[sreeb]

[quote=briansd1]
It seems like the Tea Party is thinking “let’s manufacture a crisis because, absent a crisis, we won’t get our way.” That’s a dangerous game to play and puts at risk the welfare of all Americans.[/quote]

The Tea Party is attempting to avoid a future crisis. I don’t see how the Federal Government spending 60% more than it earns (taxes) can end in anything but disaster. To say they are “manufacturing” a crisis borders on delusional. I know you don’t run your personal budget this way or you would be living in the streets sans internet.

The Tea Party fought the good fight and lost. I expect more of the same over the 2012 budget.

We are at a point where even a return of interest rates to historical norms would cause a debt death spiral. We aren’t willing to do anything significant to avoid it.

[sreeb]

What the Tea Party did was high light how hard it will be to cut spending.

It is very clear that the earliest any meaningful proactive cuts can occur is after the 2012 election. Depending on the results, maybe not until after the the 2016 elections.

Between then and now, we can expect to add another 3 to 9 trillion to the outstanding debt. It isn’t clear we can find willing lenders to finance that debt. Clearly there are plenty today but assuming there will always be plenty is risky.

The Tea Party did not threaten to default. Obama did. The Tea Party did threaten to shut down 40% of the government. The choice to prioritize other spending ahead of the debt repayment would have been made by the executive branch.

Our good credit rating isn’t based on our willingness to “borrow what ever it takes” to pay back our loans. It is based on our willingness to “do whatever it takes” to pay back our loans. As a group, we don’t seem all that willing to do anything.

I don’t see any likely hood that we will make any significant spending cuts absent a real borrowing crisis such as Greece, Spain, and Italy are experiencing. This could occur tomorrow or years from now. If we continue to run up a debt we have no hope of repaying, it will happen.

A small increase in tax rates won’t make a dent in the problem. Something like doubling all the tax rates for everyone (not just the rich) would be required but that would radically change taxpayer behavior. I personally wouldn’t see much point to working if that occurred.

[sreeb]

What the Tea Party did was high light how hard it will be to cut spending.

It is very clear that the earliest any meaningful proactive cuts can occur is after the 2012 election. Depending on the results, maybe not until after the the 2016 elections.

Between then and now, we can expect to add another 3 to 9 trillion to the outstanding debt. It isn’t clear we can find willing lenders to finance that debt. Clearly there are plenty today but assuming there will always be plenty is risky.

The Tea Party did not threaten to default. Obama did. The Tea Party did threaten to shut down 40% of the government. The choice to prioritize other spending ahead of the debt repayment would have been made by the executive branch.

Our good credit rating isn’t based on our willingness to “borrow what ever it takes” to pay back our loans. It is based on our willingness to “do whatever it takes” to pay back our loans. As a group, we don’t seem all that willing to do anything.

I don’t see any likely hood that we will make any significant spending cuts absent a real borrowing crisis such as Greece, Spain, and Italy are experiencing. This could occur tomorrow or years from now. If we continue to run up a debt we have no hope of repaying, it will happen.

A small increase in tax rates won’t make a dent in the problem. Something like doubling all the tax rates for everyone (not just the rich) would be required but that would radically change taxpayer behavior. I personally wouldn’t see much point to working if that occurred.

[sreeb]

What the Tea Party did was high light how hard it will be to cut spending.

It is very clear that the earliest any meaningful proactive cuts can occur is after the 2012 election. Depending on the results, maybe not until after the the 2016 elections.

Between then and now, we can expect to add another 3 to 9 trillion to the outstanding debt. It isn’t clear we can find willing lenders to finance that debt. Clearly there are plenty today but assuming there will always be plenty is risky.

The Tea Party did not threaten to default. Obama did. The Tea Party did threaten to shut down 40% of the government. The choice to prioritize other spending ahead of the debt repayment would have been made by the executive branch.

Our good credit rating isn’t based on our willingness to “borrow what ever it takes” to pay back our loans. It is based on our willingness to “do whatever it takes” to pay back our loans. As a group, we don’t seem all that willing to do anything.

I don’t see any likely hood that we will make any significant spending cuts absent a real borrowing crisis such as Greece, Spain, and Italy are experiencing. This could occur tomorrow or years from now. If we continue to run up a debt we have no hope of repaying, it will happen.

A small increase in tax rates won’t make a dent in the problem. Something like doubling all the tax rates for everyone (not just the rich) would be required but that would radically change taxpayer behavior. I personally wouldn’t see much point to working if that occurred.

[sreeb]

What the Tea Party did was high light how hard it will be to cut spending.

It is very clear that the earliest any meaningful proactive cuts can occur is after the 2012 election. Depending on the results, maybe not until after the the 2016 elections.

Between then and now, we can expect to add another 3 to 9 trillion to the outstanding debt. It isn’t clear we can find willing lenders to finance that debt. Clearly there are plenty today but assuming there will always be plenty is risky.

The Tea Party did not threaten to default. Obama did. The Tea Party did threaten to shut down 40% of the government. The choice to prioritize other spending ahead of the debt repayment would have been made by the executive branch.

Our good credit rating isn’t based on our willingness to “borrow what ever it takes” to pay back our loans. It is based on our willingness to “do whatever it takes” to pay back our loans. As a group, we don’t seem all that willing to do anything.

I don’t see any likely hood that we will make any significant spending cuts absent a real borrowing crisis such as Greece, Spain, and Italy are experiencing. This could occur tomorrow or years from now. If we continue to run up a debt we have no hope of repaying, it will happen.

A small increase in tax rates won’t make a dent in the problem. Something like doubling all the tax rates for everyone (not just the rich) would be required but that would radically change taxpayer behavior. I personally wouldn’t see much point to working if that occurred.

[sreeb]

What the Tea Party did was high light how hard it will be to cut spending.

It is very clear that the earliest any meaningful proactive cuts can occur is after the 2012 election. Depending on the results, maybe not until after the the 2016 elections.

Between then and now, we can expect to add another 3 to 9 trillion to the outstanding debt. It isn’t clear we can find willing lenders to finance that debt. Clearly there are plenty today but assuming there will always be plenty is risky.

The Tea Party did not threaten to default. Obama did. The Tea Party did threaten to shut down 40% of the government. The choice to prioritize other spending ahead of the debt repayment would have been made by the executive branch.

Our good credit rating isn’t based on our willingness to “borrow what ever it takes” to pay back our loans. It is based on our willingness to “do whatever it takes” to pay back our loans. As a group, we don’t seem all that willing to do anything.

I don’t see any likely hood that we will make any significant spending cuts absent a real borrowing crisis such as Greece, Spain, and Italy are experiencing. This could occur tomorrow or years from now. If we continue to run up a debt we have no hope of repaying, it will happen.

A small increase in tax rates won’t make a dent in the problem. Something like doubling all the tax rates for everyone (not just the rich) would be required but that would radically change taxpayer behavior. I personally wouldn’t see much point to working if that occurred.

[sreeb]

I would avoid native plants as you will have issues with the fire marshal.

You can find south African equivalents for most of them.

[sreeb]

I would avoid native plants as you will have issues with the fire marshal.

You can find south African equivalents for most of them.

[sreeb]

I would avoid native plants as you will have issues with the fire marshal.

You can find south African equivalents for most of them.

[sreeb]

I would avoid native plants as you will have issues with the fire marshal.

You can find south African equivalents for most of them.

[sreeb]

I would avoid native plants as you will have issues with the fire marshal.

You can find south African equivalents for most of them.

[sreeb]

I don’t think it is just efficiency. The black pigment they use (carbon black?) is the cheapest/best one for protecting the polypropylene from UV light. Your system will not only be bigger, the individual components will cost more and fail sooner.

[sreeb]

I don’t think it is just efficiency. The black pigment they use (carbon black?) is the cheapest/best one for protecting the polypropylene from UV light. Your system will not only be bigger, the individual components will cost more and fail sooner.

[sreeb]

I don’t think it is just efficiency. The black pigment they use (carbon black?) is the cheapest/best one for protecting the polypropylene from UV light. Your system will not only be bigger, the individual components will cost more and fail sooner.

[sreeb]

I don’t think it is just efficiency. The black pigment they use (carbon black?) is the cheapest/best one for protecting the polypropylene from UV light. Your system will not only be bigger, the individual components will cost more and fail sooner.

[Author]

Posts