Just a brief observation over what the effect is so far of the ideologically-driven partisan wrangling by our Congress over the last few weeks.

The markets began to "price in" the incompetence and intransigence of our Congress as early as about a month ago. Just in case you've missed it, the market capitalization of all the companies traded on U.S. stock exchanges have lost about $3 trillion in value since July 7. That's real lost wealth, real money that could have been spent or invested. That's about three months worth of GDP for the U.S.!

If I recall correctly, the Tea Party refused to consider a little less than $1 trillion in "revenue increases". Had some compromise been reached, the grand bargain of $4 trillion in deficit reduction was possible--at least that's what all the parties from both sides of the aisle have said regarding the negotiations. That's the number that Simpson-Bowles recommended, the "gang of six" came up with, and then both the Boehner-Obama and Reid-McConnell negotiations were headed for. All included some tax increases.

S&P said that had a $4 trillion deal been agreed upon, they wouldn't have dropped our credit rating. Presumably that would have avoided $3 trillion in lost wealth.

But the Tea Party had enough votes to block any of those agreements. Enough votes to take the discussions to the very brink of default. Enough votes to totally upset the financial markets around the world. Then in the end they settled for less than $1 trillion in spending cuts over ten years, none of which will happen until 2014 at the earliest. The rest of the cuts, totaling only about $1.5 trillion will either have to be determined by the "super committee" or by an agreed-upon formula. Those cuts may not happen until years in the future. They finally forced a deal that was so inadequate that our debt rating was dropped in only a day or so--all in the sole interest of a far right wing ideology.

The Tea Party didn't get "cap". They didn't get "balance" and they only got a miniscule pittance of spending cuts, sometime way down the road.

So what's the bottom line so far? These 87 rookie congressmen blocked a deal that would have resulted in almost double the deficit reduction and in doing so cost corporations and investors three times the amount being arguing about. They continually created soundbites arguing why would you take money from the pockets of the "job creators", why would you increase taxes in a fragile economy? But then the results of their incompetence took three times the amount wealth from those they argued they were trying to protect. Their intransigence resulted in the first credit downgrade of U.S. debt in the country's history, incalcuable damage to our economy, and almost certain significant increases to unemployment.

While I endorse the objectives of the Tea Party, I certainly don't endorse or support their amateurish, irresponsible and terribly costly approach to statesmanship and governance.

Support these guys in the 2012 elections? Elect more of them? Elect a President who is chairman of the Tea Party caucus who is even farther out on the right fringe than most of them, who said she didn't think a default would be all that bad a thing? That statement makes Joe the Plumber look like a Phi Beta Kappa.

You can't be serious. The answer isn't the Democrats or President Obama, but it sure as hell isn't the Tea Party either.

OK, you have stated the problem. Now what is the soluation?

Originally Posted by Figmo Bohica

OK, you have stated the problem. Now what is the solution?

A coup d'état maybe?

No, clearly it's a third party. These problems can't be solved by any of the current parties or splinter groups--Republicans, Democrats or Tea Party. I just don't know when that will happen. I do have the confidence that Americans won't put up with this for too much longer.

Anybody other than me noticed that when the Democrats owned all branches of government, everything was George Bush's fault?

Now that they have lost the Congress after the last election (LANDSLIDE) everything seems to be the fault of Congress. Better yet......The TEA Party part of it. If the TEA Party had gotten their way, we wouldn't be seeing our portfolio's disappear before our eyes.

Every single Republican in congress should return to Washington, and in unison, call for the return of the democrats to work on this problem, and in a novel idea, pass a budget, which will be the next government shutdown if not ready by October 1st.

Originally Posted by BlueHeronFan

Anybody other than me noticed that when the Democrats owned all branches of government, everything was George Bush's fault?

Now that they have lost the Congress after the last election (LANDSLIDE) everything seems to be the fault of Congress. Better yet......The TEA Party part of it. If the TEA Party had gotten their way, we wouldn't be seeing our portfolio's disappear before our eyes.

Every single Republican in congress should return to Washington, and in unison, call for the return of the democrats to work on this problem, and in a novel idea, pass a budget, which will be the next government shutdown if not ready by October 1st.

The House passed the bill. Obama could have told his water carriers in the Senate to Pass it. Obama sat on his hands and said "present" and nothing happened. About time this sorry excuse for a leader did something. I think it will go down in history that Obama dropped the ball.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Just a brief observation over what the effect is so far of the ideologically-driven partisan wrangling by our Congress over the last few weeks.

The markets began to "price in" the incompetence and intransigence of our Congress as early as about a month ago. Just in case you've missed it, the market capitalization of all the companies traded on U.S. stock exchanges have lost about $3 trillion in value since July 7. That's real lost wealth, real money that could have been spent or invested. That's about three months worth of GDP for the U.S.!

If I recall correctly, the Tea Party refused to consider a little less than $1 trillion in "revenue increases". Had some compromise been reached, the grand bargain of $4 trillion in deficit reduction was possible--at least that's what all the parties from both sides of the aisle have said regarding the negotiations. That's the number that Simpson-Bowles recommended, the "gang of six" came up with, and then both the Boehner-Obama and Reid-McConnell negotiations were headed for. All included some tax increases.

S&P said that had a $4 trillion deal been agreed upon, they wouldn't have dropped our credit rating. Presumably that would have avoided $3 trillion in lost wealth.

But the Tea Party had enough votes to block any of those agreements. Enough votes to take the discussions to the very brink of default. Enough votes to totally upset the financial markets around the world. Then in the end they settled for less than $1 trillion in spending cuts over ten years, none of which will happen until 2014 at the earliest. The rest of the cuts, totaling only about $1.5 trillion will either have to be determined by the "super committee" or by an agreed-upon formula. Those cuts may not happen until years in the future. They finally forced a deal that was so inadequate that our debt rating was dropped in only a day or so--all in the sole interest of a far right wing ideology.

The Tea Party didn't get "cap". They didn't get "balance" and they only got a miniscule pittance of spending cuts, sometime way down the road.

So what's the bottom line so far? These 87 rookie congressmen blocked a deal that would have resulted in almost double the deficit reduction and in doing so cost corporations and investors three times the amount being arguing about. They continually created soundbites arguing why would you take money from the pockets of the "job creators", why would you increase taxes in a fragile economy? But then the results of their incompetence took three times the amount wealth from those they argued they were trying to protect. Their intransigence resulted in the first credit downgrade of U.S. debt in the country's history, incalcuable damage to our economy, and almost certain significant increases to unemployment.

While I endorse the objectives of the Tea Party, I certainly don't endorse or support their amateurish, irresponsible and terribly costly approach to statesmanship and governance.

Support these guys in the 2012 elections? Elect more of them? Elect a President who is chairman of the Tea Party caucus who is even farther out on the right fringe than most of them, who said she didn't think a default would be all that bad a thing? That statement makes Joe the Plumber look like a Phi Beta Kappa.

You can't be serious. The answer isn't the Democrats or President Obama, but it sure as hell isn't the Tea Party either.

I think you post these rambling term papers, just to TRY to impress everybody. Alas.....Brevity is the soul of wit.....

Originally Posted by BlueHeronFan

I think you post these rambling term papers, just to TRY to impress everybody. Alas.....Brevity is the soul of wit.....

"If you can't write your idea on the back of my calling card, you don't have a clear idea." ~David Belasco

Brevity is also an excuse for knowing nothing.

Originally Posted by waynet

Brevity is also an excuse for knowing nothing.

My great-grandfather used to say to his wife, my great-grandmother, who in turn told her daughter, my grandmother, who repeated it to her daughter, my mother, who used to remind her daughter, my own sister, that to talk well and eloquently was a very great art, but that an equally great one was to know the right moment to stop. ~Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

I'm usually brief, and admit to not knowing a lot...but I do know this: we were much happier paying taxes and seeing our investments increase in worth, then not paying taxes and seeing them lose much of their value.

P.S. I like VK's essays.

...make important decisions based only on short soundbites someone feeds them.

Originally Posted by Carla B

I'm usually brief, and admit to not knowing a lot...but I do know this: we were much happier paying taxes and seeing our investments increase in worth, then not paying taxes and seeing them lose much of their value.

P.S. I like VK's essays.

Carla, are you saying that the more you pay in taxes, the more your investments increase?

why didn't you listen to your greatgrandfather?

Originally Posted by Carla B

I'm usually brief, and admit to not knowing a lot...but I do know this: we were much happier paying taxes and seeing our investments increase in worth, then not paying taxes and seeing them lose much of their value.

P.S. I like VK's essays.

Nobody is asking to "not pay taxes". T.E.A. Party stands for Taxed Enough Already, not "pay no taxes".

You purposely miss the point.

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

Carla, are you saying that the more you pay in taxes, the more your investments increase?

Kinda like back in the Clinton administration?