[vypusknye]

Big time Lulz ... talking points memo must have been emailed Friday night

Axelrod calls the action, in his words, "a Tea Party downgrade" and says it's clearly on the backs of lawmakers who were willing to see the country default to get their way.

Howard Dean, former chair of the Democratic National Committee, didn't hold back in taking aim at the conservative coalition of activists during an appearance on "Face the Nation" on Sunday morning.

"This is a Tea Party problem," he said on the program. "They are totally unreasonable and doctrinaire and not founded in reality. I think they've been smoking some of that tea, not just drinking it."

“I believe this is, without question, the tea party downgrade,” Sen. John F. Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday

[AmfitNom]

Well liberals are good at blaming others for their f$@! ups.
The tea party has been fighting the enormous spending this administration is doing .

Big time Lulz ... talking points memo must have been emailed Friday night

[aparneioninny]

Hilarious,
A small percentage of the Congress, that has only been in place for less than a year is responsible for this?
And, they are the ones pushing to reduce the debt.
Wow these guys are really out of touch.
I am not a tea party supporter, but to blame them is just ridiculous

[gSjQEEmq]

A small percentage of the Congress, that has only been in place for less than a year is responsible for this?

They are the only ones who view default as a viable option. They are also against any tax increase (along with the rest of the GOP) and only an insane person thinks we can get out of this mess without additional revenue.

[Assungusa]

They are the only ones who view default as a viable option. They are also against any tax increase (along with the rest of the GOP) and only an insane person thinks we can get out of this mess without additional revenue.

Which mess are you talking abt?

[ChyFDjfed]

Well liberals are good at blaming others for their f$@! ups.
The tea party has been fighting the enormous spending this administration is doing .

The problem is the Tea Party only came around after the election of this President, and they didn't do dick to stop the reckless spending of the previous administration-which makes this administration's spending look like tinker toys.

[Eviftilia]

yes, certainly has nothing to do with massive debt issuance over the last decade or so

[OrefZorremn]

The problem is the Tea Party only came around after the election of this President, and they didn't do dick to stop the reckless spending of the previous administration-which makes this administration's spending look like tinker toys.

How on earth could you possibly compare current spending to any of the last several administrations? We are spending 20% of GDP on non-defense spending, which is well higher than anything seen in the last 40 years. The average over that time is 15.6%. We are projected to keep doing that for several years to come, even long after the recession is forecast to end. The current administration has put us on a long term path of 25% increased spending. Your partisanship has taken you to ridiculous extremes where you now deny simple realities about spending. I don't think it's much of a leap, given these unprecedented spending numbers, to say that we have a spending problem, not a revenue one, and that the current administration's spending takes the lion's share of responsibility for the downgrade.

[ChuttyAmult]

How on earth could you possibly compare current spending to any of the last several administrations? We are spending 20% of GDP on non-defense spending, which is well higher than anything seen in the last 40 years. The average over that time is 15.6%. We are projected to keep doing that for several years to come, even long after the recession is forecast to end. The current administration has put us on a long term path of 25% increased spending. Your partisanship has taken you to ridiculous extremes where you now deny simple realities about spending. I don't think it's much of a leap, given these unprecedented spending numbers, to say that we have a spending problem, not a revenue one, and that the current administration's spending takes the lion's share of responsibility for the downgrade.

what about defense spending?

[Clarissa]

For FY2012-2016, the President's budget has total spending at an average of 22.7% GDP with revenues of 18.3%GDP (I believe the budget assumes the Bush Tax Cut will expire in 2012). This would be nearly equal to FY1982-1986, where spending was 22.8% of GDP and revenue was 17.8%GDP.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...ets/tables.pdf
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist01z2.xls

[Unrersvar]

what about defense spending?

What about it? Do you think we can permanently increase spending on everything else as a % of GDP by 25% and somehow make up for that with defense spending? Do you have any idea how much we spend on defense? Do you realize the increases in non-defense spending are about as large as the entire defense budget?

[MediconStop]

What about it? Do you think we can permanently increase spending on everything else as a % of GDP by 25% and somehow make up for that with defense spending? Do you have any idea how much we spend on defense? Do you realize the increases in non-defense spending are about as large as the entire defense budget?

no, i have no idea how much is spent on defense spending, that's why i asked the question!

[Scfdglkn]

For FY2012-2016, the President's budget has total spending at an average of 22.7% GDP with revenues of 18.3%GDP (I believe the budget assumes the Bush Tax Cut will expire in 2012). This would be nearly equal to FY1982-1986, where spending was 22.8% of GDP and revenue was 17.8%GDP.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...ets/tables.pdf
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist01z2.xls

A few things. Only 17% GDP spending in 83 was non-defense and the US was in a cold war arms race with the USSR. Call it bad policy or whatever, but we are no longer saddled with nearly as large a defense burden, so we no longer have that excuse. According to your own second link, spending will never be as low as 22.7% through 2015, with an average of 23%, after 3 years of 24.7%, 25.4%, and 25.1% respectively, the three largest years since WWII. I think your own post says it all. Can we really afford to outspend our revenues that much for years to come? Can we rely on those revenue figures, which must take into account economic growth, given the current economic outlook? After we have had 3 years of enormous, almost unprecedented spending, how long can we kick the can down the road until we get to spending something like 20% or less to make up for the deficit?

Do you really think spending is not the problem here?

[Adwetyren]

A few things. Only 17% GDP spending in 83 was non-defense and the US was in a cold war arms race with the USSR. Call it bad policy or whatever, but we are no longer saddled with nearly as large a defense burden, so we no longer have that excuse. According to your own second link, spending will never be as low as 22.7% through 2015, with an average of 23%, after 3 years of 24.7%, 25.4%, and 25.1% respectively, the three largest years since WWII. I think your own post says it all. Can we really afford to outspend our revenues that much for years to come? Can we rely on those revenue figures, which must take into account economic growth, given the current economic outlook? After we have had 3 years of enormous, almost unprecedented spending, how long can we kick the can down the road until we get to spending something like 20% or less to make up for the deficit?

Do you really think spending is not the problem here?

who is saying that spending isn't at least part of the problem.

I got into pretty deep debt once due to spending. When I decided to get out of debt my solution was two-fold...reduce spending and increase revenue (yay! second job. no actually it sucked, but i did it anyway). It seems pretty obvious to me.

[Angelinaaiiiiiiiii]

who is saying that spending isn't at least part of the problem.

Well, it was suggested that this administration's spending looks like tinker toys compared to some others, but in fairness that wasn't you or Polit. Though...

I got into pretty deep debt once due to spending. When I decided to get out of debt my solution was two-fold...reduce spending and increase revenue (yay! second job. no actually it sucked, but i did it anyway). It seems pretty obvious to me.

OK, but what if your spending is basically exceeding the revenue you could make even with a second job? It's very difficult to collect revenues of over 20%, even with very high tax rates (see Polit's 2nd link), yet we have been and will be spending over 20% for a long time. If you were in debt and spending like a maniac, the first and foremost thing I would advise you to do is cut your spending. If your spending was totally unrealistic, I wouldn't advise you to get a second job as a compromise while you continued to spend too much. Eventually, you wouldn't be able to keep going if you had to work all the time just to try to keep from defaulting from your over-spending. Get it?

[eFDMBwKH]

OK, but what if your spending is basically exceeding the revenue you could make even with a second job? It's very difficult to collect revenues of over 20%, even with very high tax rates (see Polit's 2nd link), yet we have been and will be spending over 20% for a long time. If you were in debt and spending like a maniac, the first and foremost thing I would advise you to do is cut your spending. If your spending was totally unrealistic, I wouldn't advise you to get a second job as a compromise while you continued to spend too much.

Perhaps you missed this part of my post "When I decided to get out of debt my solution was two-fold...reduce spending..."

Did democrats ever put forth the idea of just increasing revenue?

[Eagevawax]

who is saying that spending isn't at least part of the problem.

I got into pretty deep debt once due to spending. When I decided to get out of debt my solution was two-fold...reduce spending and increase revenue (yay! second job. no actually it sucked, but i did it anyway). It seems pretty obvious to me.

First, revenues have never been a problem for the US treasury, it's not a long term revenue problem.

Second, no plan for deficit and debt reduction has ever been based on spending reductions, they've been based on slowing the rate of spending increases. Big difference.

[infollafago]

Why didn't Obama and the Democrats do anything about this when they had total control of the House and Senate for two years?
I have not heard a real answer to this, if there is one?

[vSzsgifP]

They are the only ones who view default as a viable option. They are also against any tax increase (along with the rest of the GOP) and only an insane person thinks we can get out of this mess without additional revenue.

Even Alan Greenspan today suggested that default could never happen, due to our ability to print money. Suggesting that a hard line position on spending would have resulted in the US being unable to pay it's bills is really simple hyperbole. After all, the world markets were reacting more favorably two weeks ago when "defaut" was supposedly a possiblity, than they have been since debt deal was reached and the threat of default vanished.

THE S&P in the week leading up to the Aug 2 "default" possiblity -3.8%
THE S&P in the week after the debt deal was signed -12.7%

[h98hhYxM]

First, revenues have never been a problem for the US treasury, it's not a long term revenue problem.

Second, no plan for deficit and debt reduction has ever been based on spending reductions, they've been based on slowing the rate of spending increases. Big difference.

i love how you didn't answer the question.