Views of Congress, tea party reach new low in poll

[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