Markets to Tea Party: You Suck!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But the committee of 12 is going to have a built-in bias toward stalemate -- Republicans who are instructed not to yield on taxes and Democrats who will not cut entitlements. So what happens when we confront the requirement for steep cuts nobody wants?

The trigger. I don't expect the committee to produce anything. So, learn the details of the trigger because that is when we will be getting.

The trigger was my point. When that time comes, will the gun be allowed to fire, or will some way be found to avoid the cuts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for shaving another 350 points off the market today. You have managed to erase a year's worth of gains in just a few short days. Way to go.

Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap.

are you that stupid to think this has ANYTHING to do with washington politics? it has everything to do with the crisis in Europe and the continuing poor economic #s here in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama got his blank check. It's his economy. His ideas have failed. He will be crushed in 2012, anything is better than this crap.

Ah, yes. The "blank check" of having every policy the Democrats have tried to implement undercut by the GOP, who want nothing more than for the economy to stay in the shitter until the next election. It's the tragedy of our shitty political system. If we had a parliamentary system, we'd have an election, the winner would constitute the government, and they'd enact policy. Instead we've got a Rube Goldberg contraption with 1,001 veto-points where the party that want's to throw sand in the works can do so with impunity. Hell, Obama can't even make executive branch appointments without individual GOP senators preventing their appointment.

Anyone who argues that Obama has had a blank check is either lying, or they actually believe that shit. Sadly, given that you're an anonymous commenter on the internet, it's highly likely you fall in the second camp. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for shaving another 350 points off the market today. You have managed to erase a year's worth of gains in just a few short days. Way to go.

Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap.

are you that stupid to think this has ANYTHING to do with washington politics? it has everything to do with the crisis in Europe and the continuing poor economic #s here in the US.

Exactly, the fall in the stock market has everything to do with *their* nonsensical, crippling austerity measures; and nothing whatsoever do do with *our* nonsensical, crippling austerity measures. Funny though that you can't understand that policy has anything to do with "poor economic #s here int he US."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for shaving another 350 points off the market today. You have managed to erase a year's worth of gains in just a few short days. Way to go.

Clap. Clap. Clap. Clap.

are you that stupid to think this has ANYTHING to do with washington politics? it has everything to do with the crisis in Europe and the continuing poor economic #s here in the US.

Exactly, the fall in the stock market has everything to do with *their* nonsensical, crippling austerity measures; and nothing whatsoever do do with *our* nonsensical, crippling austerity measures. Funny though that you can't understand that policy has anything to do with "poor economic #s here int he US."

you are an imbecile. look at the cuts in Greece, Spain and Italy compared to ours (for years 2011 and 2012).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama got his blank check. It's his economy. His ideas have failed. He will be crushed in 2012, anything is better than this crap.

Ah, yes. The "blank check" of having every policy the Democrats have tried to implement undercut by the GOP, who want nothing more than for the economy to stay in the shitter until the next election. It's the tragedy of our shitty political system. If we had a parliamentary system, we'd have an election, the winner would constitute the government, and they'd enact policy. Instead we've got a Rube Goldberg contraption with 1,001 veto-points where the party that want's to throw sand in the works can do so with impunity. Hell, Obama can't even make executive branch appointments without individual GOP senators preventing their appointment.

Anyone who argues that Obama has had a blank check is either lying, or they actually believe that shit. Sadly, given that you're an anonymous commenter on the internet, it's highly likely you fall in the second camp. Sad.

obama had supermajorities in congress for 2 years. No President in the modern era has had so much power to implement his agenda. This is his economy. This is how it feels when Democrats implement their ideas, I remember the 70's which was a liberal high-point and it SUCKED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama got his blank check. It's his economy. His ideas have failed. He will be crushed in 2012, anything is better than this crap.

Ah, yes. The "blank check" of having every policy the Democrats have tried to implement undercut by the GOP, who want nothing more than for the economy to stay in the shitter until the next election. It's the tragedy of our shitty political system. If we had a parliamentary system, we'd have an election, the winner would constitute the government, and they'd enact policy. Instead we've got a Rube Goldberg contraption with 1,001 veto-points where the party that want's to throw sand in the works can do so with impunity. Hell, Obama can't even make executive branch appointments without individual GOP senators preventing their appointment.

Anyone who argues that Obama has had a blank check is either lying, or they actually believe that shit. Sadly, given that you're an anonymous commenter on the internet, it's highly likely you fall in the second camp. Sad.

obama had supermajorities in congress for 2 years. No President in the modern era has had so much power to implement his agenda. This is his economy. This is how it feels when Democrats implement their ideas, I remember the 70's which was a liberal high-point and it SUCKED.

BUSH was the one, who in his infinite wisdom decided to fight an expensive war with his personal enemy WITHOUT raising taxes. Have you EVER heard of so much stupidity? His friends got contracts and got rich paid less in taxes, kids got shot and killed, and we are straddled with the debt.

OH OH, I forgot to mention Mr. Greenspan who everyone thought was such a genius. Well it turns out that he was stupid stupid stupid. He was doing one big economic experiment with "free markets", except he did not tell anyone that it was an experiment. He played with the world's largest economy and put half of the world into a tailspin.

I am not sure what BO could have done with this debt "deal". His biggest mistake is that he should have moved sooner when he had the majority.

Hey guys, our debt is quickly approaching our GDP. Our whole output for a year. That is how big the hole is.

I AM scared...are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:obama had supermajorities in congress for 2 years. No President in the modern era has had so much power to implement his agenda. This is his economy. This is how it feels when Democrats implement their ideas, I remember the 70's which was a liberal high-point and it SUCKED.

Coming from the left, I largely agree with you. You seem to be missing the fact that the Democratic approach has been pretty much identical to the Republican approach, though - tax cuts for the rich and money to banks. I don't know why you're so eager for more of the same.

[Anonymous]

I think the republicans should pick the six dems and the dems should pick the 6 republicans who will be the super congress. After that, maybe the super congress can get the cat in the hat to clean up their mess! Hey I may have something here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly, the fall in the stock market has everything to do with *their* nonsensical, crippling austerity measures; and nothing whatsoever do do with *our* nonsensical, crippling austerity measures. Funny though that you can't understand that policy has anything to do with "poor economic #s here int he US."

Jesus Christ, what the fuck are we (Europe/USA) supposed to do? Let our debt/GDP go up above 200% and run 10%/GDP deficits for the next decade?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly, the fall in the stock market has everything to do with *their* nonsensical, crippling austerity measures; and nothing whatsoever do do with *our* nonsensical, crippling austerity measures. Funny though that you can't understand that policy has anything to do with "poor economic #s here int he US."

Jesus Christ, what the fuck are we (Europe/USA) supposed to do? Let our debt/GDP go up above 200% and run 10%/GDP deficits for the next decade?

I don't want to horrify you, but here we could try taxing our rich just a teeny bit. I realize that in normal times that would sound like sheer lunacy - hysterical class warfare - but these are desperate times.

Oh - and we could end these obscenely expensive wars.

[Anonymous]

To fix this if I were President.... 1) flat tax 2)lower corporate tax rates 3) freeze government spending at 2009 levels. 4) Borrow to build 50 nuclear plants. 5) cut back EPA and make it easier to build factories in this country. 6) Drill and exploit our vast resources. Make it clear to the world that the U.S. is the country where you can be free and get rich. We should not be losing to China in the capitalism game. And we should attack Opec with massive energy production while giving ourselves dirt cheap energy to cloober our economic/military rivals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To fix this if I were President.... 1) flat tax 2)lower corporate tax rates 3) freeze government spending at 2009 levels. 4) Borrow to build 50 nuclear plants. 5) cut back EPA and make it easier to build factories in this country. 6) Drill and exploit our vast resources. Make it clear to the world that the U.S. is the country where you can be free and get rich. We should not be losing to China in the capitalism game. And we should attack Opec with massive energy production while giving ourselves dirt cheap energy to cloober our economic/military rivals.

Er...how is that a budget balancing plan? Or were you referring to a different "this?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly, the fall in the stock market has everything to do with *their* nonsensical, crippling austerity measures; and nothing whatsoever do do with *our* nonsensical, crippling austerity measures. Funny though that you can't understand that policy has anything to do with "poor economic #s here int he US."

Jesus Christ, what the fuck are we (Europe/USA) supposed to do? Let our debt/GDP go up above 200% and run 10%/GDP deficits for the next decade?

I don't want to horrify you, but here we could try taxing our rich just a teeny bit. I realize that in normal times that would sound like sheer lunacy - hysterical class warfare - but these are desperate times.

Oh - and we could end these obscenely expensive wars.

I have no quibble with either (1) tying cap gain/marginal/dividend/interest tax rates to the unemployment rate -- when people are working, taxes are lowered or (2) increasing marginal tax rates to Clinton-era levels and raising unearned income tax rates on income above $100k. None, whatsoever, and I believe that is the proper response of government as our upper classes have failed to fulfill their duty towards the rest of society. Or, as Edward Filene put it, "Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took it all from them."

I believed the war in Afghanistan was necessary as al-Qa'eda and the Taliban were two heads of the same Hydra. The war in Iraq was a tremendous waste of US blood and treasure in response to a threat that had been contained; the war in Libya a minor waste thereof (and it, at least, was in response to a proximate tragedy.)

The Tea Partiers were fools for turning down the largest entitlement program change in a generation to protect multi-millionaire jet owners. They're also delusional, as they think we can tax at 1950s levels and spend at 2000s levels indefinitely, or just "grow our way out of the problem" -- we might be able to, but we'd be tacking on another 50-60% of debt/GDP to our already high ratios. The Dems at least realize it costs money to maintain a social welfare state -- something I believe in.

I come from a different point of view than most on here -- the closest analogue to my political viewpoint is Canadian Red Toryism/British "wet" Tory -- which does two things: (1) accepts the social welfare state and (2) accepts class differentials and unequal division of wealth *as long as the upper classes are contributing to the common good* -- something which has been distinctly lacking in the past 30 years (and accelerated in the dot-com bust.)

Since the modern GOP opposes the social welfare state and kowtows to an upper class which refuses to acknowledge any responsibility to the rest of AMERICAN society, of course I am a Democrat.

The 10,000s of pages of regulations in place today are there because someone, somewhere, tried to game the system and pass off subpar or dangerous goods as legitimate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To fix this if I were President.... 1) flat tax 2)lower corporate tax rates 3) freeze government spending at 2009 levels. 4) Borrow to build 50 nuclear plants. 5) cut back EPA and make it easier to build factories in this country. 6) Drill and exploit our vast resources. Make it clear to the world that the U.S. is the country where you can be free and get rich. We should not be losing to China in the capitalism game. And we should attack Opec with massive energy production while giving ourselves dirt cheap energy to cloober our economic/military rivals.

Er...how is that a budget balancing plan? Or were you referring to a different "this?"

a goverment spending freeze is reasonable but is considered to be a 7.5 trillion dollar cut to the morons running congress. Growth plus a freeze would save this country and expose the euro socialists as the losers they are.