I know Democrats want it to be the Tea Party.

1. Is that credible in light of the Democrats never putting a plan to paper until "the Deal" was struck, and the President never going public with an actual offer at all?

2. Is it credible in light of the small number of Tea Party folks actually in Congress?

3. Is it credible in light of the actual reason for the downgrade, namely our insatiable appetite for more and more debt?

On the flip side, Republicans refused any new taxes and walked away from the table 2X for it.

Having listened to NPR and read the WSJ and Boston Globe, I can safely say that Democrats are blaming the Tea party, and Republicans are blaming Democrats. I think independents are blaming both.

Ray Jay wrote:On the flip side, Republicans refused any new taxes and walked away from the table 2X for it.

True, but the President has not led. No one can say he's led. Even if he put a plan on the table in private negotiations, that's not leadership. The GOP took all the risks. All Obama did was look for a place to put the blame.

If his plan was reasonable, why not release it? He could have forced a vote and made the Republicans look bad . . . unless . . . no Democrats would vote for it either.

Having listened to NPR and read the WSJ and Boston Globe, I can safely say that Democrats are blaming the Tea party, and Republicans are blaming Democrats. I think independents are blaming both.

I can live with blaming both for amassing most of the debt. However, I don't think the blame for the downgrade can go anywhere but Obama's desk. What did he do, how much time and effort did he put into preventing it--even though he knew it was a possibility for months?

S&P, who made it, seem to be blaming all sides. They say the deal took to long, doesn't go far enough, and didn't include a way to increase revenue. The brinkmanship over the debt limit didn't help.

Of course, S&P rate Spain as less risky than Japan, which seems odd.

The poll indicating that 62% of Americans think debt ceiling deal benefited the rich seems to indicate that Democrats have scored some telling blows against the Republicans http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm It is interesting to note that the poll also indicates that 48% indicate that cuts were too much or about right and about the same indicate that cuts were not great enough. So not very many people are happy about the cuts but probably you hit dead center over what was possible in cutting spending, but there is resentment over taxes not going up on the wealthy.

Also, the popularity of the Tea Party has declined plummetedhttp://www.pollwatchdaily.com/ ... favorably/

The intransigence of the Republicans in general, and more particularly in the Tea Party group within the Republican Party, over raising taxes has had the effect of indicating that the wealthy will not sacrifice one iota to get out of this crisis.

In the UK, our government had a slogan to go along with it's programme of cutting spending and increasing taxes to shrink the deficit:

"We are all in this together"

I don't think people really believe it here as it's become used far more sarcastically then earnestly recently (and that may be part of the reason why a load of idiots think that looting stores in London and elsewhere is justified).

In the US it seems that no politician is even prepared to pretend it applies. They'd rather argue about whose fault it is (and never accept any culpability for themselves). And along come the 'yaa-boos' to back them up.

The S&P soverign debt committe is 5 guys sitting in a board room who once a month grill a market analyst located in another market over what they think they know about that marekt. In the US case the analyst sits in a Toronto boardroom which I think is odd, but perhaps distance provides perspective? These guys rate 15 nations as having AAA status. Some of the nations have larger debt to GDp ratios than the US. Only some have economies that are humming along reasonably well. None, not even favoured Australia, are without possible problems.
The US was downgraded, not for economic reasons but for politial problems. specifically the inability of the divided govnrment to reach compromise.

The agency warned in April that political compromise between the parties was necessary to make a deficit plan viable in the long-term, whereas a GOP-only or Democratic-only plan would not have credibility. The House budget plan never made it past the Senate because it had virtually no Democratic support.
As S&P put it: “Some compromise that achieves agreement on a comprehensive budgetary consolidation program — combined with meaningful steps toward implementation by 2013 — could lead us to maintain the rating where it is.”
In other words, it was the failure of Republicans and Democrats to demonstrate they could work together that led directly to the downgrade. That is not a “vindication of our actions;” it is a repudiation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... ml?hpid=z2
So, S&P blames the unworkable political situation, and warned about that in April. What Steve is really asking is, are their politial consequences for this? If the trend and the narrative continues as the polls freeman cites, then the intransigence is largely being blamed on Tea Partiers... Whether enough to change the results in 2012 I suppose will depend on how people feel about the tax situation . In tough times, if one group isn't seen to be sharing in the austerity and pain and the republicans are seen to be that groups protectors then perhaps there will be an FDR time surge for the Dems...

rickyp wrote:What Steve is really asking is, are their politial consequences for this?

For once, you are spot on. That is the question.

For all the hand-wringing over the Tea Party, a few points that are salient:

1. A higher percentage of TP Congressional members voted for the deal than Democrats, so who is "intransigent?"

2. TP demanded no raising of taxes. Democrats demanded no cuts to entitlements and tax increases. Who was more intransigent?

3. All we have are rumors that the President supported entitlement reform. Also via the rumor mill, when he took it to Pelosi and Congressional Democrats, they went ballistic.

4. If this is a crisis of leadership, and most people agree it is, ultimately blame will go back to "the leader," the President. That's unavoidable, especially as he just keeps pointing fingers. Most people aren't stupid and will recognize for all his talk about "fairness" and "balance," Obama has not put out anything we can examine to determine its "balance."

In tough times, if one group isn't seen to be sharing in the austerity and pain and the republicans are seen to be that groups protectors then perhaps there will be an FDR time surge for the Dems...

We'll see. Here's one inconvenient truth: the message of Democrats right now: spend more, tax more. Selling the idea that government isn't spending enough or that government is the solution seems to me to be a tall order. President Obama better eat his Wheaties because this is going to require some compelling rhetoric, something far beyond "hope," "change," "fair share," and "balanced approach."

A higher percentage of TP Congressional members voted for the deal than Democrats, so who is "intransigent?"

The group who wouldn't compromise on taxes by dollar one... You're confusing the vote on the eventual package with the positions that the public saw the groups take in the "debate"

TP demanded no raising of taxes. Democrats demanded no cuts to entitlements and tax increases. Who was more intransigent?

Freemans polls indicate that the perception today amongst the voting public is that Tea Partiers were ...

If this is a crisis of leadership, and most people agree it is, ultimately blame will go back to "the leader," the President. That's unavoidable, especially as he just keeps pointing fingers.

I guess that depends on how well the american public understand how your system of governance works. With all the coverage so far, you'd think they'd understand that the President can't make the republicans in the House do something if they don't want to. Compromise that is... Is that giving the public too much credit Steve?

All we have are rumors that the President supported entitlement reform. Also via the rumor mill, when he took it to Pelosi and Congressional Democrats, they went ballistic.

You mean like where he said so himself in his speech on Monday? Some rumour.

rickyp wrote:

A higher percentage of TP Congressional members voted for the deal than Democrats, so who is "intransigent?"

The group who wouldn't compromise on taxes by dollar one... You're confusing the vote on the eventual package with the positions that the public saw the groups take in the "debate"

No, I'm not. Why did 1/2 of Dem's vote "no?" Because they wouldn't compromise on taxes either. They want to jack up taxes so they can "invest."

TP demanded no raising of taxes. Democrats demanded no cuts to entitlements and tax increases. Who was more intransigent?

Freemans polls indicate that the perception today amongst the voting public is that Tea Partiers were ...

That's fine. I think I've seen "adults" in those polls, but be that as it may, ask the question this way: "Do you support cuts in federal spending or do you think the government is not spending enough."

I think that is a win for the Tea Party perspective. November 2010 was not that long ago.

If this is a crisis of leadership, and most people agree it is, ultimately blame will go back to "the leader," the President. That's unavoidable, especially as he just keeps pointing fingers.

I guess that depends on how well the american public understand how your system of governance works. With all the coverage so far, you'd think they'd understand that the President can't make the republicans in the House do something if they don't want to. Compromise that is... Is that giving the public too much credit Steve?

Ricky, maybe you don't understand "leadership." Leadership is bringing people to the table, getting them to see that your ideas are reasonable, and then going public if they won't be reasonable with your SPECIFIC reasonable ideas. When has the President done that?

Here's the problem: where is the President's plan? As far as anyone in the public knows, it's on a napkin somewhere in the Oval Office. If it's so "fair," why not go public with it and shame the GOP into supporting it?

All we have are rumors that the President supported entitlement reform. Also via the rumor mill, when he took it to Pelosi and Congressional Democrats, they went ballistic.

You mean like where he said so himself in his speech on Monday? Some rumour.

What is it? Please--point me to the White House pdf so I can read it. I want to know specifically what entitlement reforms the President is proposing. Since he "said so" on Monday, what are they?

And, if you really don't think that ultimately Obama will get the blame, you don't understand American politics. Read this from Dana Milbank.

Various reporters tried to elicit more information about Obama’s economic plans and deficit-reduction proposals, but Carney declined again to take the lead.

“I don’t want to get too far ahead of the process,” he explained to the Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler, adding that Obama “will be contributing to that process, not driving it or directing it.”

“Why?” inquired Politico’s Glenn Thrush. “He’s the leader of the free world. Why isn’t he leading this process?”

That is the enduring mystery of Obama’s presidency. He delivered his statement on the economy beneath a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, but that was as close as he came to forceful leadership. He looked grim and swallowed hard and frequently as he mixed fatalism (“markets will rise and fall”) with vague, patriotic exhortations (“this is the United States of America”).

“There will always be economic factors that we can’t control,” Obama said. Maybe. But it would be nice if the president gave it a try.

Again, whether it is all, mostly, partly, or not at all Obama's fault, he needs to be perceived as leading. I don't know how anyone can make a serious case that he had led.

Go ahead. Make my day.

To answer the initial question of this thread, I think that it will be the entire political establishment of the US that gets the blame for this, from the President right on down.

I'm not trying to be philosophical here, though it's true that there's a lot of blame to be spread around and it can quite plausibly be done equally. What I'm saying is that for quite some time the American people have seemingly been getting fed up with their political leadership and its apparent inability to get anything done. In order to make governments of any (non-autocratic) description work compromises must be made. Yet all sides of any debate in Washington these days seem to equate "compromise" with "surrender" and spout all sorts of garbage rhetoric to support this position.

What happens when the electorate gets so disgusted with all politicians of all stripes due to their incompenence that they start to get angry enough to do something about it? I don't know, but I wonder if we might find out over the next few months and years.

Javelin wrote:To answer the initial question of this thread, I think that it will be the entire political establishment of the US that gets the blame for this, from the President right on down.

Maybe. Although I would argue the general tendency in American politics is to blame the President.

There is rarely a genuine "throw the bums out" election. So, they (voters) inevitably take their anger out on the most visible symbol of failure/difficulty: the President.

In this case, I think it's tough for anyone to say the President did all he could. Look at his budget, which lost in the Senate 97-0. Look at his demagoguery of the Ryan budget. In fact, he has done nothing about the deficit except to find new, improved ways to increase it. That's a tough record to push on others and say "It's not my fault."

Certainly - the buck stops with the President and he is always (and should be) blamed or praised for all the good/bad things that occur on his watch. Will be most interesting to see what happens in the next election.

But in this case I think that the anger and blaming will go beyond him. Way beyond him. As will the consequences.

What dismays me about this whole situation is that a line has been crossed. Partisan posturing and brinkmanship is part and parcel of any Democracy, but when it starts to threaten the interests of the State it becomes a serious problem. When Senators and Congressmen start seeing every single bill as merely an opportunity to screw their opponents then the interests of the people they are supposed to represent are ignored and forgotten. That is true regardless of ideology, and of which side did what first.

I agree, Jav. The credit limit has hardly ever been a political issue, simply because it's really a matter of allowing the spending that has been already agreed upon to happen. Making it a big issue, and then to explicitly link it to deals on the budget to the point that it went some weeks past where the limit had been reached was very destabilising to the market.

All sides have to accept blame for that one, frankly.