News Views of Congress, tea party reach new low in poll

[Evo]

Seems the losers of the debt debacle are congress and the Tea Party.

Public perception of the tea party movement, which many see as the driving force that kept Republicans from voting to raising the debt ceiling without implementing unprecedented spending reductions, is at a record low.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/views-congress-tea-party-reach-low-poll-135728798.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

this may finally be the Republican mass suicide that I have predicted for some time now. Conservative columnist David Brooks commented on this in his July 4th column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1

Close enough

Congress, as usual, fared the worst. The legislative branch almost never gets high marks from the public, but never before has it earned this level of disapproval. Eighty-two percent in the poll said they disapprove of how members of Congress are doing their jobs--the highest such rate since 1977, when the poll was first taken.

Just wait until this S&P decision, and the stated reasons for it, have time to sink in. Thankfully Moodys didn't follow suit.

 

[WhoWee]

I guess congratulations are in order - to the media - for doing their best to spin the (practical) bankruptcy of the US into a campaign positive for President Obama?

 

[Pengwuino]

Close enough

But you've been claiming everything is going to be the "republican mass suicide" or "end of conservatism" for years. Why is this any different?

 

[Proton Soup]

S&P and the "Tea Party" are my new heroes. finally, someone is putting the brakes on these drunken fools in DC.

 

[turbo]

S&P and the "Tea Party" are my new heroes. finally, someone is putting the brakes on these drunken fools in DC.

S&P and the other rating agencies are the snake-oil salesmen that highly-graded derivatives backed by sub-prime mortgages. They have their fingerprints all over the real-estate crash. So you trust them now?

The Tea Party took the attitude that it was OK to default on our debt as long as they got their way. TP and Grover Norquist are scaring normally rational Republicans into lock-step with right-wing ideology, to the detriment of discussion and compromise in DC. This is not a good time.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But you've been claiming everything is going to be the "republican mass suicide" or "end of conservatism" for years. Why is this any different?

I never said anything about the end of conservatism. I've been saying that my old party - the Republican party - has been taken over by a fringe element in American politics - manifest primarily as the so-called tea party -and now S&P agrees. They put the blame directly on the link between the debt ceiling and the budget. They also blame the inflexible position that taxes cannot be raised.

In short, what I have been saying for years has come true - the extreme right is driving the country over a cliff while waiving the flag all the way down. This is a problem that goes above and beyond the debt. It lies at the heart of the US political process, and that's what S&P is really worried about.

What I have said about conservatism is that deregulation nearly destroyed the global economy. There is nothing in a free market that prevents "too big to fail". So while free markets may work in theory, we can't afford to live with the market corrections - we can't afford to allow the global banking system to collapse for a decade or two; we can't afford to allow Fannie and Freddie, or AIG to fail. So the pure ideology of free markets is dead.

It is also a fallacy that conservatives never want to increase taxes. While that may be true in the abstract, it isn't practical.

 

[WhoWee]

S&P and the other rating agencies are the snake-oil salesmen that highly-graded derivatives backed by sub-prime mortgages. They have their fingerprints all over the real-estate crash. So you trust them now?

The Tea Party took the attitude that it was OK to default on our debt as long as they got their way. TP and Grover Norquist are scaring normally rational Republicans into lock-step with right-wing ideology, to the detriment of discussion and compromise in DC. This is not a good time.

You do realize that if investors find a comparable alternative to US debt - and we can no longer borrow $.43 of every $1.00 spent - the US will not only default - it will more than likely be deemed bankrupt?

The TEA Party wants a balanced budget - oh how radical?

 

[WhoWee]

I never said anything about the end of conservatism. I've been saying that my old party - the Republican party - has been taken over by a fringe element in American politics - manifest primarily as the so-called tea party -and now S&P agrees. They put the blame directly on the link between the debt ceiling and the budget. They also blame the inflexible position that taxes cannot be raised.

In short, what I have been saying for years has come true - the extreme right is driving the country over a cliff while waiving the flag all the way down. This is a problem that goes above and beyond the debt. It lies at the heart of the US political process, and that's what S&P is really worried about.

What I have said about conservatism is that deregulation nearly destroyed the global economy. There is nothing in a free market that prevents "too big to fail". So while free markets may work in theory, we can't afford to live with the market corrections - we can't afford to allow the global banking system to collapse for a decade or two; we can't afford to allow Fannie and Freddie, or AIG to fail. So the pure ideology of free markets is dead.

It is also a fallacy that conservatives never want to increase taxes. While that may be true in the abstract, it isn't practical.

By some estimates the unfunded liabilities of our country exceed $100TRILLION and growing -the current debt deal proposes to cut 2% of this amount - not addressing the total debt is more like flying the economy into the side of the cliff - not driving over it.

 

[Proton Soup]

S&P and the other rating agencies are the snake-oil salesmen that highly-graded derivatives backed by sub-prime mortgages. They have their fingerprints all over the real-estate crash. So you trust them now?

The Tea Party took the attitude that it was OK to default on our debt as long as they got their way. TP and Grover Norquist are scaring normally rational Republicans into lock-step with right-wing ideology, to the detriment of discussion and compromise in DC. This is not a good time.

actually, i don't trust any of the guys with all their fingerprints on this. that includes most of banking/wall street and most of congress.

Tea Party took the attitude that we can't just go on borrowing forever. they asked for a balanced budget amendment. why is that too much to ask for? do you really trust the bankers that we can just keep on borrowing and spending our way out of this mess? you really think we can go on nearly doubling our debt every decade or so and not end up like greece with people rioting in the streets and throwing molotov cocktails at the police? greece is probably at the point where it would be better for them to default, forget about the EU for a while, and just deal with the consequences. iceland was actually threatened with starvation if they reneged on bailing out the private bank that failed there. but once they did, their financial rating actually went up.

 

[turbo]

The TEA Party wants a balanced budget - oh how radical?

A balanced budget would be a thing of joy. Insisting on driving our government into default to achieve that is insanity. We need adults in DC (both parties) to man up and start carving up their parties' sacred cows to cut expenditures AND cut tax-breaks and actually raise taxes. You can balance a budget with compromise and negotiation. Hostage-taking by radicals won't work.

I think that the markets fear this, and are signaling their fear. Wall Street traders aren't in awe of the rating agencies.

 

[WhoWee]

A balanced budget would be a thing of joy. Insisting on driving our government into default to achieve that is insanity. We need adults in DC (both parties) to man up and start carving up their parties' sacred cows to cut expenditures AND cut tax-breaks and actually raise taxes. You can balance a budget with compromise and negotiation. Hostage-taking by radicals won't work.

I think that the markets fear this, and are signaling their fear. Wall Street traders aren't in awe of the rating agencies.

You are for the balanced budget - but against the TEA Party for trying to push for the legislation?

You do realize TEA Party votes were not required to pass the debt deal? Considering your call for adult behavior - this whole "hostage-taking" talking point is starting to sound childish - IMO.

 

[WhoWee]

A balanced budget would be a thing of joy. Insisting on driving our government into default to achieve that is insanity. We need adults in DC (both parties) to man up and start carving up their parties' sacred cows to cut expenditures AND cut tax-breaks and actually raise taxes. You can balance a budget with compromise and negotiation. Hostage-taking by radicals won't work.

Here's the problem with your argument:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-of-sps-downgrade-of-us-ratings-outlook-2011-04-18

The President and Congress have known since April they needed to take action - or else.

This report cites Ryans plan - Harry Reid and the Senate brushed it aside. The House passed the cut and cap Bill - Harry Reid tabled it. The House scrambled under pressure to bring another Bill and Harry Reid tabled it. THEN - at the last minute Harry Reid put forth a plan of his own - now be honest as to who held the country hostage - the House Republicans that churned out multiple pieces of legislation or Harry Reid Democrat leader of the Senate?

 

[turbo]

OK, the Democrats caused the whole crisis! How could I have been so foolish?

 

[WhoWee]

OK, the Democrats caused the whole crisis! How could I have been so foolish?

I don't believe the Democrats caused the whole crisis either turbo - but when the rhetoric turns to calling the TEA Party astro-turf, hostage takers and tea terrorists - my first instinct is to push back and defend them because they're willing to stand up and try to find solutions. I think Ryan's plan was absolutely idiotic in it's timing - and I wasn't very enthusiastic about it's content - but I give him credit for the effort. I'm angry at Harry Reid and the President in this crisis as they seemed quite content to sit back and criticize - and the media supported them. Accordingly, I gave the credit to the media earlier in this thread.

 

[CAC1001]

The U.S. wasn't facing any default over not raising the debt ceiling, as it doesn't take on debt to service the debt. And both parties have their fringe movements. You look at the pull the far-Left has on the Democratic party and it's almost impossible for that party to act in a bipartisan fashion. The way in which the Democratic party right now refuses to even talk about ways to deal with the debt and deficit I think exemplifies this.

The Tea Party is a reaction to the very obvious fact that government spending is literally out-of-control and the country is headed over an economic cliff if something isn't done and yet the current government refuses to even discuss the issue in any serious detail.

I would say that being against tax increases isn't necessarilly a sacred cow for the Tea Party types so much as it is just a fact that almost every time the government increases taxes under the promise to make spending cuts alongside the increases, the spending cuts never take place. As has been pointed out on this forum, Ronald Reagan signed a tax increase in which spending cuts were promised, and the opposite happened. George H. W. Bush was promised spending cuts by Congress if he signed a tax increase and the opposite happened. The Republicans cut taxes under the belief it would increase revenues in the early 2000s, and then what did they do? Spent like drunken sailors. If the Republicans agreed to a VAT tax being implemented to bring in lots more revenue, you could probably be guaranteed that zero spending cuts would occur and spending might even increase moreso.

I do think a combination of spending cuts or at least spending controls and some tax increases are what is necessary, but I don't think that combination is politically realistic. It has been done, but rarely.

 

[SixNein]

Seems the losers of the debt debacle are congress and the Tea Party.



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/views-congress-tea-party-reach-low-poll-135728798.html

The economy was the real loser to the debt debate.

 

[Lapidus]

I don't believe the Democrats caused the whole crisis either turbo - but when the rhetoric turns to calling the TEA Party astro-turf, hostage takers and tea terrorists - my first instinct is to push back and defend them because they're willing to stand up and try to find solutions...

Solutions? What kind of solutions?

They did not want to raise the debt ceiling at all, remember? You call that a solution? The cuts they proposed on this very fragile economy would have led the US right into a depression. They obstructed the whole political process, made Washington dysfunctional, completely ignored and disregarded the opinions of all the other elected representatives and thus did not care for the will of the majority of the american people.

With a deficit at 14 billions there is total agreement among the parties that there is a problem. There is no need for a radical group that offers only non-solutions to this problem and makes everything only a lot, lot worse.

That the deficit situation got that far is due to the policies of the years 2000-2008. That the deficit keeps getting worse, is that the US had in 2008 the worst economic crisis since 1929 and its consequences are still felt and the government has very little options now to act due to the deficit that was handed to them and an oppostion that obstructs everything that the government does to improve the economic situation.

The Republicans gave Obama an economy in deep crisis and a government in deep debt, and they complain now to him, why haven't you fixed it all already?

What the US needs besides cutting government spending in the medium , is first and foremost economic growth and a tax code that allows the massive private capital gains to participate in paying the costs. Just as Clinton did it.

 

[Astronuc]

They did not want to raise the debt ceiling at all, remember? You call that a solution? The cuts they proposed on this very fragile economy would have led the US right into a depression. They obstructed the whole political process, made Washington dysfunctional, completely ignored and disregarded the opinions of all the other elected representatives and thus did not care for the will of the majority of the american people.

Washington was dysfunctional well before the Tea Party existed. They certainly did not cause the current situation. They didn't help it either.

The unwillingness to compromise is problematic. Everyone has to compromise, because each party (group, not restricted to the two major parties) to the process is not going to get what they want.

The Tea Party did take a position, and ostensibly, that position reflects the interests of the majority of voters from their district, or at least the voters who bothered to show up an vote. On the other hand, it's not clear to me how many of the Tea Party Caucus indicated during the last national election that they supported/adopted the Tea Party positions.

Nevertheless, there are apparently 56 members of congress in the Tea Party - as compared to 435. So the Tea Party alone did not stop the process - even if they took an immovable position.

Ref(unverified): http://www.boogai.net/headlines/112th-congress-house-tea-party-caucus-members/

With a deficit at 14 billions there is total agreement among the parties that there is a problem. There is no need for a radical group that offers only non-solutions to this problem and makes everything only a lot, lot worse.

. . . .

There were problems well before the nation incurred a $14+ trillion dollar debt. Chronic deficit spending should not have been allowed to the extent that it has. The time to deal with it was 20+ years ago when the accumulated debt was not so great.

 

[WhoWee]

Solutions? What kind of solutions?

They did not want to raise the debt ceiling at all, remember? You call that a solution? The cuts they proposed on this very fragile economy would have led the US right into a depression. They obstructed the whole political process, made Washington dysfunctional, completely ignored and disregarded the opinions of all the other elected representatives and thus did not care for the will of the majority of the american people.

With a deficit at 14 billions there is total agreement among the parties that there is a problem. There is no need for a radical group that offers only non-solutions to this problem and makes everything only a lot, lot worse.

That the deficit situation got that far is due to the policies of the years 2000-2008. That the deficit keeps getting worse, is that the US had in 2008 the worst economic crisis since 1929 and its consequences are still felt and the government has very little options now to act due to the deficit that was handed to them and an oppostion that obstructs everything that the government does to improve the economic situation.

The Republicans gave Obama an economy in deep crisis and a government in deep debt, and they complain now to him, why haven't you fixed it all already?

What the US needs besides cutting government spending in the medium , is first and foremost economic growth and a tax code that allows the massive private capital gains to participate in paying the costs. Just as Clinton did it.

Are you going to support anything you've posted - or is it all opinion?

As for the years 2000 to 2008 - why is it everyone forgets about the damage done to the economy by the terrorist attacks - how many Democrats stood up in Congress (and members of the press spoke out) on September 12, 2001 AGAINST Defense and Intelligence spending? Next, how much did (and still does) Katrina cost our economy?

Maybe President Obama should have explained his personal limitations better when he campaigned for his job? In 2008 he made it sound as though he had more solutions than excuses - didn't he? Worse yet, when President Obama took office, Harry Reid controlled the Senate and Nancy Pelosi controlled the House - they could do whatever they wanted - and they did push through thousands of pages of new legislation - didn't they? Now, when the President lost the House and a rubber stamp in the Senate - we're seeing more regulatory control - aren't we?

As for "tax code that allows the massive private capital gains to participate in paying the costs" - did you notice the equity market lost over $1Trillion in the past 10 days? Don't you think the threat of a tax increase might trigger a larger sell off?

 

[Hurkyl]

Since, in theory, we're discussing the poll results, one particularly interesting one is:

26. In negotiations about the debt ceiling, did the Republicans in Congress compromise with Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress too much, too little, or the right amount?

Too much - 15%
Too little - 52%
Right amount - 26%
DK/NA - 7%

27. In negotiations about the debt ceiling, did Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress compromise with the Republicans in Congress too much, too little, or the right amount?

Too much - 26%
Too little - 34%
Right amount - 32%
DK/NA - 8%

suggesting a significant belief that the Democrats too really should have compromised as much as they did, if not more.

Also

20. Do you think the spending cuts included in the debt ceiling agreement went too far, didn't go far enough, or are they about right?

Too far - 15%
Not far enough - 44%
About right - 29%
DK/NA - 12%

suggesting that the public overwhelmingly supports the spending cuts that the Republicans managed to get passed, even if they don't agree with the methods used or the party that made it an issue.





Also, the Republicans and Democrats roughly equally share disapproval:

6. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Republicans in Congress have handled the negotiations on the debt ceiling?

Approve - 21%
Disapprove - 72%
DK/NA - 7%

7. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress have handled the negotiations on the debt ceiling?

Approve - 28%
Disapprove - 66%
DK/NA - 6%

Of course, I generally find polls silly. I hate that popularity has as much influence as it does.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Seems the losers of the debt debacle are congress and the Tea Party.

Thanks for the link Evo.

 

[turbo]

Both Senators from Maine have been complaining in the press about the lack of cooperation and the paucity of useful legislation. Snowe is up for reelection next year and it appears that the Tea Party will challenge her in the primaries because she's a RINO, in their eyes.

BTW, Snowe has not had a primary challenger all through her years in the House and Senate. She gets a lot of Democratic support, too. In a state where only 30% of registered voters are Republican, she can get over 70% in the general election.

 

[BobG]

Nevertheless, there are apparently 56 members of congress in the Tea Party - as compared to 435. So the Tea Party alone did not stop the process - even if they took an immovable position.

This is true. But the Tea Party played the most significant role.

Realistically, it was pointless to pass a bill in the House if it had no chance of being approved by the Senate. This is true whether the goal is to use the debt ceiling to make some gains in budget deficit reductions or the goal is to force a politically disastorous veto by the President.

If the House had a bill that received no Democratic votes, how realistic was it that the plan would be passed by the Senate?

The responsible reaction of Republican leadership to Tea Party demands would have been to ignore them right from the start and get to work creating a compromise bill that would get Democratic support. I think at one point, Obama, Boehner, and Pelosi were close to doing that with a bill would make cuts in Social Security and in Medicare, and would increase taxes. This would have been a good deal. It's incredibly hard to cut SS and Medicare - getting tax cuts back in a few years wouldn't be nearly as hard. This is the deal that would have prevented S&P from downgrading the US's credit rating. (Actually, Democrats wanting to protect SS and Medicare at any cost should be thanking the Tea Party for taking the heat off of them.)

This is a case where House leaders went back to their fellow members of Congress and decided their political party was more important to them than the US. It's the impact that the Tea Party vote could have on Boehner retaining his job as Speaker of the House that had the biggest impact. It's the fact that Republicans don't have a majority if the Tea Party doesn't support them that has the second biggest impact. The Tea Party may only make up a small percentage of the House, but they make up about 25% of Republicans in the House.

 

[Evo]

This is true. But the Tea Party played the most significant role.

Realistically, it was pointless to pass a bill in the House if it had no chance of being approved by the Senate. This is true whether the goal is to use the debt ceiling to make some gains in budget deficit reductions or the goal is to force a politically disastorous veto by the President.

If the House had a bill that received no Democratic votes, how realistic was it that the plan would be passed by the Senate?

The responsible reaction of Republican leadership to Tea Party demands would have been to ignore them right from the start and get to work creating a compromise bill that would get Democratic support. I think at one point, Obama, Boehner, and Pelosi were close to doing that with a bill would make cuts in Social Security and in Medicare, and would increase taxes. This would have been a good deal. It's incredibly hard to cut SS and Medicare - getting tax cuts back in a few years wouldn't be nearly as hard. This is the deal that would have prevented S&P from downgrading the US's credit rating. (Actually, Democrats wanting to protect SS and Medicare at any cost should be thanking the Tea Party for taking the heat off of them.)

This is a case where House leaders went back to their fellow members of Congress and decided their political party was more important to them than the US. It's the impact that the Tea Party vote could have on Boehner retaining his job as Speaker of the House that had the biggest impact. It's the fact that Republicans don't have a majority if the Tea Party doesn't support them that has the second biggest impact. The Tea Party may only make up a small percentage of the House, but they make up about 25% of Republicans in the House.

You are so good! Run for President!

 

[WhoWee]

This is a case where House leaders went back to their fellow members of Congress and decided their political party was more important to them than the US. It's the impact that the Tea Party vote could have on Boehner retaining his job as Speaker of the House that had the biggest impact. It's the fact that Republicans don't have a majority if the Tea Party doesn't support them that has the second biggest impact. The Tea Party may only make up a small percentage of the House, but they make up about 25% of Republicans in the House.

The final Bill did not have TEA Party support.

 

[Evo]

The final Bill did not have TEA Party support.

But they are partly responsible for delaying an agreement, which is what caused our credit downgrade.

 

[lisab]

But they are partly responsible for delaying an agreement, which is what caused our credit downgrade.

One of the reasons S&P gave for the downgrade was that the political climate in the US has become “less stable, effective and predictable.”

Re: the events of the last few months -- personally, I put some of the responsibility of that at the feet of the Tea Party...they were the catalyst. But the Republicans allowed themselves to be taken on this wild ride. They should have been the "adults in the room" when dealing with the the TPers.

But the situation leading up to the last few months -- the political climate has been deteriorating for decades, and both sides need to take responsibility for that.

 

[WhoWee]

But they are partly responsible for delaying an agreement, which is what caused our credit downgrade.

The downgrade issue aside - how did Boehner protect his position as Speaker (with the TEA Party Caucus members) if none of them supported the final Bill?

 

[Evo]

The downgrade issue aside - how did Boehner protect his position as Speaker (with the TEA Party Caucus members) if none of them supported the final Bill?

Ok, so they are completely responsible? I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Proton Soup]

But they are partly responsible for delaying an agreement, which is what caused our credit downgrade.

you mean partly caused the downgrade.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_DEBT_RATING_CHAMBERS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-07-11-03-40

The credit rating agency's managing director, John Chambers, tells ABC's "This Week" that if the fiscal position of the U.S. deteriorates further, or if political gridlock tightens even more, a further downgrade is possible.

Chambers also said Sunday that it would take "stabilization and eventual decline" of the federal debt as a share of the economy as well as more consensus in Washington for the U.S. to win back a top rating.

there is still that pesky debt problem.

Jon Stewart will now scowl at you.

 

[WhoWee]

Ok, so they are completely responsible? I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I'm trying to follow BobG's logic regarding Boehner's actions. At the end of the day Boehner did not make them happy - but I don't think he's lost their on-going support?

 

[SixNein]

But they are partly responsible for delaying an agreement, which is what caused our credit downgrade.

The credit downgrade wasn't just about how long it took to reach a deal; instead, it had a lot to do with what tea party congressmen and presidential candidates were saying to the public: Don't raise the debt limit.


Unlike corporations or individuals, creditors can't just start collecting when a government goes into default. So the willingness of a government to pay its debts is even more important for investors. The S&P downgrade in part reflects the very suggestion of a default.

 

[lisab]

The credit downgrade wasn't just about how long it took to reach a deal; instead, it had a lot to do with what tea party congressmen and presidential candidates were saying to the public: Don't raise the debt limit.


Unlike corporations or individuals, creditors can't just start collecting when a government goes into default. So the willingness of a government to pay its debts is even more important for investors. The S&P downgrade in part reflects the very suggestion of a default.

Perhaps you hit it on the head, SixNein. In fact, I read this same sentiment in a blog at The Economist:

America’s ability to pay is neither here nor there: the problem is its willingness to pay.

It's worth a read.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/08/sps-credit-rating-cut

 

[WhoWee]

Perhaps you hit it on the head, SixNein. In fact, I read this same sentiment in a blog at The Economist:

It's worth a read.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/08/sps-credit-rating-cut

The media hype that painted the Republicans as "terrorists" (for example) certainly played a role in swaying public perception. The House Republicans sent 3 Bills that were tabled by Harry Reid in the Senate - this prevented debate and the media gave him a pass.

 

[lisab]

The media hype that painted the Republicans as "terrorists" (for example) certainly played a role in swaying public perception. The House Republicans sent 3 Bills that were tabled by Harry Reid in the Senate - this prevented debate and the media gave him a pass.

Exactly the point of the article I linked to...

America’s ability to pay is neither here nor there: the problem is its willingness to pay.

Here in the US, we *have* stop the "well they started it!" thinking. If the pols can't be the adults, then we must.

 

[SixNein]

Here in the US, we *have* stop the "well they started it!" thinking. If the pols can't be the adults, then we must.

I agree with you 100%.

I don't mean to go all Creon on you guys, but America is like a ship. If it sinks, we all drown, and right now our ship of state is sailing in rough waters. And in the interest of all Americans, we need to sail our ship of state into calmer waters. But in order to do that, we must work together. Unfortunately, our partisan language is causing us to paddle our ship in different directions; as a result, our efforts are nullified, and our ship is being navigated by the deep. If we set aside for a moment our group identities and our need to defend them, we can communicate not in defence of our identities but in an exhaustive search for solutions to the problems effecting our ship so that we may work as one to sail our ship to safety.

[PLAIN]http://www.ee.umanitoba.ca/~kinsner/cpics/logos/bgwave.jpg

A little imagery lol (Painting is called the 'Great Wave')

 

[BobG]

I'm trying to follow BobG's logic regarding Boehner's actions. At the end of the day Boehner did not make them happy - but I don't think he's lost their on-going support?

In the end, he capitulated and agreed to send up a bill that had absolutely no chance of passing the Senate. I don't know why that was necessary. Surely, even Tea Party Republicans knew that bill would do absolutely nothing in the real world. It sent a purely symbolic message right when we were backed up against a tight deadline. And they were willing to risk real world consequences in order to send that symbolic message.

It also sent a message to S&P about how it can expect Congress to treat the debt in the future. (http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgraded_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8

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.

(bolding mine)

Crashing the system is a viable option for a small, but significant portion of Congress. If the Tea Party somehow turns this into a victory that increases their percentage (and their power) in Congress - especially if the Tea Party were able to increase their members in the Senate - then downgrading the credit rating of the US is a reasonable reaction. Since the other two major groups did not downgrade the US's credit rating, it's obvious that opinion over the Tea Party's chances of success in the future are divided.

Long term, though, Democrats are just as big an obstacle, even if they didn't take the spotlight this go around.

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process.

Two things have to happen in order to bring the deficits back under control - cut entitlement spending and raise taxes. A triumph by either side, whether Democrats preventing cuts to entitlement spending or Republicans preventing increases in taxes, means we continue to coast along with a debt that rises faster than the GDP.

See, bailing out the financial sector wasn't such a bad deal after all. We did them a favor and now they'll repay us by making the tax rate/entitlement spending debate a lot less fun. They'll quit investing in US Treasury bonds and start investing overseas in AAA countries. They'll repay us with some tough love that will leave the public disenchanted with both the extreme left and the extreme right - and might just push voters towards a saner, more moderate Congress.

Phhhttt! Right - I couldn't even type that last sentence without spurting coffee out my nose, all over my computer monitor!

 

[WhoWee]

In the end, he capitulated and agreed to send up a bill that had absolutely no chance of passing the Senate. I don't know why that was necessary. Surely, even Tea Party Republicans knew that bill would do absolutely nothing in the real world. It sent a purely symbolic message right when we were backed up against a tight deadline. And they were willing to risk real world consequences in order to send that symbolic message.

Are we forgetting they passed the cut, cap and balance Bill a week earlier? Harry Reid tabled that one without debate as well. The Senate could have used the first Bill as a framework. Instead, they chose to do nothing and (IMO) this is where Boehner fell into the trap and made a HUGE mistake - by putting the pressure back on himself - instead of on the President to urge Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats to take action.

 

[skippy1729]

By and large, the Tea Party caucus has done exactly what they said they would do when running for election -- not play the old Washington games. I think that this fact will weigh heavier with the electorate that media hyperbole and polls.

It is interesting to note the exact wording of the CBS poll:

1. Is your opinion of the Tea Party movement favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about the Tea Party movement yet to have an opinion?

While the unfavorable rose from 18 to 40 percent the "haven't heard enough" dropped from 46 to 21 percent.

"Haven't heard enough" what? The media parroting White house talking points about "hostage takers"? Elected democrats calling them terrorists? This from people for whom the word terrorist sticks in their throat when talking about real terrorists!

The only poll that counts will be held in 16 months.

 

[WhoWee]

By and large, the Tea Party caucus has done exactly what they said they would do when running for election -- not play the old Washington games. I think that this fact will weigh heavier with the electorate that media hyperbole and polls.

It is interesting to note the exact wording of the CBS poll:

1. Is your opinion of the Tea Party movement favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about the Tea Party movement yet to have an opinion?

While the unfavorable rose from 18 to 40 percent the "haven't heard enough" dropped from 46 to 21 percent.

"Haven't heard enough" what? The media parroting White house talking points about "hostage takers"? Elected democrats calling them terrorists? This from people for whom the word terrorist sticks in their throat when talking about real terrorists!

The only poll that counts will be held in 16 months.

I agree. In the mean time - don't underestimate the Left Wing and media's ability to infuriate the people who turned out in the last election cycle that swept Republican candidates into the House.

 

[CAC1001]

The responsible reaction of Republican leadership to Tea Party demands would have been to ignore them right from the start and get to work creating a compromise bill that would get Democratic support. I think at one point, Obama, Boehner, and Pelosi were close to doing that with a bill would make cuts in Social Security and in Medicare, and would increase taxes. This would have been a good deal. It's incredibly hard to cut SS and Medicare - getting tax cuts back in a few years wouldn't be nearly as hard. This is the deal that would have prevented S&P from downgrading the US's credit rating.

The problem though is how to know if it is a bill that will consist of real spending cuts alongside tax increases? Too often, the spending cuts are just smoke and mirrors and the tax increases are what occur. I think this is why the Tea Party types are so reluctant to compromise on that issue.

 

[BobG]

Seems the losers of the debt debacle are congress and the Tea Party.



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/views-congress-tea-party-reach-low-poll-135728798.html

And those results seem confirmed by more recent polls, as well.

http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm

Significantly, people are now changing their minds about the Tea Party from favorable to unfavorable. Previous trends have kept the favorable ratings relatively constant while the "Never heard of" and "Unsure" slowly moved into the "Unfavorable" group.

Almost bizarrely, Obama has moved the opposite direction:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh12gen.htm

The number of people that would re-elect Obama over a Republican candidate had been getting smaller and smaller until the debt ceiling debacle.

I guess the re-election question encompasses the mood most accurately, since that involves a comparison to Republicans, as well as the mood about Obama. I don't think Obama made a strong impression during the debt ceiling debate and can't see his approval ratings going up, but, apparently, he didn't make as bad an impression as Republicans did.

 

[turbo]

The GOP leadership's popularity has taken a hit since the debt "crises", not just the Tea Party. Views of the voting public toward members of the house and senate have also swung negative.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/republican-leadership-debt-ceiling-poll_n_922244.html