Can the United States pay 100% of its financial obligations? Of course. That is not the issue driving the downgrade of U.S. creditworthiness by Standard & Poor's.
Rather, S&P's downgrade is a pointed critique of our political system -- the reality that we have a group of political extremists, nihilist, who have invaded and seemingly conquered the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan conservatives.
This band of political hooligans are both unable and uninterested in governing. Reagan would have a hard time recognizing these Tea Partiers as real Republicans.
Let's face it, the Tea Party has sought to shut down the Government by any means necessary. As another expression of their nihilism, fresh from the Tea Party's foray into vandalizing America's economic stability, they most recently blocked funding of the Federal Aviation Administration, purely for ideological reasons.
It is fair to assume that any rational American would agree that the FAA, responsible for our civilian air transportation system, is a critical agency to keep funded.
But we are not talking here about a group of people moved by the quaint notion that Government decisions must be made with reason, using empirical data, and a spirit, as the U.S. Constitution says, of promoting the "general welfare" of all Americans.
This band of Tea Party ideologues in Congress share a quasi-religious zeal that can withstand exposure to any contradicting data or objective reality. The whole world, including vast majorities of Americans, yelled at them "don't blow up the American economy!"
Yet they purposefully drove the country to the very precipice of calamity, to paraphrase Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
Is it surprising then that such a radical, destructive agenda is creating significant market turbulence? Not in the least. In fact, it would be surprising if it didn't seriously rock global markets -- as it has.
Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, a candidate for president in 2012, is the Chairperson of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress. She voted against the deal to raise the debt ceiling. Why? Dana Milbank of the Washington Post writes:
When Michele Bachmann was asked during a television interview last week whether she thought higher unemployment would increase her chances of winning the presidency, she gave an unexpectedly candid reply: "I hope so."Now she's putting that theory to the test. On Wednesday, she argued that failure to raise the debt limit -- a prospect that even Republican congressional leaders say could lead to economic catastrophe -- might not be such a bad thing.
"This is a misnomer that I believe that the president and the Treasury secretary have been trying to pass off on the American people, and it's this: that if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion, that somehow the United States will go into default and we will lose the full faith and credit of the United States. That is simply not true." ...
It bears mentioning that Congresswoman Bachmann is consistently ranked near the top in most 2012 GOP Presidential preference poll. Predictably, she draws most of her support from people that identify with the Tea Party.
And she is now blaming President Obama for the downgrade -- a craven bet that Americans are too clueless to know that Bachmann and her band drove the country into the economic paralysis that S&P cited as one the main reasons for the downgrade.
But you wouldn't know this from her latest statement on the downgrade. According to FoxNews, Bachmann is pointing her finger at Obama for supposedly causing the downgrade that she and her Tea Party allies sparked through their mindless opposition to a deal with trillions of dollars in cuts:
"...This president has destroyed the credit rating of the United States through failed economic policies and his inability to control government spending by once again raising the debt ceiling..."
This logic-free pretzel of an argument is what now passes for serious discussion of economic policy among the Tea Party faithful.
While it's worth reading the entirety of the Standard & Poor's statement, there are a few choice sections that clearly point to the Tea Party lunacy as a contributing factor to their negative outlook:
"...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. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. ..."
And the "less stable" policymakers fingered by S&P for blocking real budget reform?
"...Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act...:Â
The world's most powerful country was brought to the edge of financial chaos by Mrs. Bachmann and her Tea Party cohorts. Americans should never forget the damage that they have caused the whole nation. Beyond the hit to our national finances, the spectacle of Tea Party Members of Congress actually trying to justify an American default has made our Congress the laughingstock of the world.
But America is no punchline. Never. We are a democracy with the ability to overcome any challenge -- even an invasion by right-wing barbarians seeking to destroy the fabric of our society, the very strength and stability of our economy.
In the 2012 election, Americans from what I call the Patriotic Center, real Republicans, Democrats and Independents, should make sure that these Vandals are driven from the Congress and State legislatures across the nation.
America's future hangs in the balance of the 2012 election -- so we better get it right.
Follow Fernando Espuelas on Twitter: www.twitter.com/espuelasvox
Frances Beinecke: After Months of Tea Party Attacks on the Environment, Glimmers of Sanity Emerge
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
They are just nut cakes that have finally made their mark nationally. Its time to up the floride in the drinking water maybe that will disolve them and their precious bodily fluids. Hopefully permanently.
"We could lower the long-term rating if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to result in a higher general government debt trajectory."
"We believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed."
"Lowering of the rating was prompted by the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty."
"Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending... new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability."
HUH. Sounds to me like they aren't taking sides at all. Bit different than what Mr. Espuelas is trying to communicate. Sounds to me like they're concerned with the "brinksmanship" on both sides. Sounds to me like they aren't satisfied that there is enough spending containment or revenue gains. That touches both sides. Stop blaming everyone else. It's childish and doesn't get us anywhere.
Just look at this quote from your post - "our perception of greater policymakiÂng uncertaintÂy". What do you think this refers to? The S&P's way of saying "Tea Party risk" perhaps? I bet yes.
Your post only reinforces my argument.
Do you think we would have been downgraded if we had proposed a balanced budget? S&P knows that the government as it stands now, will never be able to balance anything. Out of control spending and lack of revenues was the gist of the downgrade. Democrats, in their embarassment and lack of humility, are pretending that this downgrade had nothing at all to do with them, even though they have been in control of congress and it's spending for the last five years. This denial is precisely one of the reasons S&P knows our current government cannot fix our fiscal problems.
The truth is, every American is to blame. We should have spoken up sooner. We stood idly by and watched our politicians spend obscene amounts of money and we said nothing.
Now, we are demanding accountability and people like you are trying to crush those willing to FINALLY speak up. Are you promoting the notion that people should never try to make changes to a broken system?
You may not agree with the politics of the tea party, but they won their right in the voting booth to have a voice in congress. If you don't like what they have to say, then vote them out. Your false accusation does not hold up under honest scrutiny.
You're putting words in my mouth and in the mouths of the authors of the S&P statement. I'm a little surprised that you'd assert so confidently (but with no evidence) I'm trying to create a "different meaning." I did no such thing, and the only argument I reinforced was for the validity of a non-partisan interpretation of the S&P statement that is, given their wording, every bit as relevant as yours.
So then what's the problem with not removing the Bush tax cuts? Why do we need, as the S&P statement appears to imply, a promise of increased revenues? Revenues which stave off insolvency the same way you bail out a leaky boat with a cup.
The entire point is being missed, here. The Tea Party may or may not be misguided, but what they are doing is attempting to plug the leaks at the source by dropping the cup and reaching for sealant. It's a gamble, but if you want to keep trying to bail for the rest of eternity, by all means, keep throwing ridiculous amounts of your own income at black hole institutions to provide everyone with the illusion that things are still working. The reality is that more spending is not fixing what's broken.
Or we can force our government to start taking responsibility for their failures, stop giving cash to irresponsible individuals and irresponsible companies, stop waging war on businesses and rich people, stop spending money on broken institutions under the dubious notion of "too big to fail," eliminate arbitrary regulations that serve corporate and political interests but harm people.
The Tea Party isn't out to screw anyone. They want this country to succeed every bit as much as you do, if not more so. Don't pretend you're better.
"We are a democracy..."
No, we're not. And it's not semantics.
2. If they are acting deliberately against Obama and Democrats, they are also acting deliberately against his and their policies, particularly his and their fiscal policies--policies which Obama's predecessor in office also engaged in (particularly, wasteful government spending). This is simply politics and nothing untoward (relatively speaking).
3. The Tea Party is allowed to want the president to fail. That's not against the law. If it were, there'd also be many thousands of anti-Bush protestors who should also be in jail.
4. Their actions are not remotely treasonous. Actually, they're the opposite. If you're unsure as to why, I suggest reviewing court cases in which individuals and groups have been convicted of this crime.
Here's this: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/6090-treason-defined-and-enforced
And this: http://supreme.justia.com/us/343/717/
Friendly suggestion: refrain from letting your outrage get the best of you. It doesn't make your arguments stronger.
Its Ironic because when Obama got into the White House in early 2009 all he ever did for his first two years was blame Bush and the Republicans even though they controlled both the White House and the Congress. Now the Republicans control 1/3 of the government after 2 years of complete Democratic control and everything is again their fault.
It seems like this author and a chorus of Democrats want to have it both ways. Lets be reasonable here.
You don't cut taxes in a recession. It's Economics 101 for chrissakes.
They don't have a clue what they are doing. All they know is they don't like Obama and have never accepted the fact that he is our president.
Tea Partiers: A will not make B happen. B will simply not happen.
Results: B happens.
Tea Partiers: B happened, we knew it would happend because of.......option C- not us!
Ignorance is one thing, hypocrisy another, refusal of responsibility something else, dereliction of job responsibilities as Congressmen and women a whole other level and it all boils down to a stew of idiocy that cannot be ignored. Vote these foo*s out of Congress in 2012!
Three times Wall Street and the regular GOP (The TEE GOP) arranged for a clean up - down vote on raising the debt ceiling, and three times, Obama rejected the chance, but instead he demanded trillions of dollars in cuts in spending.
The normal GOP as well as all other sane American wanted the tea baggers to loose big on the Debt Deal and the person who elevated the tea baggers to victors was Obama. The tea baggers won and America lost.
Dump Obama
What I don't like about the Tea Party is that it attracts candidates who fail to understand that polictics means know the art of politicing. Some might call it diplomacy. Others might call it learning to curry favors. But Tea Party politicians tend to think that politics is full of bluster and call opponents names and digging one's heels in the sand.
Ronald Reagan, who was a master at politicing, used to say that getting some of what you want is better than nothing. He seldom drew a line in the sand, but rather, figured out what was a compromise that both sides could live with, or at least a compromise that would draw enough Democrat support to pass.
But, by the same token, you have many families who have seen significant declines in income and have made draconian cuts from vacations to dinners at McDonald's. Businesses have done the same, laying off people, holding the line on pay increases and bonuses, and even doing away with Christmas parties.
They want Washington to tighten its belt as much as they have. And when the Democrats seem unwilling to significantly reduce spending and talk of raising taxes, they get mad. That's how the Tea Party gains support.
What about that is appealing exactly?
"Looks like the corporate types are gonna need a new dance partner that they can deceive and manipulate! These Baggers seem to have a delusional mind all their own!...LOL...