The Tea Party is back in business! (2 Viewers)

[tommyboy]

If you hate the tea party this much now, just wait until 2014. Your head will explode.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

If you hate the tea party this much now, just wait until 2014. Your head will explode.

 

[cobalt_27]

I love the tea party. When you have incompetent, low IQ boobs running for office, they weed out much of the electorate that really has no business making important decisions about anything, least of all who should be elected officials.

Give these people a right to vote? Check.

Make their national vote irrelevant? Check.

Yeah, the tea party can loiter around for as long as they want. Helps the good guys.

 

[Widbil83]

Can we implement a "kick the can" tax? Maybe grant the IRS "publishing rights" or something to collect a few pennies in royalties each time it used? Should close our immediate budget hole pretty nicely. At least until people can break the habits to avoid using it to avoid the tax.

Been watching Fox all night, Hannity's on now. "Kick the can" is a mandatory phrase for the Fox team. Oh, and Hannity's head is about to explode. Great entertainment atm.

I understand that you guys on "Team Blue/Obama" feel you need to beat your chest about your victory. But do you really think the people who are using the phrase "kicking the can down the road" are being disingenuous when they use it? Are we not going to have a similar debate again in 3 months?

 

[skol asylum]

We didn't have to but the Teddy and the Cruzers tried to make this all about Obamacare instead of just getting the debt ceiling raised and keeping the government running and later revisiting reforms in all tax and spend programs. Guy is a selfish egomaniac.

 

[msommer]

Should be fun to learn about all the other crap that was attached to this bill in the coming days!

No way this was a "clean" bill. Should be plenty of outrage over the riders that made this whole standoff worthwhile.

Schlzm

Pork barrel politics makes it (more) difficult to balance the budget....

 

[snogger]

As soon as they kick out the extremists on both sides and work together for the greater good we'll all benefit.

Yes

Then toss out the lobbyists, special interest groups, and reform campaign finance laws.

And term limits for reps, or longer terms so that they're not constantly in campaign mode (aka trying to save their job).

X Infinity

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

You guys pop your champagne...

No thank you.

This shouldn't have ever happened.

The 46 times the house couldnt squelch the ASA should have been enough for these rat bastards,

Instead they screwed around even more. This was pure suckage, even the final result doesnt change that.

How many abortion and ASA bills should we expect from the repukes over the next two years?

ASA?By the way did you price out what your current health insurance costs for 2013 and compare it to 2014?

http://www.ehealth.com/

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You guys pop your champagne...

No thank you.

This shouldn't have ever happened.

The 46 times the house couldnt squelch the ASA should have been enough for these rat bastards,

Instead they screwed around even more. This was pure suckage, even the final result doesnt change that.

How many abortion and ASA bills should we expect from the repukes over the next two years?

ASA?By the way did you price out what your current health insurance costs for 2013 and compare it to 2014?

http://www.ehealth.com/

American Softball Association.... because the Tea Party has been serving 'em up.

 

[Mario Kart]

Finally, Harry Reid did the right thing. Unfortunately in all of this, the citizens of America end up losing.

Vote them all out!

 

[spreagle]

As a conservative, to me it is crystal clear that less democrat-enabling republicans and more teabuggers are required in Washington. The last thing I want is the GOP stamp of approval on everything Obama and the democrats do, but that seems to be exactly what I am getting.

This argument that a small minority shouldn't be able to screw up the status quo is exactly what the British thought.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

As a conservative, to me it is crystal clear that less democrat-enabling republicans and more teabuggers are required in Washington. The last thing I want is the GOP stamp of approval on everything Obama and the democrats do, but that seems to be exactly what I am getting.

This argument that a small minority shouldn't be able to screw up the status quo is exactly what the British thought.

Have you been under a rock for the past two years?

 

[spreagle]

On the positive side, it seems the can is now getting shanked down the road rather than kicked down the road.

 

[spreagle]

On the positive side, there are now two issues that all democrats own, Obamacare and global warming, doubling the chances that one implodes in the next year or two dragging down all democrats with it.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

It's over. The House voted to approve the bill, 285 to 144. The breakdown was:

198 Democrats for, 2 against.

85 Republicans for, 142 against.

I changed the thread title to make it more accurate.

You changed the title to "Tea Party is defeated and repudiated", but you just noted that 142 Republicans voted against the bill. Does that mean that 142 Republicans do not repudiate the Tea Party? If so, it appears that the Tea Party influence within Congress may be growing, not lessening.

bunch of P's that are worried about getting hammered in primaries.

Make no bones about it... #### like this is what forces extremism. The tea party are idiots that are so far out on the right that it scares EVERY rational thinker. The problem is after staring into the abyss of stupidity that is this blue vs red slapfight, you dumbasses are forcing more and more people either to the sidelines (like myself) or to extremist countermeasures (like the tea party).It's bad for everyone. Anyone claiming victory tonight is an idiot :(

It's going around. In Greece the rise of the far-right wing nationalist group called the Golden Dawn party had made great strides in stopping, and taking a prominent place in that ####ed up government. Then supporters went ahead and killed some famous hippie singer, and it was pretty much all over. Complete backlash, people don't want that nonsense. Not saying that is what the Tea Party is, but they sure do stir up the crazy in this country like I've never seen.

Those are the Nazi guys that were in Vice, right?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

You guys pop your champagne...

No thank you.

This shouldn't have ever happened.

The 46 times the house couldnt squelch the ASA should have been enough for these rat bastards,

Instead they screwed around even more. This was pure suckage, even the final result doesnt change that.

How many abortion and ASA bills should we expect from the repukes over the next two years?

ASA?By the way did you price out what your current health insurance costs for 2013 and compare it to 2014?

http://www.ehealth.com/

American Softball Association.... because the Tea Party has been serving 'em up.

So you compared your health insurance today vs. 2014 and you like what you see or did you not bother to see how much this wonderful ASA is going to cost you?

.

 

[igbomb]

OK, but even if you simply believe that the economy will grow less quickly than it did before, you're still arguing for a limiting factor, and your still arguing for a redistribution of wealth (balancing the budget) as your solution. I don't really see much difference between the two points (limited resources vs. slow growing economy).

How is balancing the budget the same as redistribution of wealth? They're completely irrelevant to each other.

I think he's trying to fish me or something on this one. It's the furthest thing from a cohesive argument I've actually seen out of Tim, and he argues an awful lot.

Any balancing of the budget at this time will require extremely significant cuts to the public sector, creating unemployment in high levels that will widen the gap between the have and have nots in this country. It will remove spending power from millions of Americans and, at least temporarily, increase spending power among the wealthy (though in the long run it will weaken that too.) That was the result of the Great Depression- essentially a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the very wealthy.

Oh, bull####. This is simpy another version of the "NOW isn't the right time to cut spending or raise taxes" refrain. There are plenty of ways to decrease the deficit without sending us into recession.

There are plenty of ways to significantly reduce the deficit through spending cuts that won't send us into recession? Please expand.

I specifically noted "or raise taxes" in my reply. And let's see... the sequester cuts didn't send us into a recession, despite being untargeted, stupid cuts, right? Surely, targeted, intelligent cuts would be even less likely to send us into a recession than the sequester cuts. We could reduce defense spending, I'm certain. We could introduce chained CPI. We could legalize and tax marijuana. We could stop spending billions on the war on drugs. We could eliminate the tax benefit of employer provided healthcare. That's just five minutes off the top of my head.

None of what you're proposing would significantly reduce the deficit. Let's be clear- the tax raises and/or the sequester reduced the deficit from slightly over 1 trillion a year to slightly under 1 trillion a year. Let's say you want to cut it in half- that means you have to find a way to reduce spending by around 40 billion a month. That cannot be done with "targeted intelligent cuts", or legalizing pot. That would involve SERIOUS cuts to the military, to Social Security or Medicare, which the public has no stomach for and which would surely push us into a recession.

And at the end of it, even if you were successful in cutting the deficit in half, you're still increasing the debt by nearly 500 billion every year. And all the concerns you have about the size of the debt would still be around. So you would succeed in maximizing pain and with really nothing to show for it.

There is no way to solve our debt issue by cutting spending. There's no way to come close to solving it by cutting spending. Perhaps you and Dr. J are right, and therefore we're doomed. If so, it's inevitable- there's no way to stop it.

If we actually flat line spending as wcrob suggested (which will require entitlement reform and a spending freeze on the military) then the economy will naturally shrink the deficit. We could even do PayGo as Obama once proposed and make sure than any increase in spending is offset with new receipts. It might take a decade or longer, but it would actually happen. If we could then maintain the balanced budget, the debt to GDP ratio will naturally shrink. This is all that needs to happen. But even gradual plans that might take 10 or 15 years are too extreme for you big government types. You leave people that consider this a real problem no alternative than the tactics you're seeing and getting bent out of shape about. If you believe someone is heading towards a cliff and you can't even get them to gently apply the brake to get a little more time to think about things, what do you have left but "extremist" choices if you genuinely fear for this person's life?

I'm with DrJ on this one. Drastic, immediate changes are not what is needed. Gradual, phased-in spending slow-downs are the answer and something that can be done without shocking the economy into recession. Of course, I think that the spending cuts should be compounded with revenue increases (again through gradual changes). It's not a lost cause. We don't need to balance the budget. Just curb the spending growth.

 

[RCon]

$1300B in 2011

$1100B in 2012

$760B in 2013

They'll just go back to arguing the 18% increase in 08-09. TARP and the stimulus are the crux of their argument. The fact that both those programs were emergency responses to the economic meltdown are irrelevant. It "proves" somehow that Obama is the biggest spender in history and that we're headed to catastrophe.

You're missing the fact that we're basing the "decreases" on a "new baseline" of that temporary spending. What's the average increase from 2007 to 2012? That removes the effect of the one year outlier.

 

[dparker713]

On the positive side, there are now two issues that all democrats own, Obamacare and global warming, doubling the chances that one implodes in the next year or two dragging down all democrats with it.

This post right here is emblematic of everything wrong with America.

 

[dparker713]

You guys pop your champagne...

No thank you.

This shouldn't have ever happened.

The 46 times the house couldnt squelch the ASA should have been enough for these rat bastards,

Instead they screwed around even more. This was pure suckage, even the final result doesnt change that.

How many abortion and ASA bills should we expect from the repukes over the next two years?

ASA?By the way did you price out what your current health insurance costs for 2013 and compare it to 2014?

http://www.ehealth.com/

American Softball Association.... because the Tea Party has been serving 'em up.

So you compared your health insurance today vs. 2014 and you like what you see or did you not bother to see how much this wonderful ASA is going to cost you?

.

He's fine. He's using his bitcoins to pay for all his drugs now. More than covers the cost.

 

[apalmer]

On the positive side, there are now two issues that all democrats own, Obamacare and global warming, doubling the chances that one implodes in the next year or two dragging down all democrats with it.

Meanwhile, the Republican ownership of the "oppose everything" issue will never get old.

 

[Slapdash]

...Obama's current ridiculous projections have us shrinking this to 500 billion by 2016 with a GDP that magically starts growing at 5-6% a year and hits 18.9 trillion. But we've never actually hit his projections - ....

You do realize that those projections are based on the premise that those budgets will be actually implemented, or at least the basic blueprint for our fiscal policy? Oh, never mind.

 

[humpback]

$1300B in 2011

$1100B in 2012

$760B in 2013

Why stop there?

 

[3C's]

I'm with DrJ on this one. Drastic, immediate changes are not what is needed. Gradual, phased-in spending slow-downs are the answer and something that can be done without shocking the economy into recession. Of course, I think that the spending cuts should be compounded with revenue increases (again through gradual changes). It's not a lost cause. We don't need to balance the budget. Just curb the spending growth.

Yah. We don't need to kill the debt, necessarily, but we should get it under 60-70% of GDP. But we don't need to act like it's some pie-in-the-sky impossibility. We were on track to get there when Clinton left office. It'll just be more challenging the next 20 years as we work through the Baby Boomers bulge in Soc Sec/Medicare.

It's a who's who of powerful economies below 60%. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

 

[msommer]

$1300B in 2011

$1100B in 2012

$760B in 2013

They'll just go back to arguing the 18% increase in 08-09. TARP and the stimulus are the crux of their argument. The fact that both those programs were emergency responses to the economic meltdown are irrelevant. It "proves" somehow that Obama is the biggest spender in history and that we're headed to catastrophe.

You're missing the fact that we're basing the "decreases" on a "new baseline" of that temporary spending. What's the average increase from 2007 to 2012? That removes the effect of the one year outlier.

2007 deficit 163 bn. 2007 military spending 530 bn. 2013 military spending 832 bn. 12 months to sept 30th 2013 deficit 760 bn. Half the increase thus increased defense spending

 

[RCon]

None of what you're proposing would significantly reduce the deficit. Let's be clear- the tax raises and/or the sequester reduced the deficit from slightly over 1 trillion a year to slightly under 1 trillion a year. Let's say you want to cut it in half- that means you have to find a way to reduce spending by around 40 billion a month. That cannot be done with "targeted intelligent cuts", or legalizing pot. That would involve SERIOUS cuts to the military, to Social Security or Medicare, which the public has no stomach for and which would surely push us into a recession.And at the end of it, even if you were successful in cutting the deficit in half, you're still increasing the debt by nearly 500 billion every year. And all the concerns you have about the size of the debt would still be around. So you would succeed in maximizing pain and with really nothing to show for it.

There is no way to solve our debt issue by cutting spending. There's no way to come close to solving it by cutting spending. Perhaps you and Dr. J are right, and therefore we're doomed. If so, it's inevitable- there's no way to stop it.

So, just to be clear, your position is:

* We're in so deep that the situation cannot be fixed.

* Those who wish to take incremental steps in an attempt to fix the debt problems are misguided and wrong.

* Those who wished not to exacerbate the problems back in 2008 and 2011 were misguided and wrong.

* Those who wish to take drastic steps in an attempt to fix the debt problems are "extremist".

* The best plan is to hope that a magic deficit fairy comes along and fixes things with her magic wand.

And you call others extremist?

 

[Statorama]

Hopefully the true conservatives will phase out the RINO's in the coming years so we can finally meet Democrat intransigence head on. Right now there are enough Democrats calling themselves Republicans that we the people are constantly being forced to bend to the will of Obama. Whatever he wants, he gets with this bunch of pansies.

Huge victory for the Tea Party. By creating a huge spotlight on the ACA, the news was forced to have parallel coverage between the budget battle and the enormous failure of the ACA roll out. It wasn't ready, and the Tea Party suggestion of a one year delay was the only voice of reason in this whole mess.

 

[humpback]

$1300B in 2011

$1100B in 2012

$760B in 2013

They'll just go back to arguing the 18% increase in 08-09. TARP and the stimulus are the crux of their argument. The fact that both those programs were emergency responses to the economic meltdown are irrelevant. It "proves" somehow that Obama is the biggest spender in history and that we're headed to catastrophe.

 

[culdeus]

How much did this all cost?

 

[igbomb]

As soon as they kick out the extremists on both sides and work together for the greater good we'll all benefit.

Yes

Then toss out the lobbyists, special interest groups, and reform campaign finance laws.

At the very least ditch SuperPAC's and that stupid law that states corporate entities are no different than individuals when it comes to campaign contributions.Schlzm

This. Nothing is more damaging to our current political process than the fact that we let a very small group (corporations and super-rich) drive so much money into getting who they want in office.

 

[humpback]

Also when you're leveraged to the hilt, you lose the flexibility to spend into a down economy.

You would think.

 

[RCon]

http://www.senateconservatives.com/site/post/2312/mcconnell-deal-includes-kentucky-kickback

http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/ports/328965--conservative-group-accuses-mcconnell-of-debt-deal-earmark

Yeah, this is revolting, yet here people are calling McConnell "the adult in the room". I suppose it's accurate if we define adult as "slimy ******* intent on working every angle for himself".

 

[dparker713]

Hopefully the true conservatives will phase out the RINO's in the coming years so we can finally meet Democrat intransigence head on. Right now there are enough Democrats calling themselves Republicans that we the people are constantly being forced to bend to the will of Obama. Whatever he wants, he gets with this bunch of pansies.

Huge victory for the Tea Party. By creating a huge spotlight on the ACA, the news was forced to have parallel coverage between the budget battle and the enormous failure of the ACA roll out. It wasn't ready, and the Tea Party suggestion of a one year delay was the only voice of reason in this whole mess.

Do you actually think there are enough votes to make the party you want into anything more than a minority party in both houses?

 

[RCon]

I don't know what, if anything, can be done about campaign financing. It seems like with the Citizens United decision, we would need a constitutional amendment to get what you guys are calling for. That's never going to happen- in today's age, constitutional amendments are extremely unlikely.

I think we're stuck with the lobbyist system we have now, for better or worse. Mostly worse.

Answer: No limits on any contributions. Full, instant, public disclosure.

 

[The Ref]

As soon as they kick out the extremists on both sides and work together for the greater good we'll all benefit.

Yes

Then toss out the lobbyists, special interest groups, and reform campaign finance laws.

At the very least ditch SuperPAC's and that stupid law that states corporate entities are no different than individuals when it comes to campaign contributions.Schlzm

This. Nothing is more damaging to our current political process than the fact that we let a very small group (corporations and super-rich) drive so much money into getting who they want in office.

Agreed. It's amazing the democrats keep getting re-elected.

 

[3C's]

I'm with DrJ on this one. Drastic, immediate changes are not what is needed. Gradual, phased-in spending slow-downs are the answer and something that can be done without shocking the economy into recession. Of course, I think that the spending cuts should be compounded with revenue increases (again through gradual changes). It's not a lost cause. We don't need to balance the budget. Just curb the spending growth.

Yah. We don't need to kill the debt, necessarily, but we should get it under 60-70% of GDP. But we don't need to act like it's some pie-in-the-sky impossibility. We were on track to get there when Clinton left office. It'll just be more challenging the next 20 years as we work through the Baby Boomers bulge in Soc Sec/Medicare.

It's a who's who of powerful economies below 60%. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

It's well above our historical norms and starts getting to the point where spikes in the interests rates can start gumming up what else we can do with our government.

I'm aware of that, just pointing out that our current level is in line with other 1st world economies while those toward the bottom of the debt to gdp ratio are not what we'd typically consider strong economic nations. I'd like it closer to 50% but that's not the current environment.

 

[igbomb]

None of what you're proposing would significantly reduce the deficit. Let's be clear- the tax raises and/or the sequester reduced the deficit from slightly over 1 trillion a year to slightly under 1 trillion a year. Let's say you want to cut it in half- that means you have to find a way to reduce spending by around 40 billion a month. That cannot be done with "targeted intelligent cuts", or legalizing pot. That would involve SERIOUS cuts to the military, to Social Security or Medicare, which the public has no stomach for and which would surely push us into a recession.And at the end of it, even if you were successful in cutting the deficit in half, you're still increasing the debt by nearly 500 billion every year. And all the concerns you have about the size of the debt would still be around. So you would succeed in maximizing pain and with really nothing to show for it.

There is no way to solve our debt issue by cutting spending. There's no way to come close to solving it by cutting spending. Perhaps you and Dr. J are right, and therefore we're doomed. If so, it's inevitable- there's no way to stop it.

So, just to be clear, your position is:

* We're in so deep that the situation cannot be fixed.

* Those who wish to take incremental steps in an attempt to fix the debt problems are misguided and wrong.

* Those who wished not to exacerbate the problems back in 2008 and 2011 were misguided and wrong.

* Those who wish to take drastic steps in an attempt to fix the debt problems are "extremist".

* The best plan is to hope that a magic deficit fairy comes along and fixes things with her magic wand.

And you call others extremist?

I think your third and fourth bullet points are wrong. I won't call them extremist, but economists overwhelmingly agree that stimulus, through increased spending, was vital to pull us through the recession.

You spend out of a recession and save when times are good. Now that things are improving (though far from good) it's time to start the savings path. But that doesn't make the spending during the recession a bad thing.

 

[humpback]

I'm with DrJ on this one. Drastic, immediate changes are not what is needed. Gradual, phased-in spending slow-downs are the answer and something that can be done without shocking the economy into recession. Of course, I think that the spending cuts should be compounded with revenue increases (again through gradual changes). It's not a lost cause. We don't need to balance the budget. Just curb the spending growth.

Yah. We don't need to kill the debt, necessarily, but we should get it under 60-70% of GDP. But we don't need to act like it's some pie-in-the-sky impossibility. We were on track to get there when Clinton left office. It'll just be more challenging the next 20 years as we work through the Baby Boomers bulge in Soc Sec/Medicare.

It's a who's who of powerful economies below 60%. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

It's well above our historical norms and starts getting to the point where spikes in the interests rates can start gumming up what else we can do with our government.

I'm aware of that, just pointing out that our current level is in line with other 1st world economies while those toward the bottom of the debt to gdp ratio are not what we'd typically consider strong economic nations. I'd like it closer to 50% but that's not the current environment.

Did you notice the countries at the top?

 

[Boston]

This whole episode just furthers my belief that the Dems are dangerous and the GOP is inept...as we wake-up today the GOP has proven once again that they are clueless...the establishment GOP could not be less media savvy or understand what their constituency wants while the Tea-Party wing needs to figure out they can not get every thing they want and when they don't they can't have a temper-tantrum and act like a five-year old...on the other-side we are about to reap the results of a law that is going to be a complete disaster that was rammed thru in a total non-partisan manner...only an ideologue will say this roll-out has been a success and the future of health-care looks promising...I don't think there has ever been a time in our country where the President, Senate and House were all such complete losers and totally incapable of helping your Average Joe...I really can't comprehend how anyone thinks the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, McConnell and Boehner can solve any issues that face our country today...

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

2013

Hopefully the true conservatives will phase out the RINO's in the coming years so we can finally meet Democrat intransigence head on. Right now there are enough Democrats calling themselves Republicans that we the people are constantly being forced to bend to the will of Obama.

1970

Hopefully the true liberals will phase out the DINO's in the coming years so we can finally meet Republican intransigence head on. Right now there are enough Republicans calling themselves Democrats that we the people are constantly being forced to bend to the will of Nixon.

This won't end well for you Stat.

 

[RCon]

I don't know what, if anything, can be done about campaign financing. It seems like with the Citizens United decision, we would need a constitutional amendment to get what you guys are calling for. That's never going to happen- in today's age, constitutional amendments are extremely unlikely.

I think we're stuck with the lobbyist system we have now, for better or worse. Mostly worse.

Answer: No limits on any contributions. Full, instant, public disclosure.

Constitutional amendment giving Congress the power to regulate contributions, imo.

Ugh, no thanks. That's a recipe for "contributions to incumbents = good, contributions to anyone else = bad".

 

[Todd Andrews]

I don't know what, if anything, can be done about campaign financing. It seems like with the Citizens United decision, we would need a constitutional amendment to get what you guys are calling for. That's never going to happen- in today's age, constitutional amendments are extremely unlikely.

I think we're stuck with the lobbyist system we have now, for better or worse. Mostly worse.

Answer: No limits on any contributions. Full, instant, public disclosure.

Answer: full public financing of federal campaigns with equal free air time and lots of debates.

 

[Don Quixote]

How much did this all cost?

S&P estimated $24 billion out of the economy.

 

[culdeus]

How much did this all cost?

S&P estimated $24 billion out of the economy.

Excellent.

 

[Don Quixote]

How long do you guys think it will take to get the government back up and running?

If it is signed into law today, everyone goes back to work tomorrow.

Oh Bull ####!

 

[3C's]

I'm with DrJ on this one. Drastic, immediate changes are not what is needed. Gradual, phased-in spending slow-downs are the answer and something that can be done without shocking the economy into recession. Of course, I think that the spending cuts should be compounded with revenue increases (again through gradual changes). It's not a lost cause. We don't need to balance the budget. Just curb the spending growth.

Yah. We don't need to kill the debt, necessarily, but we should get it under 60-70% of GDP. But we don't need to act like it's some pie-in-the-sky impossibility. We were on track to get there when Clinton left office. It'll just be more challenging the next 20 years as we work through the Baby Boomers bulge in Soc Sec/Medicare.

It's a who's who of powerful economies below 60%. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

It's well above our historical norms and starts getting to the point where spikes in the interests rates can start gumming up what else we can do with our government.

I'm aware of that, just pointing out that our current level is in line with other 1st world economies while those toward the bottom of the debt to gdp ratio are not what we'd typically consider strong economic nations. I'd like it closer to 50% but that's not the current environment.

Did you notice the countries at the top?

I notice quite a few G20 countries higher than the US.

 

[cstu]

I heard Republican Scott Rigell, Rep. from VA, on the radio yesterday and was very impressed. I don't agree with his politics but he seems like he has a lot of common sense.

 

[Henry Ford]

As a conservative, to me it is crystal clear that less democrat-enabling republicans and more teabuggers are required in Washington. The last thing I want is the GOP stamp of approval on everything Obama and the democrats do, but that seems to be exactly what I am getting.

This argument that a small minority shouldn't be able to screw up the status quo is exactly what the British thought.

Actually, they thought that no matter what the majority of people thought, they'd go ahead and do whatever they wanted economically because they could, consequences be damned.This is fun. It's almost like you can twist any scenario to make it sound like your own. It's kinda like stuff is very similar to other stuff.

 

[DrJ]

$1300B in 2011

$1100B in 2012

$760B in 2013

They'll just go back to arguing the 18% increase in 08-09. TARP and the stimulus are the crux of their argument. The fact that both those programs were emergency responses to the economic meltdown are irrelevant. It "proves" somehow that Obama is the biggest spender in history and that we're headed to catastrophe.

You're missing the fact that we're basing the "decreases" on a "new baseline" of that temporary spending. What's the average increase from 2007 to 2012? That removes the effect of the one year outlier.

2007 deficit 163 bn. 2007 military spending 530 bn. 2013 military spending 832 bn. 12 months to sept 30th 2013 deficit 760 bn. Half the increase thus increased defense spending

Obama's current budget has 2013 military spending at 652B. A decrease from the 671B in 2012, and in 2014 it will decrease further to 615B before starting to rise again. Your numbers are inaccurate.

 

[3C's]

I heard Republican Scott Rigell, Rep. from VA, on the radio yesterday and was very impressed. I don't agree with his politics but he seems like he has a lot of common sense.

Yep. Seems a straight shooter. I'd buy a car from him.