Just thought I would throw a question out there. If an individual were to do some activity that knowingly harmed the United States, should they be charged with treason? We have just witnessed a group of political figures who were forwarned by the ratings agencies, that if they did not cut long term spending by $4 trillion, they would be downgraded. They did not heed the warmings.
I realize that those on the left blame the Tea Party, but the Tea party only claims 33 seats out of 645 seats in Congress. THat is only 5% of the elected officials, In addition, the Tea Party advocated cuts that equaled $4 trillion long term, so if their advice were heeded, then the US would not have been downgraded. Instead, they went against the wishes of the Tea Party and voted for a plan that did not hit the $4 trillion mark. The Tea Party was then subsequently blamed because they refused tax hikes to achieve this number. So I ask you, if they were going to compromise the TEa Party position, why not just raise taxes to hit the $4 trillion mark instead of not hitting it and blaming it on the Tea Party? Either way, the Tea Party position was compromised, so why not do it in a way that prevents a downgrade rather than one that accomplished a downgrade?
If you ask me, the politicians who signed on to this "compromise" are treasonous. To then blame a concerned political organization like the Tea Party, who only claims 5% power in the federal government, if that, is unconscionable, especially when this group are the only voices out there wanting the federal government to behave in a fiscally responsible manner. The Tea Party even had a plan which was to reduce federal spending by 1% for eight years and the budget would be balanced. What plans do the Democrats have, or do they even give a damn? What exactly are the plans of those who voted in favor of the downgrade? Is the plan simply to do what is needed to ruin the credit rating of the United States and blame the Tea Party as the scapgoat, or are those in power actually going to grow a pair and claim responsibility where it is due?
Anyone?
Originally posted by whodeyWow, whodey. All I can say is wow.
I realize that those on the left blame the Tea Party, but the Tea party only claims 33 seats out of 645 seats in Congress. THat is only 5% of the elected officials, In addition, the Tea Party advocated cuts that equaled $4 trillion long term, so if their advice were heeded, then the US would not have been downgraded.
First of all, there are 435 voting representatives in the House, and 100 in the Senate, totalling to 535 voting representatives in Congress, not 645.
Second of all, 33 TEA Party members of Congress happened to vote in favor of the final deficit reduction compromise, but in fact 60 (according to my Congressional representative's FB page, at least) members of the House affiliate themselves with the TEA Party, as well as a few Senators. But since we're talking about the House, in fact voting TEA Party Republicans as a proportion of all voting House Republicans is 60/240, or 25%.
Third, the plan toward which Obama and Boehner were working before Republicans backed out of negotiations was also in the $4T range over 10 years, but of course the prospect of tax increases was unpalatable to... conservative and TEA Party Republicans.
Originally posted by whodeyBorrowing from a post of mine in a different thread to answer this one...
What plans do the Democrats have, or do they even give a damn? What exactly are the plans of those who voted in favor of the downgrade?
Obama announced on television more times than I can remember that he would be willing to consider cuts to entitlement programs given that Republicans were willing to consider closing tax loopholes and enacting modest tax rate increases. Obama and Boehner early on in their negotiations suggested they were in the same ballpark as one another in terms of what size of a deal they would be willing to consider, and that package appeared to be double the size (at the minimum) of the package agreed to last week.
House Republicans wasted time writing up their CCB bill knowing all the while that neither the Senate nor Obama would support that plan. They passed the Boehner version of "compromise" under the same circumstances, even as they were forced to move the provisions of the Boehner version to the right to appease TEA Party Republicans rather than to the left to appease Democrats and have a chance at passing something that would survive in the other branches of government. All the while, Obama and Reid were trying to negotiate a plan with whatever Republicans would come to the table so that when they did introduce a bill, it actually would pass.
So my question is, why does that situation grace the Republican party with the moral high ground? It's nothing more than a political posturing act and a media soundbite. Democrats could have introduced 200 futile bills to the Republicans' failed 2; instead they attempted to work out a plan that they knew would actually pass a divided system of government.
Originally posted by whodeyYeah. Not that I agree with these independent morons telling us who is credit worthy and who is not. BUT I CERTAINLY have to laugh at the US killing everyone they deem treasonous.
Just thought I would throw a question out there. If an individual were to do some activity that knowingly harmed the United States, should they be charged with treason? We have just witnessed a group of political figures who were forwarned by the ratings agencies, that if they did not cut long term spending by $4 trillion, they would be downgraded. They di ...[text shortened]... se in power actually going to grow a pair and claim responsibility where it is due?
Anyone?
It's worked so well for you in the past...
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199224
Given that the rating itself was partly based on the Republican pledge to refuse to raise taxes, unless you want to put all of them in jail, you're going to have a problem.
In any case, treason is a very specific crime with very specific elements.
And given that the S&P is the only agency to downgrade, partially based on a two trillion dollar calculation error on their part, I think the damage here will be minimal. Moody's has maintained the AAA rating.
Originally posted by whodeyWhodey, the idea that government officials are guilty of treason if they're unable to meet the arbitrary demands of a private company is so mind-numbingly absurd that I think you ought to consider withdrawing the question.
Just thought I would throw a question out there. If an individual were to do some activity that knowingly harmed the United States, should they be charged with treason? We have just witnessed a group of political figures who were forwarned by the ratings agencies, that if they did not cut long term spending by $4 trillion, they would be downgraded. They di ...[text shortened]... se in power actually going to grow a pair and claim responsibility where it is due?
Anyone?
Originally posted by sh76Its not just appeasing a private company. It is a number of economic professionals assessing the fiscal path of the country. Their expertise exceeds the idiot Keynisian lawyers who rule over us. Even Obama said that the fiscal situation was not sustainable, but why does he not change course?
Whodey, the idea that government officials are guilty of treason if they're unable to meet the arbitrary demands of a private company is so mind-numbingly absurd that I think you ought to consider withdrawing the question.
In the midst of an economic downturn not seen since the Great De;ression, I would think they would do what was nseded to pay down or cut expenses to reduce theh debt $4 trillion, which was the absolute minimum number to not get downgraded. Instead, they ignored the warnings, and not Americans have been presented with yet another financial downturn.
So no, I will not withdraw the question. The reckless fiscal course of the country is harming the country. Those responsible are treasonous.
In short, this bunch is the worst of the worst in US history.
Originally posted by wittywonkaAll I can say is that the GOP did not appease anyone. The Tea Party is not happy with increasing the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion, so why would they care about the tax hikes?
Borrowing from a post of mine in a different thread to answer this one...
Obama announced on television more times than I can remember that he would be willing to consider cuts to entitlement programs given that Republicans were willing to consider closing tax loopholes and enacting modest tax rate increases. Obama and Boehner early on in their nego ...[text shortened]... ed to work out a plan that they knew would actually pass a divided system of government.
As for myself, I'm voting against everyone who voted for this legislation.
Originally posted by whodeyThe establishment members of the GOP bent over backwards to get enough TEA Party support to pass the Boehner plan. Whether they were fundamentally happy about the plan is irrelevant; they still liked that plan more than they did the type of compromise plan that finally passed.
All I can say is that the GOP did not appease anyone. The Tea Party is not happy with increasing the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion, so why would they care about the tax hikes?
As for myself, I'm voting against everyone who voted for this legislation.
And again, all of this backflipping went on even though the GOP knew it wouldn't pass, even though they could have gained dozens of Democratic votes by moving the legislation to the left as opposed to what they did, by gaining a few holdout GOP votes by moving the legislation even more to the right.
Originally posted by whodey…the idiot Keynisian lawyers…
Its not just appeasing a private company. It is a number of economic professionals assessing the fiscal path of the country. Their expertise exceeds the idiot Keynisian lawyers who rule over us. Even Obama said that the fiscal situation was not sustainable, but why does he not change course?
In the midst of an economic downturn not seen since the Great ...[text shortened]... ose responsible are treasonous.
In short, this bunch is the worst of the worst in US history.
You really just don’t know anything about Keynes, do you? Or the Keynesian/Neoclassical synthesis, or Post Keynesians, or….?
Originally posted by vistesdSure I do. I hear he was a really swell guy. Of course, he could not balance his check book to save his life, but a nice guy. 😛
[b]…the idiot Keynisian lawyers…
You really just don’t know anything about Keynes, do you? Or the Keynesian/Neoclassical synthesis, or Post Keynesians, or….?[/b]
Originally posted by whodey1) Why didn't these superior economic professionals hand out AAA ratings more judiciously prior to 2008? Were those decisions reflective of their "expertise"?
It is a number of economic professionals assessing the fiscal path of the country. Their expertise exceeds the idiot Keynisian lawyers who rule over us.
2) Why haven't these superior economic professionals also downgraded other countries who have higher debt/GDP ratios? Is this decision reflective of their "expertise"?
3) S&P repeatedly attributed a significant part of its rationale for downgrading the credit rating on Congressional gridlock and ideological partisanship. Is this decision reflective of their "expertise"?
Originally posted by wittywonkaAs to 3, why isn't the undoubted reality that this country almost defaulted on its debt due to extreme partisanship not a legitimate factor in deciding the level of risk of government securities?
1) Why didn't these superior economic professionals hand out AAA ratings more judiciously prior to 2008? Were those decisions reflective of their "expertise"?
2) Why haven't these superior economic professionals also downgraded other countries who have higher debt/GDP ratios? Is this decision reflective of their "expertise"?
3) S&P repeatedly attr ...[text shortened]... ridlock and ideological partisanship. Is this decision reflective of their "expertise"?
Originally posted by no1marauderMy point was to question whodey's implication that the legitimacy of S&P's rationale stemmed from some perceived intellectual superiority of S&P's "economic professionals," when by all appearances S&P indeed acted in response to an obviously fragmented political system.
As to 3, why isn't the undoubted reality that this country almost defaulted on its debt due to extreme partisanship not a legitimate factor in deciding the level of risk of government securities?