I think we have to admit that McCain does bare some resemblance to Smeagol.
I think the problem with the Tea Partiers is that they see it as being their way or nothing. I understand their perspective and conviction but I think the issue is that they want to do it ALL at once. No compromise, every vote they make must include everything they think has to be done for the next 20 years of government. I think the problem is if we do it their way the whole economy is going to come crashing down. People compl
The lack of compromise is one thing but my issue with most if them is an apparent lack of sense. Yes we all hate raising taxes but they don't seem to understand simple economics where cutting costs can only do so much without increasing revenue.
We're seeing what was predicted two or three years ago. The Tea Party is poisonous to the Republicans, not the Democrats. It's pretty clear that Boehner is at maximum frustration level, and I think it's beginning to dawn on mainline and moderate Republicans that the Tea Party tail is now wagging the GOP dog. There's a level of hysterical irrationality about the Tea Party that is now coming into full view. They're not interested in governing at all.
I'm sure the White House has a long list of contingencies in place just like Clinton did when he was up against the Gingrich mob, and is probably quite content to watch the Republicans and the Tea Party wing battle it out. I think 2012 is pretty damned safe for him.
One of my high school friends is a strong Tea Party supporter and she was upset that they media portayed them as "silly" and "hypocrits" when they first started holding their rallies and protests. She asked me if I thought she was silly. Based on the signs I saw at the rallies, I responded "Yes". But I supported her right to protest. She didn't understand the "hypocrit" label even when I explained that years earlier the same Tea Party people were labeling war protestors as "unpatriotic" and questioning
The problem isn't so much that they're "hypocrits" [sic] as that they're gullible, ignorant, illiterate morons begging to be used as tools by the worst elements of the corporate-media complex. (i.e."True Americans")
The Tea Party apparently represents the will of the people as was demonstrated by the people voting them in in large enough numbers to shake the status quo. They are poisonous to "Party Politics" and the "Culture of Washington" and that is by design. That is what the people want to change, poison, kill. They will not fall back on their promises, and you deride them for that. No wonder this country is in such a mess. It's people like you, who cannot see the forest for the trees, who can only see in blue and
The United States is a representative democracy, not a direct one. That means, some times, the representatives have to think beyond the sometimes errant, even moronic views of the masses. The masses, in turn, have the opportunity to turf those representatives at the end of their term if they feel they've been ill served.
If those voters who support the Tea Party think an absolutist stand against tax cuts leading to a default will somehow improve their lot in life, then those voters are sadly mistaken. Wha
Their point is that the US cannot and will not default - but it can cut government benefits. The outcome of refusal to raise the debt ceiling is unknown and probably unknowable right now, but it is apparent that their hope is to shrink government (I.e., what they've been after from the beginning). I doubt that they will succeed, but they do have one very good point: the US is on an unsustainable path. Sooner or later we will face a reckoning in which taxes will go way up and spending will go way down. That
If those voters who support the Tea Party think an absolutist stand against tax cuts leading to a default
Are you sure you know what is going on? The Tea Party isn't against Tax Cuts they are against Tax Hikes (increases). They aren't for having the government default, they are for reigning in reckless spending. You know the reckless spending that has tripled (you know, multiplied by a factor of 3) the entire national debt within the last decade. The trajectory of spending we are currently on is unsustainable. This is a fact, it cannot be argued against. So the question is, do we deal with it now, or wait until
You do understand the these same people who are now fighting for budget cuts before approving to raise the debt ceiling are the same people that voted and approved the spending to begin with? House votes to approve spending on items. Then the credit card that this was put onto is now coming due. So now the tea party wants to put controls on spending??? What happened to when the budget was up for voting, did they miss that part?
I don't consider myself to be tea-party as I'm a libertarian (yeah, I know you just stopped reading and will start the ad-hominem attacks now). But you are sorely mistaken...
First of all, the US is not a representative democracy. It is a constitutional republic. The fact that people elect representatives in a democratic fashion does not make us a democracy. New laws are still supposed to follow the Constitution regardless of how popular they are.
The Constitution itself does permit congress "To borrow mo
The Air Force and Marines are logical extensions of the Army and Navy clauses of the Constitution. The FBI is debatable, the NSA, TSA, and FCC can definitely go. Add to that the IRS, CIA, FEMA, Departments of Education, Agriculture, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, get rid of Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicade, and such and that will solve our budget problem right up. And we could even afford to have some tax cuts.
But, really, we'll settle for him getting a friggin' clue.
Have you heard how Karl Rove talks about the Tea Party. He can't STAND those people, which is understandable considering how they've upset his apple-cart.
They voted for Tea Party people in many cases because the voters wanted something different, not because they specifically wanted Tea Partiers. Classic political ego: thinking they voted FOR you, instead of AGAINST the other guy.
Classic political ego: thinking they voted FOR you, instead of AGAINST the other guy.
It's not really ego - it is how things are supposed to be. There is no way for an individual citizen to vote against something (only Congress can do that), we can only vote for something. To the citizen, voting for a Senator, Congressman, President is not a binary choice; there are more than two options. That fact alone makes voting against someone impossible. Votes were created, intended and, for all intents-and-purposes, are an indication that someone is for the thing for which they voted. no other interp
I still think we should have the option to vote "no" for president, congress, with enough "no" votes in an election meaning the office stays vacant for 1 term and all^wboth parties running candidates are given a strong hint to find different kinds of candidates.
"Vote NO for President" would make a good bumper sticker, too.
Except, how can the Country run for 4 years with out a President? Voting "NO" for President would just mean a person under the existing one would be promoted to the role of President (either officially or de-facto). This would mean that a vote "NO" for President would instead be a Vote for the Underling for President who isn't even running.
Automatic veto, nothing requiring the president's signature gets to happen. Any actions taken in the name of the president during the interim are only temporary and can be immediately revoked by the next person to be actually be elected to the office. Also, nobody gets to sit behind the desk in the oval office. Hopefully the Red Phone has call forwarding.
Whatever you think of the tea party it has been spectacularly successful at "wagging the dog". Either the traditional parties will learn to get their tails back in control, or other "tails" will emerge on the far right or the far left spurred on by the success of the tea party. I rather suspect the main parties will find a way to control this better because some of the trends that have helped this along (like signing pledges) that seemed initially to be zero cost are now being seen as burdensome.
Except that the Tea Party has been integrated more closely into the GOP, at least that's what the GOP and the Tea Party wanted everyone to believe. Obviously it's not the case, the Tea Party feels no particular loyalty to mainline Republicans, seeming to view them not as opponents as they would any given Democrat, but as traitors to the true conservative cause.
The mainline Republicans are terrified that if they don't appease the Tea Party somehow, it will become a third party, and as a third party, the dam
I see the current crop of Republican Tea Party Types as being very much like a cartoon super villain. For example right now they are holding our future and economy hostage and seem perfectly willing to screw us all if they don't get 110% of what they want and 0% of what they don't want. Their priorities are preventing reasonable taxes being re-instituted for the rich and corporations. Now it looks like they are trying to arrange a situation where we have a debt limit crisis every 6 months so they can hol
I have a hard time believing Lex Luthor, criminal genius extraordinaire, would be as clumsy and moronic as the Tea Party members tend to be. I can see him fucking over the government, but with some cleverness. The Tea Party is more like Godzilla smashing Tokyo. Yes, big and scary, but ultimately with the brains of a cockroach.
I think you would be well served by checking out exactly how much money the government is spending, and on what. There is a need for some level of government, but what we have now is unsustainable. We will simply run out of money, no matter how we tax. (And remember, higher levels of taxation lead to lower levels of economic growth, and thus lower revenue generated to the government.) So really, I'm not opposed to some new taxation, but we'd be far better off by dramatically cutting spending and, especially
The three biggest areas of the federal budget are Defense, Medicare, and Social Security. Yes you can get some cost savings by cutting other programs but franky they are minuscule compared to those three. Also I've heard the same red herring about regulation before. I believe it was lack of regulation that led the entire world into the housing crisis to begin with. Cutting regulation would add tiny portions and may lead to disastrous consequences. As for taxation, the main proposal is restoring the tax
Which of these is not true:
(1)Speculation in the unregulated derivatives market was a primary cause of the financial crisis of 2008.
(2) Removing regulations like gpf does very little to actually reduce government spending in areas like the Defense sector and does very little to increase revenue in taxes.
Deregulation is a red herring in this debate. Pro-business forces keep touting it as some sort of panacea while ignoring it might in their best estimates save hundreds of a percent while Medicare, SS, an
Tell me how removing the gpf limit on newtoilets will save businesses and the governement any decent about of money? At the same time removing the limit will cause homeowners and businesses to use more water, which costs more money, which requires more infrastructure to deal with both the increased supply and sewage. Just because there is some regulation exists does not mean eliminating it removes all cost. There are hidden costs.
The cost of documenting compliance will often cost more than the compliance itself.
Visit aircraftspruce.com and look up their batteries. Compare the manufacturer, size, power capabilities. You'll find that the only difference is that the "certified" batteries come with a pile of paperwork that has had the Federal holy-water sprinkled on it. Now, compare the cost of "certified" and "experimental" batteries. It's just one example, but there are a LOT more on that website.
It's also worth pointing out that Obama and the moderate Republicans aren't talking about *only* raising taxes to cover the shortfall. The people in Washington who actually have a functioning set of synapses between their ears realize that the only way to balance the books is to decrease spending at the same time as increasing income.
It's the tea baggers who seriously don't understand that their stance is going to cause serious problems for the world economy who are screwing things over for everybody else.
The reason that they "aren't talking about *only* raising taxes to cover the shortfall" is in a large part because of your tea baggers.
The extremist views coming into play at this time are a reaction to the continuous status quo that is getting us no where. When a spring is wound too much in one direction it takes a lot of tension in the other just to pull it back to the middle. I keep hearing people say that they will not vote for a libertarian because if we do the radical changes they make will cause
It's also worth pointing out that Obama and the moderate Republicans aren't talking about *only* raising taxes to cover the shortfall. The people in Washington who actually have a functioning set of synapses between their ears realize that the only way to balance the books is to decrease spending at the same time as increasing income.
Citation needed. A quote from the President's plan would be a good start. Mostly what has been put forward is raise taxes now, reduce spending later. This approach has been tried. Several time. The spending never gets reduced.
The Tea Party is standing up and saying, "Enough, dammit! We don't have any money left. No more promises of we'll get to it later. Cut spending NOW, before we give you any more money."
What boggles the mind is the so-called educated on this forum that can't grasp the idea that y
(And remember, higher levels of taxation lead to lower levels of economic growth, and thus lower revenue generated to the government.)
Only if you're to the right of or at the optimal point on the Laffer curve. The supply-siders kept saying the US was to the right of it, again and again, but two can play that game. In truth, the Laffer curve probably looks like this [typepad.com], a chaotic mess at any significant distance from 0% or 100% taxation.
Sure sounds like you're confused about what caused the great depression and this current recession or depression, whatever you want to call it. High economic growth rates are not sustainable and lead to bubbles. Regulatory burdens as you put it slow the growth down to manageable levels and their lack of action resulted in the housing bubble and resulting collapse. A steady economy with slow sustainable growth is the goal.
If we want to cut spending how bout we slash the TSA budget in half or get rid of it a
By that logic, taxes will eventually reach 100% correct? When is the tax rate too high? We're at 70% in some brackets. Use your own life as an example. If you were spending too much money, and you knew a lot of the stuff you were spending it on was not necessary, would you stop spending so much or try and convince your credit card company to raise your limit so you can borrow more money from them? Would you spend less, especially on things you really didn't need, like infrastructure repair in the name
No, we're not at 70% in some brackets. The highest tax bracket hasn't been at 70% since 1980. It's been in the low 30s ever since Bush Jr was in office, and that's only on income that is taxable, which for wealthy people is only a fraction of their true income. In addition, capitol gains tax is even lower than that, at about 15%.
70%? Citation needed as I believe personal income is as high as 38% but few ever pay that amount as exceptions and deductions are allowed. As for economics, you can cut costs but you don't seem to grasp that some costs can never be 0. If I have a financial gap I can increase my income by asking for a raise, getting another job, getting a second job, or even temporarily selling things. If I have a business, I can raise prices. What the Tea Party is advocating is never looking at or considering the reven
That's FEDERAL tax. Now add State tax, county tax, city tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax and fees for any service that you actually get from the government.
The Tea Party is advocating that we've alway looked at the revenue side, and it is high time we actually make some of those budge cuts that everyone is always promising. And going from spending 40% more than you make to only spending 20% more than you make still leaves you in the hole.
That's FEDERAL tax. Now add State tax, county tax, city tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax and fees for any service that you actually get from the government.
I believe since we are talking about the federal government here, your point is rather irrelevant.
My mistake, 53%. But it looks like Carter era rates > 70% are back in, and some democrats (remember, the guys who championed slavery about 100 years ago?) don't see anything wrong with taxation as high as 94% as they were in the 1950s, more great democrat ideas. Conservative Republicans (remember the guys who were founded as the abolitionist party?) want to spend less money and tax you and me less.
Conservatives are not the demons here, they want to spend less of our money on bull shit of any kind.
On the other hand, the democrats want to spend more, on anything and everything so much more that we need to continuously raise the debit ceiling without explanation.
Your lack of history is appalling. Who engaged in massive deficit spending in the 80s? Reagan, a Republican. Who initiated the Medicare prescription bill without formulating a way to pay for it? Bush, a Republican. Both sides spend money on their causes. Pretending it is one side is ignoring history.
Was I wrong? Ya, I'll admit that, but I'm not crazy by any measure, I was just off by 17%.
My math says 70% - 38% = 32%. I'm not sure where you get 53%. Also that is the base tax rate which is before deductions and exemptions.
Please read this: Frederic Bastiat - The Law [bastiat.org]. It's very short and I think explains my position better than I can. Everything else in this argument is nuance 38, 53, 70, 90, it's all far beyond the needs of the government to preform the duties needed of it. I live in California and the combined tax rate here is >= 53%. If you really need citation for 53 you can do the google search. But don't get hung up on that, just read the Bastiat link and tell me what you think of that.
I think this is a great analogy as many doctors will recommend against starvation diets as it leads to more problems than it is worth and that any diet should be sensible in what is removed. Removing all protein or all carbs may be dangerous. Also recent studies have confirmed that to truly lose weight and keep it off, people need to both control food intake and exercise.
To continue your analogy, the Democrats insist we are actually starving, and we just need to keep eating like we have been to "create jobs for fat cells". Meanwhile the Republicans claim to be disgusted by our bellies and while we are eating 5000 calories today, we need to make drastic cuts and only eat 5999 calories tomorrow because the Democrats want to eat 6000 calories. Bear in mind, we only actually have 4000 calories of food per day of supply, but there's no need to cut back right now. If we start
That's a laughable and untrue perspective because the Democrats and moderates concede we need to cut some spending but highlighted that we also need to raise revenue. It's the Tea Party that refuses to look at any increases in spending. As the supposedly pro business as they claim to be they sure as hell don't know know basic accounting. If your business is experiencing loss, you can cut costs, raise revenue, or both. The Tea Party wants to declare 2 of the 3 options as unacceptable without acknowledgin
If you want to talk about people who don't understand business, talk to politicians. If the government operated as a business, it would have gone Chapter 11 years ago. The problem with your "raise revenue" comparison is that unlike a company, if the government raises prices, you can't stop purchasing or cut back your consumption. The Tea Party has realized that the government takes by force, and if you want to believe that we can just keep raising taxes to get us out of this hole, then why don't we just
The problem with your "raise revenue" comparison is that unlike a company, if the government raises prices, you can't stop purchasing or cut back your consumption.
Huh? From the viewpoint of a business, they can raise revenue. You're taking it from the viewpoint of the consumer which this is not about. That's as disjointed as saying that you cutting your electric costs by not turning on as many lights does little to help your neighbor's budget. It's not logical at all is it?
The Tea Party has realized that the government takes by force, and if you want to believe that we can just keep raising taxes to get us out of this hole, then why don't we just tax everybody at 100%?
Wow talk about hyperbole. No one is talking about a 100% tax and your hysteria about it does little for intelligent debate. One item that has been discussed is restoring the tax rates to what
No, I am not speaking from the viewpoint of the consumer. What I am trying to say is ALL businesses would increase their prices if they knew they wouldn't lose any customers. If the government raises prices, you have to either move out of the country (expensive) or stop making as much income (which makes the debt problem worse) to avoid the increased taxes. However, businesses only raise prices if the increased cost brings in more revenue. That is to say that the marginal increase brings in more revenue
You can't loose weight unless you consume less calories than you take in. You'll have us believe that we can make a promise to see a nutritionist in a few years, at which time we'll go on a sensible calorie deficit diet, and everything will work out fine.
There's a term for people that think that way, morbidly obese, an apt description of the federal government.
Long term studies has shown the most effective way to lose weight and keep it off is to do both. One or the other will not do it. You can't just cut calories especially if you engage in starvation diets. Bodies actually reacts opposite to what you expect and begin to take steps to hold onto fat if when the body gets signals that starvation is about to begin. If you don't believe me, watch any reality show where they take the morbidly obese and try to get them to lose weight. The experts don't just cut
I don't disagree with you at all. But do all the exercise you want...if you're still eating like crap, you WILL stay fat. The Democrats (and a lot of the old-guard Republicans, though they won't admit it publicly) have no intention of slowing the eating, and will hide the twinkies under their bed if they can.
2. Cut needless Federal Departments that are unconstitutional, wasteful and ineffective.
Perhaps you haven't looked at a federal budget lately but Medicare, SS, and Defense represent 60% of the budget. All other areas combined represent 40%. As for needless, just because you don't think or like the purpose of an agency doesn't mean it is needless. Take for example, Dept of the Interior. Under it, are agencies like the Bureau of Land Managment and the National Park Service. Believe it or not some people want to preserve areas of the country where it is relatively untouched by man. The tot
It's one thing to be an idiot, and realize one's limitations, but it's another to combine that with the feeling of empowerment and self importance.
In any democracy, different viewpoints will be expressed. If any group believes that it does not need to respect or even consider other's viewpoints, and that it has to be their way, all the way or else they don't care if the country goes bankrupt, then it should not be surprising if that's the result.
I think the only logical solution to this mess, given the c
Smeagol (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Smeagol (Score:3)
Re:Smeagol (Score:5, Interesting)
We're seeing what was predicted two or three years ago. The Tea Party is poisonous to the Republicans, not the Democrats. It's pretty clear that Boehner is at maximum frustration level, and I think it's beginning to dawn on mainline and moderate Republicans that the Tea Party tail is now wagging the GOP dog. There's a level of hysterical irrationality about the Tea Party that is now coming into full view. They're not interested in governing at all.
I'm sure the White House has a long list of contingencies in place just like Clinton did when he was up against the Gingrich mob, and is probably quite content to watch the Republicans and the Tea Party wing battle it out. I think 2012 is pretty damned safe for him.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't so much that they're "hypocrits" [sic] as that they're gullible, ignorant, illiterate morons begging to be used as tools by the worst elements of the corporate-media complex. (i.e."True Americans")
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The Tea Party is poisonous to the Republicans
The Tea Party apparently represents the will of the people as was demonstrated by the people voting them in in large enough numbers to shake the status quo. They are poisonous to "Party Politics" and the "Culture of Washington" and that is by design. That is what the people want to change, poison, kill. They will not fall back on their promises, and you deride them for that. No wonder this country is in such a mess. It's people like you, who cannot see the forest for the trees, who can only see in blue and
Re: (Score:2)
The United States is a representative democracy, not a direct one. That means, some times, the representatives have to think beyond the sometimes errant, even moronic views of the masses. The masses, in turn, have the opportunity to turf those representatives at the end of their term if they feel they've been ill served.
If those voters who support the Tea Party think an absolutist stand against tax cuts leading to a default will somehow improve their lot in life, then those voters are sadly mistaken. Wha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If those voters who support the Tea Party think an absolutist stand against tax cuts leading to a default
Are you sure you know what is going on? The Tea Party isn't against Tax Cuts they are against Tax Hikes (increases). They aren't for having the government default, they are for reigning in reckless spending. You know the reckless spending that has tripled (you know, multiplied by a factor of 3) the entire national debt within the last decade. The trajectory of spending we are currently on is unsustainable. This is a fact, it cannot be argued against. So the question is, do we deal with it now, or wait until
Re: (Score:2)
I meant tax hikes.
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand the these same people who are now fighting for budget cuts before approving to raise the debt ceiling are the same people that voted and approved the spending to begin with? House votes to approve spending on items. Then the credit card that this was put onto is now coming due. So now the tea party wants to put controls on spending??? What happened to when the budget was up for voting, did they miss that part?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't consider myself to be tea-party as I'm a libertarian (yeah, I know you just stopped reading and will start the ad-hominem attacks now). But you are sorely mistaken...
First of all, the US is not a representative democracy. It is a constitutional republic. The fact that people elect representatives in a democratic fashion does not make us a democracy. New laws are still supposed to follow the Constitution regardless of how popular they are.
The Constitution itself does permit congress "To borrow mo
Re: (Score:2)
We were talking about how the Tea Party seems to believe that about 150 years of history never happened.
Re: (Score:2)
The Air Force and Marines are logical extensions of the Army and Navy clauses of the Constitution. The FBI is debatable, the NSA, TSA, and FCC can definitely go. Add to that the IRS, CIA, FEMA, Departments of Education, Agriculture, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, get rid of Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicade, and such and that will solve our budget problem right up. And we could even afford to have some tax cuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Tea Party are shills for Karl Rove, and the rest of the Neo-Cons who blew the budget surplus left over from the Clinton administration.
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
But, really, we'll settle for him getting a friggin' clue.
Have you heard how Karl Rove talks about the Tea Party. He can't STAND those people, which is understandable considering how they've upset his apple-cart.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Classic political ego: thinking they voted FOR you, instead of AGAINST the other guy.
It's not really ego - it is how things are supposed to be. There is no way for an individual citizen to vote against something (only Congress can do that), we can only vote for something. To the citizen, voting for a Senator, Congressman, President is not a binary choice; there are more than two options. That fact alone makes voting against someone impossible. Votes were created, intended and, for all intents-and-purposes, are an indication that someone is for the thing for which they voted. no other interp
Re: (Score:2)
I still think we should have the option to vote "no" for president, congress, with enough "no" votes in an election meaning the office stays vacant for 1 term and all^wboth parties running candidates are given a strong hint to find different kinds of candidates.
"Vote NO for President" would make a good bumper sticker, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the Tea Party has been integrated more closely into the GOP, at least that's what the GOP and the Tea Party wanted everyone to believe. Obviously it's not the case, the Tea Party feels no particular loyalty to mainline Republicans, seeming to view them not as opponents as they would any given Democrat, but as traitors to the true conservative cause.
The mainline Republicans are terrified that if they don't appease the Tea Party somehow, it will become a third party, and as a third party, the dam
Supervillain (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a hard time believing Lex Luthor, criminal genius extraordinaire, would be as clumsy and moronic as the Tea Party members tend to be. I can see him fucking over the government, but with some cleverness. The Tea Party is more like Godzilla smashing Tokyo. Yes, big and scary, but ultimately with the brains of a cockroach.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing that we don't need tax dollars to pay for Medicare and Social Security and other private services...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a LOT of people that have tried to start small businesses that would vehemently disagree with you about both the cost and effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of documenting compliance will often cost more than the compliance itself.
Visit aircraftspruce.com and look up their batteries. Compare the manufacturer, size, power capabilities. You'll find that the only difference is that the "certified" batteries come with a pile of paperwork that has had the Federal holy-water sprinkled on it. Now, compare the cost of "certified" and "experimental" batteries. It's just one example, but there are a LOT more on that website.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also worth pointing out that Obama and the moderate Republicans aren't talking about *only* raising taxes to cover the shortfall. The people in Washington who actually have a functioning set of synapses between their ears realize that the only way to balance the books is to decrease spending at the same time as increasing income.
It's the tea baggers who seriously don't understand that their stance is going to cause serious problems for the world economy who are screwing things over for everybody else.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also worth pointing out that Obama and the moderate Republicans aren't talking about *only* raising taxes to cover the shortfall. The people in Washington who actually have a functioning set of synapses between their ears realize that the only way to balance the books is to decrease spending at the same time as increasing income.
Citation needed. A quote from the President's plan would be a good start. Mostly what has been put forward is raise taxes now, reduce spending later. This approach has been tried. Several time. The spending never gets reduced.
The Tea Party is standing up and saying, "Enough, dammit! We don't have any money left. No more promises of we'll get to it later. Cut spending NOW, before we give you any more money."
What boggles the mind is the so-called educated on this forum that can't grasp the idea that y
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you're to the right of or at the optimal point on the Laffer curve. The supply-siders kept saying the US was to the right of it, again and again, but two can play that game. In truth, the Laffer curve probably looks like this [typepad.com], a chaotic mess at any significant distance from 0% or 100% taxation.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure sounds like you're confused about what caused the great depression and this current recession or depression, whatever you want to call it. High economic growth rates are not sustainable and lead to bubbles. Regulatory burdens as you put it slow the growth down to manageable levels and their lack of action resulted in the housing bubble and resulting collapse. A steady economy with slow sustainable growth is the goal.
If we want to cut spending how bout we slash the TSA budget in half or get rid of it a
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic, taxes will eventually reach 100% correct? When is the tax rate too high? We're at 70% in some brackets. Use your own life as an example. If you were spending too much money, and you knew a lot of the stuff you were spending it on was not necessary, would you stop spending so much or try and convince your credit card company to raise your limit so you can borrow more money from them? Would you spend less, especially on things you really didn't need, like infrastructure repair in the name
Re: (Score:2)
No, we're not at 70% in some brackets. The highest tax bracket hasn't been at 70% since 1980. It's been in the low 30s ever since Bush Jr was in office, and that's only on income that is taxable, which for wealthy people is only a fraction of their true income. In addition, capitol gains tax is even lower than that, at about 15%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's FEDERAL tax. Now add State tax, county tax, city tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax and fees for any service that you actually get from the government.
The Tea Party is advocating that we've alway looked at the revenue side, and it is high time we actually make some of those budge cuts that everyone is always promising. And going from spending 40% more than you make to only spending 20% more than you make still leaves you in the hole.
Re: (Score:2)
That's FEDERAL tax. Now add State tax, county tax, city tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax and fees for any service that you actually get from the government.
I believe since we are talking about the federal government here, your point is rather irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
My mistake, 53%. But it looks like Carter era rates > 70% are back in, and some democrats (remember, the guys who championed slavery about 100 years ago?) don't see anything wrong with taxation as high as 94% as they were in the 1950s, more great democrat ideas. Conservative Republicans (remember the guys who were founded as the abolitionist party?) want to spend less money and tax you and me less.
Conservatives are not the demons here, they want to spend less of our money on bull shit of any kind.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, the democrats want to spend more, on anything and everything so much more that we need to continuously raise the debit ceiling without explanation.
Your lack of history is appalling. Who engaged in massive deficit spending in the 80s? Reagan, a Republican. Who initiated the Medicare prescription bill without formulating a way to pay for it? Bush, a Republican. Both sides spend money on their causes. Pretending it is one side is ignoring history.
Was I wrong? Ya, I'll admit that, but I'm not crazy by any measure, I was just off by 17%.
My math says 70% - 38% = 32%. I'm not sure where you get 53%. Also that is the base tax rate which is before deductions and exemptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To continue your analogy, the Democrats insist we are actually starving, and we just need to keep eating like we have been to "create jobs for fat cells". Meanwhile the Republicans claim to be disgusted by our bellies and while we are eating 5000 calories today, we need to make drastic cuts and only eat 5999 calories tomorrow because the Democrats want to eat 6000 calories. Bear in mind, we only actually have 4000 calories of food per day of supply, but there's no need to cut back right now. If we start
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to talk about people who don't understand business, talk to politicians. If the government operated as a business, it would have gone Chapter 11 years ago. The problem with your "raise revenue" comparison is that unlike a company, if the government raises prices, you can't stop purchasing or cut back your consumption. The Tea Party has realized that the government takes by force, and if you want to believe that we can just keep raising taxes to get us out of this hole, then why don't we just
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your "raise revenue" comparison is that unlike a company, if the government raises prices, you can't stop purchasing or cut back your consumption.
Huh? From the viewpoint of a business, they can raise revenue. You're taking it from the viewpoint of the consumer which this is not about. That's as disjointed as saying that you cutting your electric costs by not turning on as many lights does little to help your neighbor's budget. It's not logical at all is it?
The Tea Party has realized that the government takes by force, and if you want to believe that we can just keep raising taxes to get us out of this hole, then why don't we just tax everybody at 100%?
Wow talk about hyperbole. No one is talking about a 100% tax and your hysteria about it does little for intelligent debate. One item that has been discussed is restoring the tax rates to what
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am not speaking from the viewpoint of the consumer. What I am trying to say is ALL businesses would increase their prices if they knew they wouldn't lose any customers. If the government raises prices, you have to either move out of the country (expensive) or stop making as much income (which makes the debt problem worse) to avoid the increased taxes. However, businesses only raise prices if the increased cost brings in more revenue. That is to say that the marginal increase brings in more revenue
Re: (Score:2)
You can't loose weight unless you consume less calories than you take in. You'll have us believe that we can make a promise to see a nutritionist in a few years, at which time we'll go on a sensible calorie deficit diet, and everything will work out fine.
There's a term for people that think that way, morbidly obese, an apt description of the federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with you at all. But do all the exercise you want...if you're still eating like crap, you WILL stay fat. The Democrats (and a lot of the old-guard Republicans, though they won't admit it publicly) have no intention of slowing the eating, and will hide the twinkies under their bed if they can.
Re: (Score:2)
2. Cut needless Federal Departments that are unconstitutional, wasteful and ineffective.
Perhaps you haven't looked at a federal budget lately but Medicare, SS, and Defense represent 60% of the budget. All other areas combined represent 40%. As for needless, just because you don't think or like the purpose of an agency doesn't mean it is needless. Take for example, Dept of the Interior. Under it, are agencies like the Bureau of Land Managment and the National Park Service. Believe it or not some people want to preserve areas of the country where it is relatively untouched by man. The tot
Re: (Score:1)
I think the only logical solution to this mess, given the c
Re: (Score:2)
So where is the President's list of spending cuts for his side of the compromise?