How MY PARTY destroyed the economy.

First, BOTH parties are to blame but some of the first mechanisms started with a Republican President even before Reagan.

From Market Watch:

Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, David Stockman, explained the reasons in a July 2010 Op-Ed piece entitled "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse" It was published almost a year before the debt ceiling bill gridlock caused the S&P downgrade. Article

For the many S-L-O-W guys who post here in the Sandbox, you may have to read it two or three times but the explanation has no holes. It ALSO blames Democrats and "Democratic Capitalism" and might just help you kick the idea that Fox and the Tea Terrorists are telling you anything close to the truth.

Maybe it will even cure the simplistic "Obamcare" [sic], "Big Spending Liberals" and "Barney Frank conspired with Fannie and Freddie to do it" excuses you MAROONS repeat from your agenda-laden "sources" on AM Hate Radio and the rest of the Tea Terrorist Noise Machine.

Republican Stockman's Op-Ed piece also contained this paragraph: "If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase."

Stockman's full Op-Ed piece in the New York Times

Do your research and quit parroting the talking points you hear listening to Talk Radio and watching Fox News! You can thank me later when you're part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

You got your facts wrong in the opening paragraph...the "debt ceiling gridlock" did not cause the S&P downgrade; our $14.7 trillion out of control debt tab is what caused the downgrade !

Yes, better we parrot a failed economist in a notoriously liberal rag. Such insight! Thanks, Stevie!

You got your facts wrong in the opening paragraph...the "debt ceiling gridlock" did not cause the S&P downgrade; out $14.7 trillion out of control debt and spending is what caused the downgrade ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You are once again WRONG, Whirly!

Go read the S&P statement. Had a clean debt ceiling bill been passed we would have had time to work on the deficit situation in good faith. THAT unwillingness and the predicted contentiousness shown just this week by Paul Ryan on budget issues were what S&P PREDICTED would continue to happen and threaten a shutdown. THAT very real chance of a shutdown is what PRECIPITATED the lower ranking, MAROON!

Yes, better we parrot a failed economist in a notoriously liberal rag. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

And the "liberal rag" blames Dems, too? IDIOT! You're listening to and parroting the points of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, among others. What credentials! LMAO! Did you just call Reagan's trickle down director or Office and Budget "failed"?

Read both articles.

You are once again WRONG, Whirly!

Go read the S&P statement. Had a clean debt ceiling bill been passed we would have had time to work on the deficit situation in good faith. THAT unwillingness and the predicted contentiousness shown just this week by Paul Ryan on budget issues were what S&P PREDICTED would continue to happen and threaten a shutdown. THAT very real chance of a shutdown is what PRECIPITATED the lower ranking, MAROON! Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Members of both parties voted against a clean debt ceiling increase.

The idea that congress and Obama can't find 4 trillion in cuts over a 10 year period without tax increases, given how large the defecit is, is embarrasing. What would happen if they got the tax increases they wanted and they still needed to cut spending. What are they going to do then? Ask for more tax increases? When are they going to wake up?

I didn't parrot anybody. What makes you think that because I oppose Obama, I must support the Republicans and right wing talk radio? I don't. David Stockman got fired, and has been bitter ever since. He failed. He's an idiot. It was an opinion piece in a liberal rag cited as fact. I guess it is ok to parrot, if you parrot the right people.

Refute the points and are BOTH sources "liberal rags" in your squinty-eyed world? After all, I could call you a stupid john in much the same way you went after Stockman.

You were touting your source, an op ed in the NYT, as a "source'. I thought that was funny. Stockman seems to think that tax cuts caused the deficit, which is ridiculous. Spending caused the deficit. You want to raise taxes on the rich? Go ahead, it doesn't bother me, but there isn't enough wealth to tax to cover the deficit, not even close. Spending has to be brought under control, plain and simple.

I'm not going to argue that the "poor rich" shouldn't pay more in taxes, but it is a smoke screen to divert us from the real problem, which is spending.

The idea that congress and Obama can't find 4 trillion in cuts over a 10 year period without tax increases, given how large the defecit is, is embarrasing. Originally Posted by Laz

The bold is my emphasis and why do you bother the rest of us by not using spell check on words like "defecit" and "embarrasing"?

"without tax increases" - THERE is the contentiousness! The Republicans WILL NOT move on revenue! THAT was the impasse. (BTW, they were actually continuations of cuts that added to the shortfall in revenue which were supposed to END by statute last year!) The Dems sought compromises that included both spending cuts in entitlements and revenue enhancement through closing tax loopholes.

There was no compromise because the ALL of the Republicans and some of the Democrats are bought and paid for by wealthy corporations and others who want to pay no taxes or at least pay less than working people who make far less.

THERE is the gridlock, MAROON!

The only thing wrong with your statement, Steve, is that only some of the Democrats are bought and paid for. All of them are. Other than that, you are right, this time.

I really don't understand the resistance to raising upper income taxes. I think the $250k threshhold is low, but above $1M shouldn't be an issue. It's a red herring, in my opinion, and it gives Democrats more basis to oppose spending cuts.

It would be more relevant if any of this mattered. Even on the off chance that there are any in Congress who aren't bought and paid for, there aren't enough of them to make a difference.

COG, we agree on very little but I am a proponent of publicly-financed elections and single four-year terms for representatives, single six-year terms for Senators and a single six-year term for the President. No- re-election without sitting out TWO FULL terms and NO Citizens United.

The $250K threshold is NOT low for the expiration of the Bush tax cuts - that is less than 4%! Also, small business owners pass through almost all their expenses and don't pay taxes on them and even deduct equipment purchases over time with a depreciation schedule.

I'm ok with the tax cuts expiring. I'd be opposed to public financing of elections, but the alternatives are just as bad. I don't have an answer to that. Public financing may end up being the best of all the bad alternatives. I would try full immediate disclosure of donations first, and if that didn't work, we would have to seriously look at public financing.

The problem of career congressional representatives is another thing. Ideally, I'd like to repeal the 17th Amendment, which would likely take care of the problem in the Senate. The problem in the House is that there are far too few representatives for it to perform the function it was designed for. Right now, an average Representative represents 600k people, and when the Constitution was drafted it was around 90k, if I remember right. In any event it was far fewer.

So while I support the right of the people to keep electing the same idiot over and over, one solution (although not a real good one) is to increase the number of representatives. Or term limits. Something has to be done, and I'm not that opposed to trying your plan.

As far as the 250k threshold, I was just thinking that is a good income in Kansas, but on the coasts that could be kind of tight. I'm not there at the current moment, so it doesn't effect me, and I'm not going fight that battle. $250k is fine, I'd just like to see it a little higher.

I don't know what to think of how you described how businesses avoid taxes, but I can assure you, that as a CPA, tax accounting bears no resemblance to actual accounting.

See, we can be civil! We even found some common ground! Imagine that!

The problem of career congressional representatives is another thing. Ideally, I'd like to repeal the 17th Amendment, which would likely take care of the problem in the Senate. The problem in the House is that there are far too few representatives for it to perform the function it was designed for. Right now, an average Representative represents 600k people, and when the Constitution was drafted it was around 90k, if I remember right. In any event it was far fewer.

So while I support the right of the people to keep electing the same idiot over and over, one solution (although not a real good one) is to increase the number of representatives. Or term limits. Something has to be done, and I'm not that opposed to trying your plan.
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Why on earth do you think letting a fool like Rick Perry appoint a Senator would make for more reasonable senators? You'd have even more hide-bound ideologues in the Senate than we have now. Instead of KBH (who isn't too bad, as modern day Republicans go) and Cornyn (who is sot of a nut, but not entirely one), you get real fools like Jeb Hensnarling and John Culberson. Ideologues who make Cornyn look like a member of the ACLU!! Why on earth do you think that would be better.

As for term limits, that just makes the elected representatives more dependent on career staff. It takes a Congressman about four years to figure out what's going on, how to deal with lobbyists, and how to really move a bill. If you put term limits on them, they become captives of their staff.

In terms of more Representatives, that could be good or bad. It would increase the amount of money in the game because instead of 35 or 40 Congressional elections in Texas, you'd now have 80 or 100. All would draw big money and the costs of campaigning wouldn't really go down. You'd still be making media buys in the same markets. It would get more diversity, but it would also make it harder to build personal relationships. One of the reasons the Senate is more collegial than the House is that the Senators really know each other. That is not as true in the House.