That's ten pounds of propaganda in a five pound bag.

So the Dems ring up trillions in debt but it's the Tea Party that is to blame for the Obamacalypse?

Who believes that?

One of the greatest modern myths is that Republicans are fiscally conservative and that Democrats are the wastrels.

Our debt ballooned under the Republican administrations, starting with Reagan and continuing unabated through the two Bush presidencies largely due to a maniacal thirst for war and trickle down (voodoo) economics.

I love the way he says "Tea Party".

This cannot be upvoted enough!
/goes off to set up several new accounts to upvote this again....

I surprisingly don't blame the Tea Partiers for getting fed up and voting for people who said they'd do what they want. I blame the Left in this country who when millions looked for answers why they have to work two jobs just to keep slipping behind all the time when they were told if they worked hard they'd get everything they deserved the left had no answers for them.

They could've educated, they could've lobbied for people to join a cause against the wealthiest in America, against those who own and run our country. They didn't, they fucked up. I'll blame them before I blame the Tea Party cause I actually understand where that anger and search for answers comes from.

Although it distresses me that so many people are easily lead towards their own destruction.

>> ^lantern53:

That's ten pounds of propaganda in a five pound bag.
So the Dems ring up trillions in debt but it's the Tea Party that is to blame for the Obamacalypse?
Who believes that?


The fact that you call "it" the "Obamacalypse" proves that you know exactly nothing about anything.

And you're the one complaining about propaganda?

>> ^Yogi:

I surprisingly don't blame the Tea Partiers for getting fed up and voting for people who said they'd do what they want. I blame the Left in this country who when millions looked for answers why they have to work two jobs just to keep slipping behind all the time when they were told if they worked hard they'd get everything they deserved the left had no answers for them.
They could've educated, they could've lobbied for people to join a cause against the wealthiest in America, against those who own and run our country. They didn't, they fucked up. I'll blame them before I blame the Tea Party cause I actually understand where that anger and search for answers comes from.
Although it distresses me that so many people are easily lead towards their own destruction.


im with yogi on this.
you cant blame people for being angry.they have good reason.
it just saddens me so many have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by american media which is so saturated with propaganda and is the prime reason that so many identify with the corporate sponsored "tea party".

>> ^Yogi:

I surprisingly don't blame the Tea Partiers for getting fed up and voting for people who said they'd do what they want. I blame the Left in this country who when millions looked for answers why they have to work two jobs just to keep slipping behind all the time when they were told if they worked hard they'd get everything they deserved the left had no answers for them.

Stockholm syndrome, pure and simple.

The left in America is a divided, demoralized, and almost completely politically impotent.

While the Republican Tea Party rips the country apart and lights fire to the pieces, you're going to blame the left for pain the right inflicts on everyone.

Genius. I'm sure that'll stop the right dead in their tracks.

I think both the Republicans and Democrats need to share the responsibility on the tanking economy and stop passing the buck back-and-forth.

@Yogi"...looked for answers why they have to work two jobs just to keep slipping behind all the time."

Oh, I know the answer to this one! Because their job skills suck?

And Bush running up trillions with a Republican Congress from 2000-2006 doesn't count?

>> ^lantern53:

That's ten pounds of propaganda in a five pound bag.
So the Dems ring up trillions in debt but it's the Tea Party that is to blame for the Obamacalypse?
Who believes that?

The left in America is a divided, demoralized, and almost completely politically impotent.

If only it were true! Did the Tea party also cause all those socialist European countries to collapse?

>> ^NetRunner:

Stockholm syndrome, pure and simple.


LOL! More like self-delusion pure and simple.

So wait a second, help me understand this - S&P said we had to cut 4+ trillion dollars of spending, which we didn't do, so they downgraded us... and that's the Tea Parties fault? Seems like the whole government let us down. While researching a little on Cut, Cap and Balance I found this:
If lawmakers want to permanently freeze the debt held by the public where it was earlier this year -- around 62% of GDP -- they would need to immediately cut spending by 35% or about $1.2 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office. And those cuts would need to be permanent.

With the amount of money we waste each year I think we could afford to cut $1.2 trillion. I'd be OK with that. But we should also look at this:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/13/news/economy/debt_commission_obama/index.htm?iid=EL

Bet the president wishes he had actually taken some of this stuff from his own commission and started putting it to Congress months earlier, rather than just borrowing from it. Spilled milk now.

@My_design, "freeze the debt held by the public where it was earlier this year" translates to "reduce the federal deficit to zero this year". So when they say cut $1.2 trillion, they mean $1.2 trillion from 2011 alone. The only way to do that at this point would to default on obligations, starting immediately. Don't pay the military, don't send out any more social security checks, don't reimburse doctors for treating Medicare patients, and forget anything "discretionary" like FEMA funding, or the CDC.

That's insanity.

As for S&P's downgrade, they had to drop the part about $4 trillion because it turned out they'd made a huge math error. The statement they ended up releasing just said that political gridlock, and in particular the steadfast refusal to consider tax increases, raised concern about America's political will to adopt policies that would allow it to repay its debts.

That's technically Grover Norquist we're talking about there, but the Tea Party are totally adherents of the whole "no more taxes, no matter what" philosophy.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, August 9th, 2011 10:07pm PDT - promote requested by MycroftHomlz.

That's $1.2 trillion per year, not per decade (which is what the $4tr grand bargain and the $900 billion eventual compromise refer to). If you think we could easily "cut waste" of that quantity then you've been mislead by people who want your vote.

Here's the federal budget on wikipedia. I'll leave you to do the math for where we can find $1.2 trillion.

The problem is that politicians have been fueling our standard of living with unsustainable borrowing for 30 years now and we're all used to it. Whether by raising our taxes or cutting the services we expect to receive, a balanced budget takes $4000 out of the pocket of every man woman and child every year in perpetuity (on average). If you're serious about a balanced budget, start putting that money aside now.

>> ^My_design:

So wait a second, help me understand this - S&P said we had to cut 4+ trillion dollars of spending, which we didn't do, so they downgraded us... and that's the Tea Parties fault? Seems like the whole government let us down. While researching a little on Cut, Cap and Balance I found this:
If lawmakers want to permanently freeze the debt held by the public where it was earlier this year -- around 62% of GDP -- they would need to immediately cut spending by 35% or about $1.2 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office. And those cuts would need to be permanent.

With the amount of money we waste each year I think we could afford to cut $1.2 trillion. I'd be OK with that. But we should also look at this:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/13/news/economy/debt_commissio
n_obama/index.htm?iid=EL
Bet the president wishes he had actually taken some of this stuff from his own commission and started putting it to Congress months earlier, rather than just borrowing from it. Spilled milk now.

So many misconceptions to correct - sometimes the Videosift is like a part time job.

1. It is a distraction to say, "well the GOP ran up the debt too". Yes. They did. And the Tea Party hated that too. The Tea Party is against debt. That's pretty much their single issue. Tea Party members today were angry GOP members in 2008 that didn't vote for McCain, and stayed away from the GOP as a whole as Obama got elected. But in 2010 they roared back that they were sick of it because - no matter how hard the neolibs try to distract with the red-herring of GOP economic sloppiness - there was no denying that Obama and the Dems were 5X worse. Debt has increased under Obama in 2 years to the tune of over 3X as much as Bush's debt during 8 years. That's bad, and the Tea party hates it no matter who is doing it. And that's why they refuse to accept the typical Washington bullcrap and elect guys who will finally take a stand like Jason Chaffitz.

2. "Tea Party is destroying the system." Bullcrap. The system was busted way before this debt debate came along. We're 17 trillion in debt, and the "deal" (ha) cuts a piddling 2.1 trillion over 10 years and it BACKLOADED to the butt-end of years 8, 9, and 10. That's a pathetic 200 billion a year - and they aren't even going to start doing the cuts right now. And yet the 'deal' (HA!) allows them to go 2.4 trillion further into debt right now. The S&P downgrade is not unfair. It is - if anything - rather generous considering the nation is spending 28.5% more than it takes in, and is in debt to the tune of 591% of the budget. Add on that the fact that the Democrats have refused to pass a budget for the past 800 days, and only the brain of an addled neolib could possibly conclude that this is all the Tea Party's fault.

3. "We can't cut anything!" Bullcrap. The US government builds in an 8% growth in every budget every year. There is no business or nation on the PLANET or in ALL HISTORY that has ever sustained a constant YOY 8% increase in growth even in GOOD times, let along times of flat GDP growth or economic reduction. WHy should the Feds get an 8% budget increase when the GDP has only been at 1%? The federal government has built in this baseline budget as a means of insulating themselves from reality. Well - it is time to strip the insulation away. The entire federal budget can be immediately frozen at 2011 numbers, and it will represent a TEN TRILLION dollar 'cut' over 10 years (the way Washington defines it). But the reality is that they would not be 'cutting' a single dime. They would simply not be GROWING at a ridiculous 8% rate. The assumption that every federal program MUST have 8% (or more) of growth every year or face default is preposterous. And yet you neolibs swallow this completely idiotic premise as if it was ironclad reality. Just think - a simple freeze of the 2011 budget would reduce our 17 trillion dollar debt to a far more managable 7 trillion. And yet we are expected to believe the government even sacrifice its massive rate of GROWTH without defaulting. Bullcrap.

That would be $12,000 a year for me, my wife and my child?
Done! That would be a rather nice deduction from my current tax bill. But I don't think the families making under $20K per year could afford it.
Tell you what, get rid of all of the corporate and personal exemptions and put everyone on a flat 23.5% tax rate and you would raise the % of tax revenue vs the GDP by 5% and lower the corporate and personal tax rate by 12.5%. But that would mean GE and Exxon would have to start paying their share. It would also mean no more tax deductions for donations to non-profits, yet more people would have more money to give. Plus more money in people's pockets to spend at places like Target.
To bad you can't tag individual lines as sarcasm.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

a balanced budget takes $4000 out of the pocket of every man woman and child every year in perpetuity (on average). If you're serious about a balanced budget, start putting that money aside now.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Lots of misinformation


1) Check your numbers on Wikipedia. Hint: They're incorrect. Recessions are always expensive for the government. Bush Sr managed to double our debt in 4 years, but that was largely because a recession killed our revenues. The true irresponsibility is putting policies in place that hemorrhage money when the economy is strong. Bush Jr managed to rack up $400 billion a year in debt when the economy was growing. Right now 1/3 of our deficit is Bush largesse. 1/3 is lost revenues from a weak economy. 1/3 is Obama's attempts to fix the economy.

2) This is hard to gauge. If there were no tea party, and S&P demanded $4tr in cuts, I could imagine us getting the grand bargain that Obama and Boehner tried for. When the chips are down, serious republicans are willing to raise revenues if it's part of a large packet of cuts. The existence of the tea party makes such a compromise unlikely. But maybe it wouldn't have happened anyway.

3) The federal government is mandated to pay each retiree a certain amount in social security. It is mandated to pay for seniors medical treatment whatever it costs. It is mandated to pay for veteran's medical treatment. It is mandated to give assistance to the unemployed. Blaming spending growth on greedy bureaucrats is completely misplaced. The programs are in place, and as more people get old, go to war, or lose their jobs, these outlays will grow. For the next decade they will grow faster than our economy, that's just demography. If you want to cut some of these programs, go ahead and advocate for that. But don't pretend there will be no consequences for the individuals who use them.

4k would be in addition to whatever you're paying now. That would be if the distribution were flat, which realistically it wouldn't be, so YMMV. I'm with you in that I'd happily put aside my share, but I bet you'd be hard pressed to find a significant portion of Americans to join us.

>> ^My_design:

That would be $12,000 a year for me, my wife and my child?
Done! That would be a rather nice deduction from my current tax bill. But I don't think the families making under $20K per year could afford it.
Tell you what, get rid of all of the corporate and personal exemptions and put everyone on a flat 23.5% tax rate and you would raise the % of tax revenue vs the GDP by 5% and lower the corporate and personal tax rate by 12.5%. But that would mean GE and Exxon would have to start paying their share. It would also mean no more tax deductions for donations to non-profits, yet more people would have more money to give. Plus more money in people's pockets to spend at places like Target.
To bad you can't tag individual lines as sarcasm.
>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
a balanced budget takes $4000 out of the pocket of every man woman and child every year in perpetuity (on average). If you're serious about a balanced budget, start putting that money aside now.

Misinformation

1. The numbers are accurate. You may not like them, but that doesn't change reality. Wiki for accuracy? Really? Regardless, I didn't say Bush didn't rack up a lot of debt. He did, and folks like me have always derided Bush as a wrong-headed spendthrift trying to buy votes.

2. We had a good deal. It was called Cut, Cap and Balance. Obama refused to even look at it - and then has the chutzpah to whine to the nation about compromise.

3. Social Security - like all Federal Programs - keeps growing and growing when it should be reduced. It was originally a simple program for a very limited number of persons who were in dire need but is now a sprawling monster. The demography is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that SS's projected budgets are unsustainable and must by necessity be decreased rather than grow over 8% YOY.

It great courage to admit socialism has failed. It takes humility to admit that socialism has gone beyond what is sane, rational, or even POSSIBLE. But Thatcher's "eventually you run out of other people's money" day or reckoning has arrived. First Russia failed and collapsed. Now its Britain, Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal... The list of failed Euro socialist systems that have bled their capitalist engines dry with impossible promises does nothing but grow ever longer.

And sadly, the US is right there with them. Riots in Wisconsin over simple, commmon-sense limits to unions... Riots and violence in Pittsburg... Riots and violence in Detroit, Akron, and many other places... The US only has once choice if it wants to avoid becoming Britain. That choice is to make the hard, necessary cuts to our socialist programs right now before they expand even further and cause even greater damage to society.

A simple freeze now, a few common sense cuts, basic tax code reform, and a balanced budget ammendment that Congress cannot just end-run-around and America is back on track. If we follow Obama's (and yes - Bush's) plan of ignoring reality while increasing the socialist network on pure debt spending and tax increases then the country will collapse and balkanize. It would be inevitable. But who knows? Maybe that's what Obama and neolibs like him really want. They sure are going about it in earnest.

Thanks for illustrating the point of this video.

No one outside the tea party believes that a column of numbers listing US federal debt on wikipedia is an inaccurate liberal conspiracy.

No one outside the tea party performs subtraction on two sets of numbers found in a table, notices that they are roughly comparable in size and then claims one is "3 times as much" as the other.

And no one outside the tea party seriously thought that cut cap and balance was a compromise.

I'm done feeding you.

How was I off? I said that the US debt was 17 Trillion. With the 2.4 trillion 'deal' Congress just made, that is correct (16.9 trillion, but I'm rounding up). I also said that the government spends 28% more than it takes in. I was using GOA numbers, but if you want to use "the wiki" then I will have to correct myself. According to Wikipedia, the US 2010 tax revenue was 2.1 trillion and its expenses were 3.4 trillion. Happy? According to Wiki, the US spends !!61.9%!! more than it takes in. It only furthers my argument - but whatever. I also said the US is in total debt to 571% of its income. This is also correct. Income? 2.1 trillion. Debt? 16.9 trillion. We're in hock over 700% of our income, and it is getting worse YOY.

You lose. I win. Facts and reality tend to do that.

And S&P said cut, cap & balance would have prevented the downgrade - therefore it is not "only the tea party" that liked it. Democrats voted for it. Independants voted for it. Libertarians voted for it. RINOs voted for it. It passed the House. But Obama refused to compromise and sign it. Hint for you neolibs - "compromise" means you compromise YOUR position. The GOP compromised by allowing the debt to go up. That was the compromise. Obama just didn't like it because it didn't give him 2.4 trillion more of his walkin' round money to trowel out past the 2012 election.

That is not what the S&P said. They said the fact that politicians were willing to risk default to get their ideologies made into policies triggered the downgrade.

And all parties wanted the US economy to not plummet, which necessitates the debt ceiling raise. The difference with this debt ceiling raise is one faction of one party was willing to have the US default to get their way. The GOP ran the deficit up from 2000-2006 with tax cuts and unfunded mandates, entered the US into two wars, and then stuck a Democratic president with the bill, and then said, "you cut your programs to fix this, or we'll force the US to default" after the economy tanked.

Don't sit there and say the GOP compromised by raising the debt ceiling. They did in fact hold the US economy hostage by suddenly becoming worried about the debt to score political points. The Tea Party is a small faction of the GOP. The GOP willfully attempted to aggregate political will from Tea Party sympathizers.

The problem with all this is the vast majority of Americans, on both sides, do not understand the ramifications of default, large deficits, a growing national debt, etc. On this very site, guys like you for example swear up and down that deficits are never good, when a cursory look at our history shows that deficits have actually been at times wildly beneficial to our economy. Others insist on paying for social security indefinitely from 65 to death without looking at what it would cost to make that happen, or ignoring that people live longer today than they did before, so maybe it's time we raise the retirement age.

Both parties are concentrating on scoring cheap political points, throwing out platitudes about how to fix the economy instead of using actual information and determining a policies moving forward to fix this economy. Sometimes it's on purpose; sometimes it's because they're just as ignorant of economics as the general population. Idiotic things like:

"The government must always spend less than they earn!"
"US citizens should always be entitled to <insert blank without providing a realistic means to pay for it>"
"Providing <insert gov't program> is socialist, and it can never work because the gov't can't do anything right!"
"Corporations are always evil, and always screw the people!"

You know what will fix the economy? Competent policy makers not married to any ideology, willing to make policy based on facts instead of talking points. Unfortunately, the American people, combined with our political system, don't seem to select such people to positions of power.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

How was I off? I said that the US debt was 17 Trillion. With the 2.4 trillion 'deal' Congress just made, that is correct (16.9 trillion, but I'm rounding up). I also said that the government spends 28% more than it takes in. I was using GOA numbers, but if you want to use "the wiki" then I will have to correct myself. According to Wikipedia, the US 2010 tax revenue was 2.1 trillion and its expenses were 3.4 trillion. Happy? According to Wiki, the US spends !!61.9%!! more than it takes in. It only furthers my argument - but whatever. I also said the US is in total debt to 571% of its income. This is also correct. Income? 2.1 trillion. Debt? 16.9 trillion. We're in hock over 700% of our income, and it is getting worse YOY.
You lose. I win. Facts and reality tend to do that.
And S&P said cut, cap & balance would have prevented the downgrade - therefore it is not "only the tea party" that liked it. Democrats voted for it. Independants voted for it. Libertarians voted for it. RINOs voted for it. It passed the House. But Obama refused to compromise and sign it. Hint for you neolibs - "compromise" means you compromise YOUR position. The GOP compromised by allowing the debt to go up. That was the compromise. Obama just didn't like it because it didn't give him 2.4 trillion more of his walkin' round money to trowel out past the 2012 election.