Stock Markets Down In Reaction to S&P Downgrade of U.S. Bond Rating

While I could never blame any of the corruption, less than competent (yet very costly to US) job performances and just plain total bullshit lies that have always been there regardless of which party the president pledged his allegiance to (which really isn't supposed to be so narrowly defined given that these are supposed to be real humans) on ONE person simply because they held the highest title in our government, because that is silly to me...I think a change in our expectations and demands as far as how they must handle the responsibility and influence on our lives is a very workable idea if enough people got behind it and made it less of a situation where we give them more power than they really could be capable of having without our consent on many levels. Most of the wealthy and politically influential people in the world have no interest in world domination or destruction. That would be insane.

Bruce Bartlett, domestic policy advisor to Reagan, and treasury official under George H.W. Bush sez: Obama like Nixon.

Liberals hoped that Obama would overturn conservative policies and launch a new era of government activism. Although Republicans routinely accuse him of being a socialist, an honest examination of his presidency must conclude that he has in fact been moderately conservative to exactly the same degree that Nixon was moderately liberal.

Conservatives will, of course, scoff at the idea of Obama being any sort of conservative, just as liberals scoffed at Nixon being any kind of liberal. But with the benefit of historical hindsight, it’s now obvious that Nixon was indeed a moderate liberal in practice. And with the passage of time, it’s increasingly obvious that Clinton was essentially an Eisenhower Republican. It may take 20 years before Obama’s basic conservatism is widely accepted as well, but it’s a fact.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/...

Hey Barry... how about dusting off your own deficit commission report now.

Politically, that appears to be a non-starter. It's based on the understanding that every ledger has, y'know, two sides (a simple fact that seems to escape most of the GOP somehow) and as a result, includes revenue enhancements. The Tea Party-controlled House ain't gonna pass that.

At least try to streamline the tax code.  The subsidies, loopholes and gifts to special interests lead to distortions in the economy and politicize economic decision making.  I don't see why Tea Partiers and the GOP can't get behind that idea. 

Why can't the Tea Party (which is what the GOP is now) get behind that? Because it isn't really a political party. Political parties bargain and negotiate and compromise and hope to, over time and through a collection of small victories, gradually change the course of policy. The Tea Party isn't that. It's a movement to which any increase in government revenue is absolutely verboten. It has a clearly-defined, non-negotiable set of tenets that cannot be questioned -- no matter the circumstances. And any fact, common sense, basic reality, or other rational thought that stands in contradiction to those tenets is a threat, something to be fought tooth-and-nail, and anyone claiming to be a part of their Party who questions those tenets is ostracized like a heretic.

It's not a political party. It's a religion.

Why can't the Progressives (which is what the DNC is now) get behind that? Because it isn't really a political party. Political parties bargain and negotiate and compromise and hope to, over time and through a collection of small victories, gradually change the course of policy. The Progressive aren't that. It's a movement to which any increase in government revenue is absolutely nessessary. It has a clearly-defined, non-negotiable set of tenets that cannot be questioned -- no matter the circumstances. And any fact, common sense, basic reality, or other rational thought that stands in contradiction to those tenets is a threat, something to be fought tooth-and-nail, and anyone claiming to be a part of their movement who questions those tenets is ostracized like a heretic.

It's not a political party. It's a religion.

While he quite characteristically overstates the case, Navin at least for once has the gist of it.

If one so chooses, they can simply turn their brain off and delude themselves into a Beck-ian state of hallucination, believing that the Democratic Party as it exists today doesn't occupy far, far more of the center of the political continuum than does the GOP. But I personally suspect most people aren't quite so addled by stupidity or drugs or head trauma as to do so.

Guess that's why you guys did so well in Wisconsin this week...

Extrapolating the results of 6 recall elections, only 3 of which were even remotely bordering on competitive in the first place (and Dems won 2 of those, BTW), into some wider commentary about the state of either party would be comical were it not so idiotic: all 6 incumbents were elected in 2008, which was a huge Democratic surge year. If you want to draw a conclusion, there's really only one that the data supports: that those districts are very heavily Republican.

If, however, you'd like to look at data that does have at least some relationship to how people view the two parties nationally, I encourage you to look at this:
Democrats: 47% favorable, 47% unfavorable.
Republicans: 33% favorable, 59% unfavorable.
Tea Party: 31% favorable, 51% unfavorable.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2...

And most other polls show similar trends.

Yeeeouch.

Now, while you're applying ice to your crotch, consider these additional factoids:

- The GOP favorable rating is actually 5 points lower than it was in 2006, when Democrats took control of Congress.
- The GOP is less approved-of than it was when President Obama was elected. 
- The GOP favorable/unfavorable rating is the worst since CNN started doing polling in 1992.
- Voters clearly see that it was the GOP who acted recklessly and idiotically in the Debt Ceiling goatfuck. Since July, the GOP has gone -12 (to an almost sympathy-inducing -26) on their favorable spread. The Tea Party's unfavorables doubled since January, and their spread doubled since July, from -10 to -20.
- Meanwhile, Obama's numbers have changed very little since the end of the inaugural honeymoon. And, perhaps most strikingly, his lowest approval rating is actually better than any other president's low since Kennedy: http://www.frumforum.com/obama...

So please, by all means, keep chuggin' that Tea.

 overstates the case, 

It will be very entertaining to see how that opinion is justified.  Whether it's suggesting that there are more than a few progressive democrats or that Obama's overall policy has been anything remotely resembling progressivism.  

Unless of course progressivism =

Taxpayer funded bailouts of Wall St. oligarchs with no strings attached and no prosecutions for fraud.
The escalation of Bush's wars, plus Libya...
The expansion of Bush's homeland security civil rights violations
The continuation of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy elite.
Austerity cuts to social security and medicare/medicaid. Something Republicans haven't even tried but Obama freely offered up.
Bailing out Wall Streeters with zero interest while they charge the taxpayers who bailed them out interest.
A progressive wouldn't get most of their campaign financed by Wall St. masters.

Mmmhmm.  ::rolls eyes::

Idiot.

"Mmmhmm.  ::rolls eyes::" 

Describing your near climactic facial expression as Democrats work you from the back?

Uh there are pretty much no progressives in the Democratic party, and Obama is basically to the right of Nixon.

This would would be an effective argument -- were it based in anything even vaguely resembling reality. But it's not. As evidence, I direct your attention to a healthcare law that is no different than any written by Republicans over the last 30 years (and in many ways, far, far less liberal than most of them), a stimulus plan comprised largely of tax cuts, a deficit-reduction proposal that included no actual increases of tax rates, a stated preference for reducing Medicare/Medicaid spending before reducing defense spending, and on and on and on.

The sentiment of your post (not at all uncommon among the far-right extremists that now dominate the GOP) is just another hallmark of the spectacular zealotry and absurd ignorance involved in subscribing to such a doctrinaire cult: rather than taking on its opponents as they actually are, such movements caricature them and take them on as they would prefer they were. It's cowardly and pitiful.

Every heard the idiom "The pot calling the kettle black"?  That's the sentiment of my post.  Pretty straight forward.

I have. But that idiom would only work if the Democrats were as dominated by the left ideological extreme as the Republicans are the right extreme. It would be appropriate were the Democrats' "pot" as black as the Republicans' "kettle".

But the simple reality is that the "pot" in this case is probably something more along the lines of taupe.

What's the basis for your assertation that the Democrat Party is less infested/driven by their ideoloigcal extreme?

See above for just some of just the most recent examples.

Buying the claim that the Democratic Party, post-DLC revolution, is anywhere near as ideologically doctrinaire as the current Tea Party-centric GOP requires the suspension of disbelief.

Also, I'm not sure what fundamental lack of understanding of the English language is required to not know this, but the adjective form of Democrat is Democratic.

I believe there are about 60 self described Tea Party members in the House vs 70ish members of the Progressive Caucus.

Trying to sit here and argue over who has the more extreme, dogmatic, intractable, etc., positions is probably an exercise in futility as its total subjective and is probably more informed by where the viewer lays on the political spectrum then any objective standards.

It's fairly easy to objectively judge which party is more extreme: just looking at which party has shown more ability to compromise on recent policy issues seems a pretty effective rubric. And by that standard -- not to mention basically any other intellectually honest analysis -- the conclusion is abundantly obvious.

Edit: Also, just writing off any analysis as little more than rooting for one's home team is ignorant of history. There can simply be no argument to the fact that the Democratic Party changed substantially as a result of the influence of the DLC starting in the mid- to late-1980s. And the result of that change, because of the DLC's clearly-stated "Third Way" goals and positions, was to make the Democratic Party far, far more centrist than it had been previously. At the very least, one has to acknowledge the fact that (save for the "Compassionate Conservatism" movement which utterly flopped and never had much influence anyway) the Republican Party has simply not experienced any similarly significant moderation.

The bottom line is that the Democratic Party, on the whole, is substantially less leftist than it was 30 years ago, while the Republican Party, on the whole, is substantially more rightist. And this much is obvious on its face.

Well, those are interesting benchmarks but not some criteria written in stone for judging ideological zealousness.  Like I said, there are about 60 self described Tea Party members in the House vs 70ish members of the Progressive Caucus.  That's objective.

But just because it's a number doesn't mean it's an accurate measure. For example, the right-wing extremism of the Tea Party movement in general obviously influences far more than 60 members of Congress, whether they describe themselves as "Tea Party" members or not.

The Republican Party is far more rightist today than the Democratic Party is leftist. Again, it's obvious on its face.

Pardon me for interjecting, but I agree with your point of view here completely, the only people to whom we could really assign responsibility for the often asinine and thoroughly counter productive Republican "Tea Party" (the irony of that title is just insulting to my intelligence) polarization towards the far right are the people who accept it and vote for them simply because they feel that the party affiliation is a part of who they are and an unchangeable representation of their way of thinking. I hate to assume that that is actually so common, but I see too much of it to see it another way. Fox News really looks more like they are just trying to have more crazy theatrical fun than anything serious sometimes. My parents don't hear the lack of objectivity nor do they find that at all less than intelligent or even really predictable behavior or thinking coming from educated and experienced professionals. It kind of freaks me out a little. I don't freak out that easily.

That would be a great idea if he wants to keep killing the economy.

Obama: "We'll always be a triple A country!"  "Leave us alone!" lol.

Too bad he can't prosecute S&P for their role in the financial crisis in response to hurting his feelings.

In reality, stupid market folk are finally realizing that our economic path of no revenue and endless tax cuts (for the upper crust) is not going to revive the economy...ever.

On the upside, all that crappy looking gold and silver jewelry you never wear will actually bring you some cash at the pawn shop.

The Markets and S&P are clearly racist.

*slow clap*

Uh, that headline seems . . . off. U.S. bonds are actually being treated as a safe haven today, along with gold. Equities are not downgraded, so why would they drop? I suspect that it is (a) more lemmings, and (b) more of reaction to problems in Europe.

This. Treasuries haven't really been hit in any real meaningful way, and the Europe developments alone would be enough knock a cuppa-two-tree percentage points off the major indexes. Mix in the AIG/BAC lawsuit, which will dick up financials, the downgrades of some individual stocks and... here we are. Sell first, ask questions later.

So despite fixing the false crisis we get downgraded anyway....by the same sham CRA's that all gave (err sold) top ratings to all the toxic loans before (and helped bring about) the financial crisis.  Broken system.  Time to line the speculators up against the wall....or have them get jobs that actually contribute to society...