The Debt Ceiling

that has historically been the case, charlatan. but the tea party is reality-impaired. for example, their opposition to the state treats it as some alien object that dropped from the sky when the Framers were occupied anticipating other aspects of the future. in the granular detail that is available to our betters, members of the natural aristocracy who know how things should go. the koch brothers in powdered wigs-like. that opposition includes a fundamental mischaracterization of the state and a wholesale erasing of the history of actually existing capitalism since the 1870s or so and of the symbiotic relation between capitalism and the modern state. (the consolidation of the modern state was a process that unfolded differently in different places and at different rates---1870 is convenient as a marker for the emergence of monopoly capitalism, which was of a piece with that consolidation) instead, you get these primitive hydraulic models that speak about an imaginary capitalism comprised of eternal relations (supply/demand) and imaginary system characteristics (a tendency of markets to some equilibrium) that are distorted by the space-alien state-object. this comes wrapped in a utilitarian ethics that wouldn't be so problematic were it not for the reality-impairment issue. that renders the ethics non-falsifiable. so the ethics, which presents itself as a justification for the lunacy of their economic thinking, is reduced to an attitude. what seems really to be the motor of all this isn't the make-believe capitalism the tea party set prefers to a shifting and complicated reality---but what bodkin outlined above. its like a massive resurgence of white petit-bourgeois resentment from the reconstruction period, product of some loopy time-warp that issues into a neo-fascism too clueless to even know itself as neo-fascism.

 

The tea party are post-modern fascists.

 

i think the idea behind this debt ceiling farce was clear: cement relations with the base by digging in on this issue. it doesn't matter that both the assumptions and logic are surreal. it doesn't matter that austerity now---without touching the military-surveillance-entertainment network and without tax hikes for the top 1%----is the worst idea imaginable. what matters is that they were consistent.

again, you'd think, were this a democratic context, that standing firm around idiotic ideas would have no positive value.

sometimes i marvel at the cynicism of people like roger ailes. you know, the guy who runs the show. faux news gave the tea party a lot of air time. they created the movement. compare the coverage this neo-fascist movement has managed since with the history of corporate media ignoring any and all actions from the left.

 

The Tea B'er are epic fail and it's possible they'll cause damage to the US economy that may not be reversible. They've attempted to re-write history and currently distort basic facts. The one thing they do recognize is the US is in crisis. They want to primarily blame that on some bogey man socialist, the left and the media. They've come up with asinine solutions to complex problems. I think if they were in a sinking boat their strategy would be to scream "we need more water in the boat!" Hi-jacking the debt ceiling issue and tying it to other problem was a bull shit move. I blame Obama for not standing his ground and calling it what it was- bull shit. Now that they managed to shift the blame of the current debt, made their power grab and won we're going to see more bull shit moves. Why wouldn't they? It worked. Bush ran the economy into the ditch these misinformed memes are going help the Koch brothers, Dick Army et el run it off a cliff.

 

I don't have a card or anything saying that I am an official member of the Tea Party, but the Tea Party speaks for me and I consider myself a part of the movement. With that said, many here are saying things about the Tea Party that is not true.

For the record our current economic malaise has everything to do with Obama and the Democratic Party that has controlled the Senate since his election and the House for the first two years of his term. In addition Democrats controlled Congress, both the House and the Senate, the last two years of Bush's term. During the final years of Bush's term, his singular focus was the "war against terrorism", more specifically the war in Iraq. The housing bubble and the financial crisis had absolutely nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. The economy was in a recession in 2000 when Bush took office, recessions are normal, we recovered. The recession starting in 2008 was unique but initially nothing outside of what is normal. However, under Obama's failed leadership the economy has yet to fully recover. As a result of poor economic growth, the deficit is worse than what it would have been. Obama came into office saying the economy was at the "brink" and was in the worse condition since the Depression, not true. He uses words like crisis and Armageddon regularly, spooking the markets and undermining confidence. There is uncertainty and large amounts of capital on the sidelines waiting to be put to work.

None of the above has anything to do with the Tea Party. The rise of the Tea Party is directly correlated to the current level of incompetence in Washington.

 

welcome back, Ace.

 

It really doesn't matter to me how much each president's new policies added to the debt. What matters is that the debt is in the range of $14 trillion and growing in excess of $1 trillion per year. That is going in the wrong direction and needs to be fixed. Maybe the debt ceiling discussion wasn't the ideal time to try to fix it, but better now than later.

And while we are blaming presidents, Bush added on average $700 billion to the federal debt across 8 years. Obama has added about $1.3 trillion per year to the debt for the past two years. That's definitely going in the wrong direction.

 

Thanks.

Tully, I have seen the chart posted. First point - When Bush came into office the economy was in a recession. When the economy is in a recession tax dollars collected by government tend to go down. Clinton was running a surplus primarily because the economy was booming. The issue is not "revenues" but spending. Including the Bush tax cuts in the chart is misleading. Here are taxes collected by government per year and it is clear the recession drives "revenues" not tax cuts, tax cuts under most modern circumstances stimulates economic growth:

Year -Taxes Collected
2000 - 2.593 T
2001 - 2.487 T
2002 - 2.277 T
2003 - 2.134 T
2004 - 2.188 T
2005 - 2.417 T
2006 - 2.609 T
2007 - 2.709 T
2008 - 2.569 T
2009 - 2.140 T
2010 - 2.118 T

Second, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in my opinion, were not wars of choice, but even if you think they were, Congress authorized those wars.

Third, Tarp and 2008 stimulus was clearly a waste of money and Bush with one foot out the door deferred this to Congress's will and according to Obama were needed to avert the US and international economies from going over the "brink", Obama got what he wanted.

So in my view that leaves, as a legit comparison, Medicare and the non-discretionary spending.

But, even outside of the comparison. The issue is spending. "Revenues" will fluctuate from time to time as the economy goes through normal business cycles. It should be clear that economic growth is more important than tax rates. Obama's focus on increasing taxes on the so called rich is not a solution to anything, unless the goal is to be punitive and further harm economic activity.

The Tea Party clearly recognizes that the real problem is spending and it is in fact true that these concerns began while Bush was President.

 

Guess we'll just have to wait a couple of years and see which way the wind blows - It's quite obvious that the far left is just as far out here is it is on the east and left coast. I have a drastic feeling that when you get off the coasts and out of the rust belt you'll find very few people who agree with yours - or Obama's way of thinking.

 

I acknowledge that I am far right when it comes to addressing economic issues. And I understand that reasonable people have differences with my point of view. However, I don't go around calling those who disagree with me 'terrorists' or so inhuman that they want to see elderly people die because of a disagreement regarding how to handle Medicare or Social Security. I simply believe there is a most efficient course of actions that can be taken to generate the greatest benefit to society.

 

straw men, non-sequitors and playing fast-and-loose with reality.
hallmarks of tea party nonsense.

personally, i still maintain that empirical reality has not bourne out any of the tea party's bromides about the effects of tax cuts etc. the rationale for these bromides--again--has been utilitarian. that means the ethical content of the tea party's economic policies would have to be bourne out in reality and--30 years into this surreal neo-liberal hegemony---the evidence should exist to either justify or falsify these ethical arguments. and that evidence does exist. not a single element of tea party economic theory has delivered on anything that it has promised. not a single fucking thing. it hardly makes sense in a rational world to look at that record and think...i know, let's do more of the same thing. neo-liberalism has profoundly damaged the united states and continues to do so. it's ethical underpinning, then, is shot to hell. that makes it a simply instrument of class warfare without any ethical justification whatsover. the tea party, in classical neo-fascist form, carries shit for class war.

it's hard to argue with tea party people because they live in an alternate universe, one that is largely fantasy. there are no rules of evidence for these people. there's just what appeals to "the gut"---it's as anti-democratic a movement as you'll find anywhere.

 

So wait, it's a spending problem? The fact that revenues are down because the economy sucks and this increases the deficit means that we have a spending problem? That doesn't make any sense. The idea that taxing wealthy people kills jobs doesn't reflect reality in the context of any recent proposed tax increases.

Besides, tea party folks don't really care about jobs. They've been crushing the public workforce at every opportunity. They'd rather we have a double dip recession because it makes Obama look bad and it fits in with their dislike of paying for things.

 

Spending and waste is a problem. Almost every member of Congress has his hand in the pork barrel at some point and to some degree. The amount wasted by the DOD, DHS and the bank bail outs could likely make up for any cuts to SS or MC. We bailed out the big guys on Wall St. and they walked away with huge bonuses. And they took those huge bonuses and created jobs. Oh, wait no they didn't.

The wealthy keep getting more wealthy and the middle shrinks a little more each day. What do the Tea B'er want to focus on? Big Government hand outs to Wall St? No teachers getting pensions and benefits in the upper mid-west.

 

To some this is duplicating what had already been said from my point of view. We directly control spending. Revenues are indirectly controlled. The most direct way to control deficits is to control spending.

If the argument is that government spending spurs economic growth leading to increased revenues, my response is that if true we would have begun to see the results of government stimulus spending. I can easily argue that not only have we not seen economic stimuli from government spending but we have not seen economic stimuli from the Federal Reserve's activities resulting in the market being flooded with dollars. Here is a link to a report from the FED showing M1 and M2 growth, 13% and 6% over the past 12 months ending June 2011. Yet, economic growth rates are slowing.

There is an answer to this problem and government ain't it!

I own a business. I am a Tea Party folk. I care about jobs. If my business grows, I hire people. If other businesses hire people my business grows. My interests are directly correlated to job growth, please don't try to tell me what I care about. Then if there is a competitive market for hiring people, I pay more to get the people I need, hence higher wages...the cycle continues....

Again, there is an answer to the job growth question and government ain't it. Government actions slows or kills job creation.
--- merged: Aug 3, 2011 10:01 PM ---

I have owned my business since 1999. I have hired people when times were good and I have had to let people go as things got to where they are now. I know exactly why and what causes my business activities to fluctuate. I know exactly why I left a state like California and move to North Carolina. I know exactly what my costs of doing business was in California and what they are in North Carolina. I interact with hundreds of Tea Party types who tell similar sets of actual facts! Your world is a theoretical world, mine is not. Yet, you are the first to say what is real is nonsense. Perhaps, it is time to come out of your ivory tower and interact with people trying to make it in the small business world - the people that are at the root of real economic growth.

 

How about this:

Obama Care, a 2,000 page bill.
Obama Care, hundreds of thousands of pages of new regulations yet to be written.
Uncertainty.
Businesses hold-off on hiring until the regulations are clear.
Passing Obama Care during a recession and under the conditions of people not knowing the consequences was a bad idea.

Tea Party folks warned about this problem.

Here is the link I refered to in an earlier post regarding M1 and M2.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H6/Current/

 

If you're going to call "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" Obamacare is it ok to call Tea Party folks Tea Baggers?