bye bye to era of civility: Biden and other Dems call Tea Party terrorists

[burger40]

The biggest thing driving me nuts about all of those is how much Dems are crying about spending that even with cuts is still going to be almost 2X what we had during the post-welfare reform years of Gingrich Congress/Clinton Whitehouse.

This is proof that any time you so much as "cut" into a proposed increase in spending the Dems will make inane comparisons.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html

I could post more links of many democrat operatives like Krugman and Jonathan Chait making this analogy but they are there for everyone to see if you want to just google tea party terrorist. I will of course look forward to the media blaming these people as soon as the next political shooting happens.

[beardmcdoug]

[burger40]

some **CENSORED** bag who claims to represent the Tea Party vs the vice president of the Democraty Executive branch and Rep Doyle-D PA....I think there is a "slight" difference in comparing the two.

the guy on the video is a jackass but at least he hasn't been elected to any position of authority or power unlike say Biden and Doyle. that speaks volumes to me.

[CBWx2]

The biggest thing driving me nuts about all of those is how much Dems are crying about spending that even with cuts is still going to be almost 2X what we had during the post-welfare reform years of Gingrich Congress/Clinton Whitehouse.

You do understand how inflation and population growth works, right? Spending inevitably has to go up over a set period of time, because a dollar buys less now than it did in previous years, and there are more people in the world now than there were in previous years. Comparing a budget of today to a budget in 1996 is basically showing a lack of understanding or an intentional omission of this concept. It's a talking point. A form of spin.

The problem is that tax cut after tax cut and wage stagnation has lead to revenues increasing at a level that is below what they need to in order to keep up with inflation and population growth. Although conservatives will deny this until the cows come home, we DO have a revenue problem, and you will not fix the deficit without additional revenues.

[Mean D]

Libtards never cease to amaze me.  They have zero understanding of economics in the real world.   And the manager of the Burger King closest to your house has more private sector experience than Obamalamadingdong, the worst president in U.S. history.

[DailyRich]

I love how any time a Democrat says anything remotely negative about the Tea Party, it's representative of the whole party and just absolutely awful, but when a Tea Party member after Tea Party member does the same thing, it's always, "Oh, the Tea Party isn't an actual organization, they don't speak for all of us, that's an isolated comment."  Real convenient.

I think it's about time the Democrats started giving back as good as they've been getting for the last three years.

[Morgan]

I have no problem with calling them economic terrorists for what they threatened to do unless they had their way........neither did Paul O'Neil....sounds to me that people like Sarah Palin and her teabaggers are a little thin skinned.


Earlier this year, former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told Bloomberg Television that "the people who are threatening not to pass the debt ceiling are our version of al Qaeda terrorists. Really -- they're really putting our whole society at risk by threatening to round up 50 percent of the members of the Congress, who are loony, who would put our credit at risk."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/palin-gop-respond-alleged-biden-terror-comment/story?id=14209743

[Fitz66]

"Terrorist" must be the new "Nazi" - both incredibly stupid and inaccurate when used.

[kevabuc]

The biggest thing driving me nuts about all of those is how much Dems are crying about spending that even with cuts is still going to be almost 2X what we had during the post-welfare reform years of Gingrich Congress/Clinton Whitehouse.

You do understand how inflation and population growth works, right? Spending inevitably has to go up over a set period of time, because a dollar buys less now than it did in previous years, and there are more people in the world now than there were in previous years. Comparing a budget of today to a budget in 1996 is basically showing a lack of understanding or an intentional omission of this concept. It's a talking point. A form of spin.

The problem is that tax cut after tax cut and wage stagnation has lead to revenues increasing at a level that is below what they need to in order to keep up with inflation and population growth. Although conservatives will deny this until the cows come home, we DO have a revenue problem, and you will not fix the deficit without additional revenues.

Fine, let’s use your criteria for determining what the current Federal budget should be.

You say the Federal budget has to increase based on inflation and population growth. I will just keep this real simple because there is math involved. Let’s assume the budget has to increase both by the amount of inflation AND the amount of population increase from a given date. This method gives you the best case scenario for increasing the budget. Let’s also take the 1996 date you have given in your post. Then we will measure it against 2011 for inflation purposes and 2010 for population purposes (using the 2010 census numbers).

Inflation rate from Jan 1996 to Jan 2011 = 42.63%

Population growth from 1996 to 2010 = @16%  (265 million to 308 million)

Combined percentage 42.63% + 16% = 58.63%

In your view the budget from 1996 should have been increased by 58.63% because spending inevitably must go up over a set period of time.

The budget outlays for 1996 were $1.612 trillion. Then under your proposal the current budget should be $2.56 trillion.

The budget President Obama submitted for fiscal year 2011 is $3.8 trillion, or an increase of 135.7% from the 1996 total outlays, or about $1.2 trillion more then what you state is needed based on inflation and population growth. It seems that, according to your plan, the Federal government should be running at 2006 levels (2006 budget $2.7 trillion), or right at the current level of revenues that the Fed takes in, which is estimated at $2.6 trillion this year.

According to your criteria then, the government does NOT have a revenue problem, but a $1.2 trillion spending addiction.

[spartan]

The biggest thing driving me nuts about all of those is how much Dems are crying about spending that even with cuts is still going to be almost 2X what we had during the post-welfare reform years of Gingrich Congress/Clinton Whitehouse.

You do understand how inflation and population growth works, right? Spending inevitably has to go up over a set period of time, because a dollar buys less now than it did in previous years, and there are more people in the world now than there were in previous years. Comparing a budget of today to a budget in 1996 is basically showing a lack of understanding or an intentional omission of this concept. It's a talking point. A form of spin.

The problem is that tax cut after tax cut and wage stagnation has lead to revenues increasing at a level that is below what they need to in order to keep up with inflation and population growth. Although conservatives will deny this until the cows come home, we DO have a revenue problem, and you will not fix the deficit without additional revenues.

So you're saying that inflation and population growth has exploded by 400% in the last 3 years? Because that is how much the deficit has grown.

[Biggs3535]

The liberal Democrat who piss and moan about the Tea Party being in the way of passing a budget or raising the debt ceiling crack me up.  Why didn't the Dem's do both of those things when those meany-pants Tea Part Terrorists couldn't stop them?  Oh, that's right - they were playing politics.  From December of 2010:

Reid also said that he would like to push off raising the debt ceiling until next year — when Republicans control the House, but that he has not discussed the matter yet with his caucus.

“Let the Republicans have some buy-in on the debt. They’re going to have a majority in the House,” said Reid. “I don’t think it should be when we have a heavily Democratic Senate, heavily Democratic House and a Democratic president.”

There sad part is there a bunch of numbsculls who fall right in line with their line of thinking, as you can see by the posts in this thread.

[kevabuc]

The biggest thing driving me nuts about all of those is how much Dems are crying about spending that even with cuts is still going to be almost 2X what we had during the post-welfare reform years of Gingrich Congress/Clinton Whitehouse.

You do understand how inflation and population growth works, right? Spending inevitably has to go up over a set period of time, because a dollar buys less now than it did in previous years, and there are more people in the world now than there were in previous years. Comparing a budget of today to a budget in 1996 is basically showing a lack of understanding or an intentional omission of this concept. It's a talking point. A form of spin.

The problem is that tax cut after tax cut and wage stagnation has lead to revenues increasing at a level that is below what they need to in order to keep up with inflation and population growth. Although conservatives will deny this until the cows come home, we DO have a revenue problem, and you will not fix the deficit without additional revenues.

Fine, let’s use your criteria for determining what the current Federal budget should be.

You say the Federal budget has to increase based on inflation and population growth. I will just keep this real simple because there is math involved. Let’s assume the budget has to increase both by the amount of inflation AND the amount of population increase from a given date. This method gives you the best case scenario for increasing the budget. Let’s also take the 1996 date you have given in your post. Then we will measure it against 2011 for inflation purposes and 2010 for population purposes (using the 2010 census numbers).

Inflation rate from Jan 1996 to Jan 2011 = 42.63%

Population growth from 1996 to 2010 = @16%  (265 million to 308 million)

Combined percentage 42.63% + 16% = 58.63%

In your view the budget from 1996 should have been increased by 58.63% because spending inevitably must go up over a set period of time.

The budget outlays for 1996 were $1.612 trillion. Then under your proposal the current budget should be $2.56 trillion.

The budget President Obama submitted for fiscal year 2011 is $3.8 trillion, or an increase of 135.7% from the 1996 total outlays, or about $1.2 trillion more then what you state is needed based on inflation and population growth. It seems that, according to your plan, the Federal government should be running at 2006 levels (2006 budget $2.7 trillion), or right at the current level of revenues that the Fed takes in, which is estimated at $2.6 trillion this year.

According to your criteria then, the government does NOT have a revenue problem, but a $1.2 trillion spending addiction.

Wait a minute here, just wait a minute. Something very interesting here about your budget plans sounds very familiar.

If we're going to go by your rules and we use a $2.7 trillion budget to cover inflation and population growth and the GDP is around $15 trillion, that would make the government's share of the economy to be 18%.

18% of GDP, where have I heard that figure before?

That's right, it's the Balance part of Cut, Cap and Balance. Balance the budget to 18% of GDP by way of a Constitutional Amendment.

CBW, you're just a closet Teabagger after all.

[jbear]

I don't know why not spending beyond your means has to be such a radical concept.  All these people whining about "terrorists" are like the trophy wife who has her credit cards cut up because she went on a spending spree.  I'm sure she has all sorts of colorful words she uses to describe her husband. 

[Morgan]

Almost every family that owns a home is spending beyond their means by financing a home. Do you consider this living beyond their means? Do you think all families should only pay cash to pay for their homes?  They're buying a home on credit (over 30 years, sometimes). Don't tell me that individual families aren't in debt like the United States gov't. Families go into debt to manage their kid's college education  - once again, debt isn't necessarily a bad thing -

The analogy is straightforward: If the government borrows money to pay for things that have a long-term payoff, such as a highway between two major cities or education for its citizens, deficit financing can make a lot of sense. When the government borrows money just to pay its year-in, year-out expenses, it’s really just a tax increase by another name. When a family puts its grocery bills on the credit card, they ultimately have to be paid. It’s just a question of when and for how much additional cost.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/07/15/WP-Five-Truths-about-the-deficit-and-debt.aspx#page1

[kevabuc]

Almost every family that owns a home is spending beyond their means by financing a home. Do you consider this living beyond their means? Do you think all families should only pay cash to pay for their homes?  They're buying a home on credit (over 30 years, sometimes). Don't tell me that individual families aren't in debt like the United States gov't. Families go into debt to manage their kid's college education  - once again, debt isn't necessarily a bad thing -

The analogy is straightforward: If the government borrows money to pay for things that have a long-term payoff, such as a highway between two major cities or education for its citizens, deficit financing can make a lot of sense. When the government borrows money just to pay its year-in, year-out expenses, it’s really just a tax increase by another name. When a family puts its grocery bills on the credit card, they ultimately have to be paid. It’s just a question of when and for how much additional cost.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/07/15/WP-Five-Truths-about-the-deficit-and-debt.aspx#page1

Look up debt to income ratio. See what it is for an average homeowner then look up check Federal debt to GDP ratio.