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

[jbear]

Also, you have to take into account the costs to rent over the same 30 year time period. Some things are good investments even if they loose value.  The problem is people spent beyond thier means, not by taking a loan but by taking too much of a loan.  A good part of the blame has to go to the financial system that created the housing mess by pushing more and more bad paper but at least some blame has to go to the consumer.  At some point people are responsible for thier actions.  Buying too much house or refinancing to buy a boat is your own stupidity and much like what the government is doing now. 

Thanks for the analogy morgan. 

[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.

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.

I didn't say that was my plan Kev. That's a straw man argument. I simply pointed out that using a budget from 15 years ago as a reference point for cuts is disingenuous, because that amount would be higher if adjusted to reflect inflation and population growth.

As you pointed out Kev, your budget estimate for what the level of spending should be to keep up with inflation and population growth in 2011 was eclipsed in 2006 by G.W. Bush. You know, the guy that was in office when the debt ceiling was raised 7 times in 8 years with a straight up or down vote? If this was anything more than political, why was it not an issue when spending increased to 3.1 trillion in 2009?

And what about revenues? You've never heard me arguing against spending cuts. I simply said that ignoring revenues isn't going to fix anything, and it's not. Even Obama agreed to cuts that dropped spending down to 1996 levels (inflation adjusted, of course), that shaves 1.2 trillion off of the budget. Tax receipts for 2010 were about $400 billion dollars LESS than that. We would still be running a deficit.

[alldaway]

Tea Baggers are indeed economic terrorists and they lose the right to any civility by being willing to bring the economy to a crashing halt. 

[alldaway]

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

Terrorism is clearly defined as using harmful action against a civilian population to further political goals or aims. 

[CBWx2]

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

Terrorism is clearly defined as using harmful action against a civilian population to further political goals or aims.

Sounds about right.

[dbucfan]

ter·ror·ism   [ter-uh-riz-uhm]  noun
1.  the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.  the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.  a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Just helping out ADW. 

And here's a bonus definition

in·sult  (n-slt)
v. in·sult·ed, in·sult·ing, in·sults v.tr.
1.
a. To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness. See Synonyms at offend.
b. To affront or demean: an absurd speech that insulted the intelligence of the audience.
2. Obsolete To make an attack on.
v.intr. Archaic
1. To behave arrogantly.
2. To give offense; offend: a speech that was intended to insult.

I think this one might apply to good old Joe.

[CBWx2]

ter·ror·ism   [ter-uh-riz-uhm]  noun
1.  the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.  the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.  a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

The blue part sounds about right.

[CBWx2]

From Merriam Webster:

ter-ror-ism:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

ter-ror:

a state of intense fear

a cause of anxiety : worry

[jbear]

Can you explain the point where warning of real fears becomes the use of terror as coersion?  You can make the argument but it seems a stretch unless you make some bigoted assumptions.

[alldaway]

Can you explain the point where warning of real fears becomes the use of terror as coersion?  You can make the argument but it seems a stretch unless you make some bigoted assumptions.

It's a manufactured crisis.

The stock market has taken a nose dive eight consecutive days because of this generated crisis by teabaggers.

[jbear]

Can you explain the point where warning of real fears becomes the use of terror as coersion?  You can make the argument but it seems a stretch unless you make some bigoted assumptions.

It's a manufactured crisis.

The stock market has taken a nose dive eight consecutive days because of this generated crisis by teabaggers.

The stock market takes a nose dive all the time.  There's nothing to worry about in the long run so long as the entire financial system doesn't collapse.  If I recall I think the teabaggers claim out of control debt could lead to that.   

If a group claims out of control government debt is going to lead to economic disaster and then the stock market crashes and the banks go under who was right?   I won't say they're doing the right thing but calling them terrorists insinuates some evil alterior motive besides just a fear that massive debt will lead to economic ruin.  What is the alterior motive?  To destroy the country?  To make Obama look bad?  To say its manufactured implies that there is no debt problem which we all know isn't true so at the end of the day can't we all just admit that there are different viewpoints on what would be the best way out of this mess and stop slinging wild accusations.

[burger40]

gov'ts can certainly run deficits...especially in wars when people know that that spending won't be sustained forever (we had debt over 100% of GDP in WWII and though it stretched the gov't we weren't near default since we didn't have a structural debt but a debt caused by a crisis that was on its way to winding down). Debt at our current levels going and being run up at the current rate will soon hit 100% GDP at which point we become like Japan with almost no real growth...EVER!

Also, why is the tea party hostage takers and terrorists but the Dems aren't when for a long time they were also refusing to give in on certain demands. It seems to me by the liberal version of terrorist anybody not willing to raise the debt ceiling carte blanche is a terrorist. how dare the TP demand we start having even a modicum control on our spending before signing up for an increase.

And finally, the credit agencies (not that they are the final word by any stretch) are still debating downgrading us even after this because.....wait for it....they need to see a real, credible plan to get debt under control. As the great jr senator Marco Rubio recently said, "Raising the debt ceiling is the easy part, the hard part is bring the budget under control." or this one, "Countries like Greece aren't near default for a lack of raising their debt ceilings...it is because their debt is too high."

[cyberdude558]

Manufactured crisis? $14 trillion in debt is a manufactured crisis? A $1.6 trillion deficit is a manufactured crisis? Medicare going bankrupt in 2018 is a manufactured crisis? You think we are just making that stuff up?

So to organize and speak up against this out of control spending makes you a terrorist? Speaking up against government corruption makes you a terrorist?
Didnt George Orwell warn people about this? That one day speaking up against your government would make you a "thought criminal?"

[CBWx2]

Manufactured crisis? $14 trillion in debt is a manufactured crisis? A $1.6 trillion deficit is a manufactured crisis? Medicare going bankrupt in 2018 is a manufactured crisis? You think we are just making that stuff up?

So to organize and speak up against this out of control spending makes you a terrorist? Speaking up against government corruption makes you a terrorist?
Didnt George Orwell warn people about this? That one day speaking up against your government would make you a "thought criminal?"

If all they did was speak up, we wouldn't have been where we were.

And lets not pretend that this was about spending cuts, because the Dems were willing to cut spending. This was about them wanting cuts on their terms and them NOT wanting to raise revenues. We have a mixed government. We have a Democratic President and a Democratic lead senate. Given that fact, negotiation would seem to be the will of the people. The teabaggers were unwilling to negotiate. Not cutting spending will hurt the economy down the road. Not raising the debt ceiling would cripple the economy right now. They made demands, and held the economy hostage unless they got them. That's what terrorists do.

[dbucfan]

Can you explain the point where warning of real fears becomes the use of terror as coersion?  You can make the argument but it seems a stretch unless you make some bigoted assumptions.

It's a manufactured crisis.

The stock market has taken a nose dive eight consecutive days because of this generated crisis by teabaggers.

Hmmm, no, I don't think that is accurate.  Various ratings agencies have given warning of potential downgrades of US credit, economists are pretty certain the debt is not sustainable as it is becoming to large for the underlying private economy, and spending continues unabated.  No- this isn't the teabaggers generating the crisis - but they are bringing it to the attention to all - and they are active in trying to reverse a course they disagree with.