Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. Aug 6, 2011 #1


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 6, 2011 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Close enough

    Just wait until this S&P decision, and the stated reasons for it, have time to sink in. Thankfully Moodys didn't follow suit.
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2011
  4. Aug 6, 2011 #3
    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?
  5. Aug 6, 2011 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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?
  6. Aug 6, 2011 #5
    S&P and the "Tea Party" are my new heroes. finally, someone is putting the brakes on these drunken fools in DC.
  7. Aug 6, 2011 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  8. Aug 6, 2011 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2011
  9. Aug 6, 2011 #8
    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?
  10. Aug 6, 2011 #9
    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.
  11. Aug 6, 2011 #10
    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.
  12. Aug 6, 2011 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  13. Aug 6, 2011 #12
    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.
  14. Aug 6, 2011 #13

    Here's the problem with your argument:

    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?
  15. Aug 6, 2011 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    OK, the Democrats caused the whole crisis! How could I have been so foolish?
  16. Aug 6, 2011 #15
    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.
  17. Aug 6, 2011 #16
    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.
  18. Aug 7, 2011 #17


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  19. Aug 7, 2011 #18

    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, completly 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.
  20. Aug 7, 2011 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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/ [Broken]
    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.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  21. Aug 7, 2011 #20
    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?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook