Rand Paul to seek vote of No Confidence

[retro]

in Treasury Secretary Geithner.

Aug 10, 2011
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul today announced his intention to introduce in the U.S. Senate a vote of no confidence in Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Following Sen. Paul's call for Secretary Geithner to resign this weekend, his intention to introduce a resolution underlines Secretary Geithner's gross mismanagement of the U.S. economy.

"The stock market gave a vote of no confidence to Timothy Geithner yesterday and for the past 11 days. Geithner has shown no acumen in predicting, diagnosing, or treating America's economic woes. The time has come for him to resign," Sen. Paul said.

Sen. Paul's motion stems from Secretary Geithner's failure to institute policies to curb rising unemployment, prices and debt. The passage of the motion would indicate that the U.S. Congress has no confidence that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will institute policies that will reverse the downgrade in America's debt. During his tenure at the Federal Reserve and as Treasury Secretary, Secretary Geithner had a direct role in the failure of the Fed to diagnose and act on the housing crisis. He presided over bank bailouts, auto bailouts and failed trillion-dollar stimulus plans.

http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=288

 

[Tim]

Seriously?

Rand IS the problem. Rand and his merry band of tea baggers are the reason the US was downgraded to AA+. The market reacted to that, not because of the deal that went through.
Rand and the tea baggers ARE the problem right now. Their unwillingness to raise any sort of revenue is the problem and is the reason for the downgrade, hell, just go read the reason for the downgrade directly from the accompanying report.

60% of our current deficit IS the Bush tax cuts... and that's a fact directly from the CBO

 

[retro]

It's rather disingenuous of you to claim that the only reason the downgrade happened is because of the GOP's unwillingness to raise taxes.

From page three of the S&P report

It appears that for now, new revenues have
dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions
only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability.

Sounds like they're looking at more than just new revenue, don't you think? Nowhere in the report, that I can find anyway, do they state that the US budgetary issues are a direct result of tax cuts. It has everything to do with spending as well as income.

Outlook
The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate
fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently
assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand,
as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional
Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with
other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high
earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated,
and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's
debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.
On Monday, we will issue separate releases concerning affected ratings in
the funds, government-related entities, financial institutions, insurance,
public finance, and structured finance sectors.

They're saying that if the tax cuts were to lapse, then there's a chance our debt could stabilize at AA+. Notice they're not saying that it would go back to AAA, right? Because there's a spending problem in Washington... across the board.

 

[Accountable]

Seriously?

Rand IS the problem. Rand and his merry band of tea baggers are the reason the US was downgraded to AA+. The market reacted to that, not because of the deal that went through.
Rand and the tea baggers ARE the problem right now. Their unwillingness to raise any sort of revenue is the problem and is the reason for the downgrade, hell, just go read the reason for the downgrade directly from the accompanying report.

60% of our current deficit IS the Bush tax cuts... and that's a fact directly from the CBO

The S&P downgrade is peanuts. Trivia. Personally I'm glad that Congress is in gridlock, because the only things they agree on are directions that lead us away from liberty and into bigger gov't powergrabs.

There is plenty of money in the coffers to pay down the debt. The problem is the out-of-control spending. It's way past time for painful cuts. Start with the military and Dept of Education. That's as good a place as any.

 

[Panacea]

Dept of Education. That's as good a place as any.

Can I ask what you'd cut? I can't imagine there's a ton to take from there?

 

[Dana]

Can I ask what you'd cut? I can't imagine there's a ton to take from there?

DOE is already shit so I agree, let's take more from education, that'll solve everything....

































































































































:sarcasm

 

[Accountable]

Can I ask what you'd cut? I can't imagine there's a ton to take from there?

From the federal dept? Everything. Shut it down. As I understand it, at first it would track statistics and show which states were running the most successful systems. That's a worthy job, but Washington politicians can't be trusted to leave well enough alone, so the whole thing should be scrapped and the education tax money returned to the states.

 

[Alien Allen]

Seriously?

Rand IS the problem. Rand and his merry band of tea baggers are the reason the US was downgraded to AA+. The market reacted to that, not because of the deal that went through.
Rand and the tea baggers ARE the problem right now. Their unwillingness to raise any sort of revenue is the problem and is the reason for the downgrade, hell, just go read the reason for the downgrade directly from the accompanying report.

60% of our current deficit IS the Bush tax cuts... and that's a fact directly from the CBO

You got them liberal talking points down to a science.

Tell me over the last 10 years how much revenue has come in and then tell me how much the govt has spent.

Then tell me why Clinton had a surplus

I would like to see what kind of spin you can put on all of this.

 

[retro]

You got them liberal talking points down to a science.

Tell me over the last 10 years how much revenue has come in and then tell me how much the govt has spent.

Then tell me why Clinton had a surplus

I would like to see what kind of spin you can put on all of this.

I'll answer... Clinton had a "surplus" because they counted SS and Medicare as "revenue". Creative accounting.

 

[Tim]

I'll answer... Clinton had a "surplus" because they counted SS and Medicare as "revenue". Creative accounting.

Way to fact check...

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

 

[Alien Allen]

Clinton had a surplus IMO because he was the lucky person to be in office during the dot com boom.

but what goes up must come down

as to creative accounting. nah.... that would never happen by any president

 

[Minor Axis]

"The stock market gave a vote of no confidence to Timothy Geithner yesterday and for the past 11 days. Geithner has shown no acumen in predicting, diagnosing, or treating America's economic woes. The time has come for him to resign," Sen. Paul said.

Right, this is how conservatives want to run the country, based on how the stock market reacts. He doe not even understand that it is a vote of no confidence on the members of Congress. I heard him talking to a reporter the other day, "Corporations are people just like you and me". No they are not. U.S. Corporations have done their part to take down the American economy for average citizens.

The S&P downgrade is peanuts. Trivia. Personally I'm glad that Congress is in gridlock, because the only things they agree on are directions that lead us away from liberty and into bigger gov't powergrabs.

There is plenty of money in the coffers to pay down the debt. The problem is the out-of-control spending. It's way past time for painful cuts. Start with the military and Dept of Education. That's as good a place as any.

That is your spin. Yes spending is a problem but so is lack of revenue that the Bush Administration cut. And oh my things have not gotten better. Revenue is just as much of the equation as spending is whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

You got them liberal talking points down to a science.

Tell me over the last 10 years how much revenue has come in and then tell me how much the govt has spent.

Then tell me why Clinton had a surplus

I would like to see what kind of spin you can put on all of this.

Gee we even had taxes then...

 

[Accountable]

That is your spin. Yes spending is a problem but so is lack of revenue that the Bush Administration cut. And oh my things have not gotten better. Revenue is just as much of the equation as spending is whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

It's not spin, it's my opinion. Washington spends too much. If they weren't spending so much on extra-constitutional bullshit then there wouldn't be a revenue shortage. It's the spending, Minor, the spending.

 

[Minor Axis]

Revenue, revenue offsets the spending, the spending. Be the first to give up your social security and medicare and I'll applaud you.

 

[Alien Allen]

the more revenue that comes in the more they spend beyond their means

 

[Minor Axis]

Lets give up on government and revert to anarchy or better yet corporate hegemony. Things will be better, yes?

 

[Accountable]

Relative to what we have now, yes.
But I'd prefer minimal gov't to none at all.

 

[Minor Axis]

Relative to what we have now, yes.
But I'd prefer minimal gov't to none at all.

If there is no government all that is left is corporate hegemony. BTW to get something out of the system, you have to put something into it. Those are called TAXES. :hey

 

[Accountable]

If there is no government all that is left is corporate hegemony. BTW to get something out of the system, you have to put something into it. Those are called TAXES. :hey

Have I ever called to abolish taxes? That's your habitual overreaction to almost all of my posts talking, not me.

 

[Tim]

Have I ever called to abolish taxes? That's your habitual overreaction to almost all of my posts talking, not me.

You have never called to abolish taxes. But you have called to abolish social security, medicare and medicaid. And just about every other federal program.

What do you think of Perry's plan to put a moratorium on ALL federal regulations if he were to become president?