of impartial journalists (since you state we need more it seems to imply you believe there are some).

Totally agree. The MSM is totally in the corner of the Teapublicans! Tacit or no support for Democratic policies or candidates

It's mindbending that MSNBC keeps the racist Buchanan on the payroll...Buchanan refers to The President as "Boy"....and never a word from his bosses!

Stunning support!

chilled

It's mindbending that MSNBC keeps the racist Buchanan on the payroll...Buchanan refers to The President as "Boy"....and never a word from his bosses!

MSNBC management is deathly afraid of being accused of liberal bias, so they have to have a resident racist and anti-semite like Buchanan on for "balance."

Exactly right, Matthew Houston, excellent post.

james-1937467

Navy -- Good to see the mutual admiration society is in full-swing again today.

I would be interested to see a list of impartial journalists (since you state we need more it seems to imply you believe there are some).

Nice try but the facts are the facts. All you clowns can come up with is this - You are more lost than previously thought.

You have yet to dispute any facts presented, just more BS from the same group.

Go changed your diaper it is nap time.

Navy -- I asked you for the list (are those the facts you are referencing) of impartial journalists and you respond with name calling and insults. I had hope for some intellectual honesty and a reasonable conversation.

James:

I cannot have an intellectual conversation with a person that cannot think for themselves. Sorry, you just do not qualify for me to waste anymore time on you.

Have a great day.

If you don't like the MSM then buck up and stop buying the products that support them. They will change quickly if they stop getting paid. If Americans could learn to do without something for awhile they could have some of the things that they want. But most want everyone ELSE to give something up and solve the problem. It's the conservative way. They tell us to sacrifice but are unwilling to themselves.

James - you are talking to the "usual First Read suspects" that cut, copy and paste Dem talking points and then spend their time congratulating each other on what great posts they have just made. They will bash you to no end if you don't agree that 0bama is the savior of the world!!! Most of the open minded regulars on First Read have put those losers on ignore so that we don't have to read their silly posts.

Navy -- Sorry to see that you are not up to the task of providing this list. Maybe someone else will pick up the slack for you.

After this I will let you get back to those that do not challenge you intellectually.

Have a nice day.

black-belt -- thanks for the guidance. i had hoped to break through but clearly they are not interested in hearing anything but the team talking points.

best regards.

The Republican-Tea Terrorist are do a great job of destroying the U.S. from within.

Rush Limbaugh even seems to have made a business out of Tea Terrorism (love that, Job1).

And it works just about as well, if you read the link in my post.

His plan is working perfectly to destroy the U.S. from within.. Nobody can be this inept.

Yep, Sen. McConnell said he was going to do just this. It is the only promise the GOP/TP has kept - To make this Country Fail.

When are you guys (GOP/TP) finally going to own up and take responsibility for the carnage and damage that you are inflicting upon this country. The GOP/TP was a respected political party. Not any longer - you are the "country destroyers"

More Media Matters talking points. Blame the Tea Party. But the Tea Party was not in charge the last three years when we have been running up over $1.5 trillion in deficits and an almost an additional $1 trillion in stimulus. Democrats none of Bush's war spending was in the budget. None of the Democrats/Obama spending was in the budget because they haven't pass one yet in the last three years.

Navy -- Do you expect folks to believe that upon W's first victory that Harry, Dick and Chuck had a meeting to determine how to make him successful?? C'mon, get real.

Ray W, you would do better checking the facts instead of the right-wing talking points. Which party created the massive debt we face today? Which party passed unfunded spending legislation for 6 solid years? Which party failed to pay for the two wars it started? Which party cut taxes to unsustainable levels? Which party took a budget surplus and in less than one year created a trillion dollar deficit? Which party passed an unfunded Rx medicare program and now claims medicare is nearly insolvent? Which party said "deficits don't matter"? Which party added 333% to the debt and then decided they would not be responsible for paying for it? There are many more similar questions but the answer all is: the Repubican Party which has been anything but fiscally responsible since Reagan.

Jody:

They are so lost and have screwed up so badly they are running home to mommy. The game is up and they have trashed the credit rating of this country.

HEADLINE

" THE 112TH CONGRESS GOES DOWN AS THE MOST UNPRODUCTIVE CONGRESS ON RECORD AND THE FIRST CONGRESS THAT WAS SO DYSFUNCTIONAL AND IDEOLOGICAL DRIVEN THAT THEY CAUSED THE FIRST DOWNGRADE OF THE CREDIT RATING OF THE UNITED STATES IN "HISTORY".

Obama is an irresponsible, dreamy-eyed liberal.

He's going to blame everyone except himself.

He's an MIA President.

How can we blame our Mesiah? are you crazy? it is forbidden. We can blame anyone else but Obama.

Excuse me? The President offered Republicans a "Grand Bargain" of lowering the deficit by over 4 trillion, but they turned it down because it included closing a few measly tax loopholes. The President and Vice President chaired meeting after meeting with Congressional Republicans who chose to play chicken with the administration over raising the debt ceiling to pay for two wars, a recession and Bush's tax cuts. President Obama acted responsibly. It's up to voters to give him a Democratic majority House in 2012, so this manufactured "crisis" doesn't happen again.

The tea party members with all they have read above and their only answer is not to look at themselves and what they have done to our country, but they want to destroy American and blame someone else.

Well the 2012 tea-cession or tear-cession is on the tea party. Thanks for you incompetence.

Amy - On one hand you missed the point entirely but on the other you so eloquently stated a case supporting my assertion that I must thank you.

It must drive conservatives crazy to see S&P place the blame on Congress and the GOPTP because another load of conservative manure was dumped with these comments. Feel better now?

And the American people are smart enough to know that the CIA bin Laden Unit had been in place long before 1 Term 0bama got in office are the ones who really deserve the credit. As far as this regime - Hillary & Panetta had a lot more to do with it then the POTUS. I am glad that they killed UBL and feel sorrow for our military and Seal Team 6 today.

I find it so amusing when the right deflects from the mess their side of Congress created to instead criticize President Obama. Where was Boehner's leadership--he couldn't get his own House to agree with $4 trillion in spending cuts? Where's the leadership by "it's a hostage worth ransoming" McConnell?

Obama/Biden 2012!!!! Yes, we can.

How about an example of the tea party brilliance.

Interview on faux May 2, 2011

Wallace: I want you to give me a single piece of hard evidence that defaulting would not be a disaster.

Bachmann: Who is advocating default? I'm not, that's why Senator Pat Toomey and rep. Tom McClintock have a bill that would direct the treasury secretary to first pay off all obligations, and after that, prioritize spending.

Wallace: But you have heard the deputy treasury secretary say that's just default by another name.

Bachmann: Well, that is his opinion. My opinion is we could go with the Toomey-McClintock plan. We could payoff the debts first and prioritize. What a shock to the ruling class in Washington DC. They don't have all the money they want to spend. We never did have that ability to be able to spend all that money.

Wallace: Don't you worry, I mean what our creditors would say?What the financial markets would say if we don't raise the debt ceiling and we have to start doing that? As I say, everybody from Ben Bernanke to your speaker, John Boehner say it would be a financial disaster.

Bachmann: Well, I don't know if you heard what I said. I am not calling for a default.

Wallace: But if you don't raise the debt ceiling that is what is going to happen.

Bachmann: But that's not true.

This is what it is like talking to any tea-partier on this board. Talk around in circles and then just claim anything they don't want to believe is just not true.

Talk in circles? Sounds like you are the one talking in circles.

The fed has plenty of income coming in to pay the interest so we don't default. Default is what the president threatened.

But then, if you had actually read what you copied and pasted you would already comprehend that.

You are suggesting (as the president did) that if the debt ceiling wasn't raised, we would suddenly not pay any debts?

Take a few deep breaths and *think* for a while

Just like I said talking in circles pretending to know what is going on as they come on with censored news and argue with half the story as told by faux.

Default is what the president threatened -- I wonder what t.v. channel she heard this. Yes the faux propaganda machine going at full tilt boogy.

Which part of this did you either not understand or believe is circular talk?

What default did the president threaten? He gave the tea-party 98% of what they wanted to keep from defaulting.

I remember President Obama saying he couldn't promise checks were going out if the tea party defaulted our government. Even in your twisted mind that couldn't be threatening to default could it?

Going into default and paying only our debts is just default by another name. Same thing.

You're right.

when are we going to stand up and take back our country from these jokers in Washington...its going to be too late to do anything if we don't do it SOON!

Oh, brother. There's that "our country" again as if the conservatives are the only ones who live here.

well Jody--they seem to think they are the only ones with a moratorium on "rightness" (lol)

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

Did you forget that he controlled ALL chambers of government for his first two years..

The Tea Party was formed because of the problem. Too bad there are those that won't see the real problem until it is too late. The debt and this administration's belief that we can borrow and spend our way to prosperity will bankrupt this nation. I sure hope you have a lot of gold.

So who has been in charge of the federal government and the budget the last 2-1/2 years? As Wasserman-Schultz said the Democrats own this economy now. You have to own the results.

Tony C-2383666

The debt and this administration's belief that we can borrow and spend our way to prosperity will bankrupt this nation. I sure hope you have a lot of gold.

And here we have another bagger believer doing what they do best: lying. The president never has said we could "borrow and spend our way to prosperity". And of his policies have been based on any such idiotic assumption. The deficit is not due to "out of control spending". It is due primarily to an out of control economic disaster created by George W. Bush and his Republican minions that drastically reduced tax revenues as businesses failed and workers were laid off and stopped paying income taxes because they had no income to tax.

Ray W.

So who has been in charge of the federal government and the budget the last 2-1/2 years? As Wasserman-Schultz said the Democrats own this economy now. You have to own the results.

According to S&P, Republican obstructionists are the ones who own the credit downgrade. The economic recover has been slow for the past two years, but it didn't return to the brink of another Bush-like catastrophe until the teabaggers got control of the House of Representatives where fiscal legislation must originate according to the US Constitution.

Kellysview, did you forget that the Republican/TP Inc. party blocked over 400 bills in the Senate during that period of 'complete control'? Did you forget that the Republican/TP Inc. party initiated more filibuster actions in the first six months of this administration's 'complete control' than were initiated for the entire history of the Senate, combined? Did you forget that the most important goal of the Republican/TP Inc. party, as articulated by Senator McConnell, was to make this a one term Presidency? Did you forget that the Republican/TP Inc. party has blocked more political appointees to more government departments and federal judgeship's than at any other time in our history, making policy harder to implement, hampering the efficient running of departments, and creating huge backlogs in the judicial system?

Tony C-2383666, the TEA Party was formed because a Democrat was elected to the White House . . . correction, at the risk of being vilified by the right wing posters on here, I am going to write what I originally wrote, and is the absolute truth, no matter how much they want to deny it . . . the TEA Party was formed because a black man was elected to the White House. Period.

They were then encouraged and funded by people like the Koch brothers who tried to hide their involvement because the TEA Party folks wanted to think they were a 'grass roots' movement. Did you happen to see the last TEA Party gathering in Washington, D.C.? It was attended by about 50 people. The majority of TEA Partiers are uninformed yahoos who don't have a clue about how national economics works. The majority of them are calling for less government spending on entitlements while many are benefiting form those very same entitlements. They are so uninformed that they keep calling for the very policies that will harm them, and they don't even realize what they are doing.