|
On July 30 2011 04:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 04:21 farvacola wrote:On July 30 2011 04:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 30 2011 03:45 ampson wrote:On July 30 2011 02:43 0neder wrote:On July 30 2011 01:57 ampson wrote:
the Tea Party is still outrageous. Yes, it's so extreme and outrageous to believe we should spend no more than we make. What a bigoted and ridiculous position. It's sad how many people have had common sense indoctrinated out of them. It's not an outrageous idea to spend no more than what you make, it's outrageous that they want to accomplish this by LOWERING taxes and still not cut Social security and Medicare, which are HUGE contributors to the deficit. It's just not a practical solution. The Tea Party people I have listened to are strongly in favor of cutting both Social Security and Medicare. I'm strongly in favor of both. I'm not sure how we are defining the actual "Tea Party" or how polls are being conducted to reach these absurd conclusions. In either case, it's completely pointless to blame this undefined group for the inability of politicians to balance a budget. They've failed to do that for decades, before there was even a thing called the Tea Party. Michelle Bachmann: "Gay marriage is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I AM NOT UNDERSTATING THAT." Glen Urquhart: "The exact phrase 'separation of Church and State' came out of Adolph HItler's mouth, that's where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ASK THEM WHY THEY'RE NAZIS." Yeah, the Tea Party is the party for me..... So you are defining Tea Party to be a quote from two Republicans... Thank you for completely proving my original point about how we choose to define things.
While Glen Urqhart is only somewhat a member of the Tea Party, Michelle Bachmann founded the TEA PARTY caucus, do you know what that means? I'll just go ahed and leave you with another snippet of Tea Party wisdom.
"I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." —Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle, an established Tea party candidate.
|
On July 30 2011 04:18 Traeon wrote:
As an outside observer, I often get the impression that cutting military expenses is a taboo in the US.
What is the reason for this? This is an honest question.
In addition to the previous response, arms manufacturers in the US have intentionally made ridiculously inefficient supply chains for themselves so that they employ people in a lot of different places. If the US military stops buying a particular item, it not only threatens the jobs of the people in the company's assembly plant in Washington but also the parts manufacturing plants in Iowa, Arkansas and North Dakota.
Jobs, jobs, jobs.
|
On July 30 2011 04:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 04:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 30 2011 04:21 farvacola wrote:On July 30 2011 04:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 30 2011 03:45 ampson wrote:On July 30 2011 02:43 0neder wrote:On July 30 2011 01:57 ampson wrote:
the Tea Party is still outrageous. Yes, it's so extreme and outrageous to believe we should spend no more than we make. What a bigoted and ridiculous position. It's sad how many people have had common sense indoctrinated out of them. It's not an outrageous idea to spend no more than what you make, it's outrageous that they want to accomplish this by LOWERING taxes and still not cut Social security and Medicare, which are HUGE contributors to the deficit. It's just not a practical solution. The Tea Party people I have listened to are strongly in favor of cutting both Social Security and Medicare. I'm strongly in favor of both. I'm not sure how we are defining the actual "Tea Party" or how polls are being conducted to reach these absurd conclusions. In either case, it's completely pointless to blame this undefined group for the inability of politicians to balance a budget. They've failed to do that for decades, before there was even a thing called the Tea Party. Michelle Bachmann: "Gay marriage is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I AM NOT UNDERSTATING THAT." Glen Urquhart: "The exact phrase 'separation of Church and State' came out of Adolph HItler's mouth, that's where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ASK THEM WHY THEY'RE NAZIS." Yeah, the Tea Party is the party for me..... So you are defining Tea Party to be a quote from two Republicans... Thank you for completely proving my original point about how we choose to define things. While Glen Urqhart is only somewhat a member of the Tea Party, Michelle Bachmann founded the TEA PARTY caucus, do you know what that means? I'll just go ahed and leave you with another snippet of Tea Party wisdom. "I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." —Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle, an established Tea party candidate.
Oh, she formed a caucus bearing the name. That must mean she's a spokeswoman for the entire Tea Party!
Under that logic, I can use quotes from Nazi's to argue against socialism. Partisan thinking is so simple!
|
On July 30 2011 04:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 04:32 farvacola wrote:On July 30 2011 04:27 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 30 2011 04:21 farvacola wrote:On July 30 2011 04:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 30 2011 03:45 ampson wrote:On July 30 2011 02:43 0neder wrote:On July 30 2011 01:57 ampson wrote:
the Tea Party is still outrageous. Yes, it's so extreme and outrageous to believe we should spend no more than we make. What a bigoted and ridiculous position. It's sad how many people have had common sense indoctrinated out of them. It's not an outrageous idea to spend no more than what you make, it's outrageous that they want to accomplish this by LOWERING taxes and still not cut Social security and Medicare, which are HUGE contributors to the deficit. It's just not a practical solution. The Tea Party people I have listened to are strongly in favor of cutting both Social Security and Medicare. I'm strongly in favor of both. I'm not sure how we are defining the actual "Tea Party" or how polls are being conducted to reach these absurd conclusions. In either case, it's completely pointless to blame this undefined group for the inability of politicians to balance a budget. They've failed to do that for decades, before there was even a thing called the Tea Party. Michelle Bachmann: "Gay marriage is probably the biggest issue that will impact our state and our nation in the last, at least, thirty years. I AM NOT UNDERSTATING THAT." Glen Urquhart: "The exact phrase 'separation of Church and State' came out of Adolph HItler's mouth, that's where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ASK THEM WHY THEY'RE NAZIS." Yeah, the Tea Party is the party for me..... So you are defining Tea Party to be a quote from two Republicans... Thank you for completely proving my original point about how we choose to define things. While Glen Urqhart is only somewhat a member of the Tea Party, Michelle Bachmann founded the TEA PARTY caucus, do you know what that means? I'll just go ahed and leave you with another snippet of Tea Party wisdom. "I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." —Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle, an established Tea party candidate. Oh, she formed a caucus bearing the name. That must mean she's a spokeswoman for the entire Tea Party! Under that logic, I can use quotes from Nazi's to argue against socialism. Partisan thinking is so simple!
Your the one claiming that your views line up with the Tea Party, I'm simply enlightening you as to the nature of the "partisan" views you claim to share with one the most political irresponsible and quite frankly harmful organizations US politics has seen in years. Additionally, you clearly haven't read the rest of this thread, in which the exact specifications of the tea party and their political platform have been exposed as flat out stupid. Oh, and if you claim to sympathize with a political party and yet also denigrate their congressional caucus, perhaps you ought to better understand how a party manifests its views.
|
|
|
Oh, she formed a caucus bearing the name. That must mean she's a spokeswoman for the entire Tea Party!
Looks like the answer to "do you know what that means?" is "no."
Under that logic, I can use quotes from Nazi's to argue against socialism. Partisan thinking is so simple!
And I can use quotes from the DPRK to argue against democracy. Good thinking!
|
The platform of the tea party, specifically the ideal of fiscal responsibility, is admirable and universally agreeable. The devil is in the details, though. Ask them for specifics and things become dubious. Eliminate the Department of Education, cut entitlements, stop health care reform even though the CBO scores it positively (but that's another bag of chips); BUT DON'T touch military spending and don't let the Bush tax cuts expire. Those are completely off the table, coming from the head of the tea party's mouth. That's when they start sounding disingenuous. Their image as a bunch of ignorant gun-toting racists isn't quite fair in my opinion but that does describe a lot of the rabble rousers the Koch brothers dupe into filling out their rallies with scare tactics. They're just angry and they need a scapegoat. The insane things that politicians like Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin say in public is unfortunate since they really hurt the tea party's credibility and they're just playing political football. Somehow the tea party hasn't disowned them yet.
Somehow the tea party went from grass-roots idealists to fringe republicans. I don't know how they became so aligned with such a fiscally irresponsible party. I don't know how Ron Paul is still in that party. I don't know why the tea party follows such kooks when the only true libertarian (Ron Paul) has been there for years. His voting record is consistent, he is sincere. I read his manifesto and it's a great book, perhaps too idealstic but you know he is sincere. As for the actual tea party, I heard a great interview on the radio last year with a very intelligent member. He said that they are NOT republicans, republicans are as bad or worse than democrats but have somehow hi-jacked the movement.
It's popular to blame entitlements and government waste but the biggest two expenses in the last twenty years by an incredible margin were the 2001 Bush tax cuts and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. If you are serious about fixing the budget you have to start there. Isn't social security running at a surplus right now? It's projected to become insolvent in the future but I believe it isn't currently contributing to the defecit. Even still, there's one glaring problem with cutting entitlements - you're entitled to them. People have paid into it their whole lives with the promise of reciprocation in their old age. The fact that the most vulnerable people are being asked to sacrifice that security and the rich aren't being asked to sacrifice a goddamn thing is infuriating. And why? Because for thirty years we've been sold this lie called "trickle down economics". It doesn't work, it's just a clever way to make the rich so very much richer. Most of the biggest corporations and the richest people in the country pay less in taxes than I do. If the middle class of 1980 America could look at a cross-section of the distribution of wealth today I think they would throw up in their mouths.
|
So the House/Boehner bill just passed the House, but the Senate is going to smash it to bits. Sigh.
|
On July 30 2011 08:01 MangoTango wrote:
So the House/Boehner bill just passed the House, but the Senate is going to smash it to bits. Sigh.
It wouldn't even matter if the Senate smashes it. It's a bad bill.
It also includes a constitutional amendment in there that, if not smashed by the Senate, will never be able to acquire 3/4s of the state vote.
|
Where can I find the details of the Boehner bill?
|
On July 30 2011 08:59 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 08:01 MangoTango wrote:
So the House/Boehner bill just passed the House, but the Senate is going to smash it to bits. Sigh. It wouldn't even matter if the Senate smashes it. It's a bad bill. It also includes a constitutional amendment in there that, if not smashed by the Senate, will never be able to acquire 3/4s of the state vote.
Probably, but at least it will help catalyze a conversation about a balanced budget amendment.
|
On July 30 2011 06:00 Senorcuidado wrote:
for thirty years we've been sold this lie called "trickle down economics". It doesn't work, it's just a clever way to make the rich so very much richer. Most of the biggest corporations and the richest people in the country pay less in taxes than I do. If the middle class of 1980 America could look at a cross-section of the distribution of wealth today I think they would throw up in their mouths.
Wealth distribution may not be the best way to gauge a friendly economic outlook.
Another approach would be to realize that most people below the poverty level have flat screen TVs.
Sure, there are a few insanely rich people. Like Bill Gates. Look what he did with all his money. Why did he do that? Because America is the most giving nation on earth, and we don't need to be compelled to do it.
It has been proven that conservatives are more giving, monetarily, than liberals, by percentage of income.
Do you realize that the majority of millionaires in America are 1st-time millionaires (didn't inherit it) and small business owners? Do you realize that's who Obama wants to raise taxes on. Do you realize that raising taxes will make the job situation even more horrible than it already is?
Why should public policy be based on equality of outcomes? That is not fair to those who work harder and earn more. Should not public policy be based on equality of potential?
Why should public policy be based on envy? I do not covet an insanely rich person's wealth. I may appreciate a few nice things in life, but basing tax policy on envy is childish and unhealthy.
|
I want to ask a question that I think is very appropiate in this economical cleavage.
Today, American Based companies are making record profits, but unemployment is not going down because companies are investing on technology to boost productivity figures. What are those millons of people gonna do now, providing the fact that they are no longer needed because they were replaced by hardware or software?
I understand that new jobs can be created, but i don't think that they are going to be created at the necesary rate.
|
On July 30 2011 09:07 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 08:59 Zergneedsfood wrote:On July 30 2011 08:01 MangoTango wrote:
So the House/Boehner bill just passed the House, but the Senate is going to smash it to bits. Sigh. It wouldn't even matter if the Senate smashes it. It's a bad bill. It also includes a constitutional amendment in there that, if not smashed by the Senate, will never be able to acquire 3/4s of the state vote. Probably, but at least it will help catalyze a conversation about a balanced budget amendment.
A balanced budget amendment is a ridiculous idea because it guarantees that these disastrous partisan talks will happen again. For years presidents, no matter whether or not they were liberal or conservative, have run deficits. Even Bill Clinton, who brought us to a massive budget surplus, had deficit spending during periods of his presidency.
Let's face it, running deficits isn't a "bad" thing. Yes, it means we bought more than we sold/made, but for a national government, there's no problem with it.
What instead needs to be catalyzed is the idea that there needs to be not only intelligent cuts in entitlements and other government programs but also the need to increase revenues through either closing of tax loopholes or tax increases. That's not happening because both sides, especially Republicans, are adamant on running this country into the ground.
|
On July 30 2011 09:18 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 06:00 Senorcuidado wrote:
for thirty years we've been sold this lie called "trickle down economics". It doesn't work, it's just a clever way to make the rich so very much richer. Most of the biggest corporations and the richest people in the country pay less in taxes than I do. If the middle class of 1980 America could look at a cross-section of the distribution of wealth today I think they would throw up in their mouths. Wealth distribution may not be the best way to gauge a friendly economic outlook. Another approach would be to realize that most people below the poverty level have flat screen TVs.
Another aproach would be to realize advertisment and marketing are using tactics that most uneducated (usually correlated with poverty)dont grasp, that requires some understanding of math and long term planning to sell their products. i think you need to start educating people befor you expect them to do educated decisions in their lifes.
Sure, there are a few insanely rich people. Like Bill Gates. Look what he did with all his money. Why did he do that? Because America is the most giving nation on earth, and we don't need to be compelled to do it.
It has been proven that conservatives are more giving, monetarily, than liberals, by percentage of income.
Do you realize that the majority of millionaires in America are 1st-time millionaires (didn't inherit it) and small business owners? Do you realize that's who Obama wants to raise taxes on. Do you realize that raising taxes will make the job situation even more horrible than it already is?
Why should public policy be based on equality of outcomes? That is not fair to those who work harder and earn more. Should not public policy be based on equality of potential?
What, people that earn more , work harder?
Why should public policy be based on envy? I do not covet an insanely rich person's wealth. I may appreciate a few nice things in life, but basing tax policy on envy is childish and unhealthy.
thinking democrats are doing things because they feel envy is even more childish and clueless thing to say.
All in all, seems to me republicans are quite idealistic at the moment and seem to care more about elections and defending their ideals then whats actually going on in the real world. Sad.
|
On July 30 2011 03:27 sunprince wrote:
I don't think that Tea Party supporters are bad people when you break them down. They're well-meaning Americans who realized that our deficit is going to ruin us (even if it's without realizing they were largely the cause) and want to fix it. The problem is that they don't actually understand the numbers, and as a result have been co-opted by wealthy interests into supporting things that actually hurt themselves. They've been tricked into thinking that there's massive amounts of government waste that can be cut, when the reality is that you can't fix the deficit without (a) increasing taxes, and/or (b) cutting Social Security and Medicare, both of which they oppose.
Actually, the tea party is the only group in favor of cutting/limiting social security and medicare. Democrats demonize anyone who considers any such reforms and moderate republicans won't touch these issues with a 10 foot pole.
And here's the other misconception about the tea party. It's not limited to right wing republicans. Yes, right wing republicans are the most visible leaders of the tea party, but the movement extends to the much broader base of Americans, including independents and many democrats, who seek to generally reduce the role and size of the federal government. The tea party is the popular backlash arising from the excesses of the Bush and Obama administrations, with Obamacare and the stimulus package being the proverbial straws that broke the camel's back. This is why Obama is presently predicted to lose 2012 in a landslide and why he ultimately will lose in a landslide. Fiscally conservative independents and other like-minded groups have abandoned him.
|
Actually I think Obama honestly tried to reach some sort of compromise that would allow entitlements to be reformed. However every rep has signed no new tax pledgess. Every time you cut government spending that is someone who loses a job. The fact is this is something that is horrible timed. This is not the time to be promoting austerity. When the economy is improving, then you trim the government and reform tax code.
@xDaunt I do not think you really have a good understanding of people's feelings. The GOP cuts only aproach is poison to the American people. They overwhelmingly support a balanced aproach. Obama is gonna make this whole thing the center peice of his campaign. He is going to demonize all the rep who pushed cut cap and balance-a measure that all the current GOP candidates talk with. It will sink them, especially when the seniors abandon the party. They have completely alienated that base.
|
I know this might sound silly, but I'm more then willing to give US government 100$ extra a month to pay off the deficit. I'm a poor college student so if I can squeeze that in, I'm pretty sure others can too. Even for lower class families 20$s a month won't break their back.
If we can get 50m a month, we can stop the debt from growing and slowly pay it off. Yes it might take around 15 years but w/e.
|
On July 30 2011 09:18 0neder wrote:
It has been proven that conservatives are more giving, monetarily, than liberals, by percentage of income.
That was a neat study, although one could argue that a lot of that might be due to conservatives being more religious and donating to their churches. Actually, the most interesting part of the study, to me at least, was that the poor actually give more (as a percentage of their income) than the rich and middle class! Either way, charitable giving is not relevant to the debate. Nobody is calling conservatives bad people.
On July 30 2011 09:18 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 06:00 Senorcuidado wrote:
for thirty years we've been sold this lie called "trickle down economics". It doesn't work, it's just a clever way to make the rich so very much richer. Most of the biggest corporations and the richest people in the country pay less in taxes than I do. If the middle class of 1980 America could look at a cross-section of the distribution of wealth today I think they would throw up in their mouths. Wealth distribution may not be the best way to gauge a friendly economic outlook. Another approach would be to realize that most people below the poverty level have flat screen TVs. Sure, there are a few insanely rich people. Like Bill Gates. Look what he did with all his money. Why did he do that? Because America is the most giving nation on earth, and we don't need to be compelled to do it. It has been proven that conservatives are more giving, monetarily, than liberals, by percentage of income. Do you realize that the majority of millionaires in America are 1st-time millionaires (didn't inherit it) and small business owners? Do you realize that's who Obama wants to raise taxes on. Do you realize that raising taxes will make the job situation even more horrible than it already is? Why should public policy be based on equality of outcomes? That is not fair to those who work harder and earn more. Should not public policy be based on equality of potential? Why should public policy be based on envy? I do not covet an insanely rich person's wealth. I may appreciate a few nice things in life, but basing tax policy on envy is childish and unhealthy.
It's not about democrats vs. republicans, it's not about who Obama wants to tax, and it's not about envy. It's about an economic model that clearly doesn't work. All I'm talking about is going back to the tax levels of Clinton's economy. Cutting taxes on the rich does not create jobs or revenue. I repeat, cutting taxes on the rich does not create jobs or revenue. It never has and it never will. Well, logically it probably creates a few jobs but the positive effect is minute compared to the harm it causes. Letting those irresponsible 2001 tax cuts expire has been painted as Obama raising taxes on small business owners or something. You can look up the fact checking on statements like this and find that most of these exaggerated claims are nowhere near true. It comes down to fiscal responsibility, trickle-down economics doesn't work and we can't afford to ignore it anymore. In a thread about our national budget crisis, if you say that letting those tax cuts expire and cutting military spending are off the table, I honestly don't think you're serious at all about solving the problem.
We have had a balanced budget in our lifetimes, it was done by raising revenue and cutting spending. The economy wasn't choking to death because the rich couldn't afford to "create jobs". Then we gave the rich incredible tax breaks that they absolutely didn't need AND we dived into two wars. Who in the world thinks that's a solid economic plan? Again, even though Clinton is a democrat and Bush is a republican I want to reiterate that this isn't a democrat/republican thing. They both take a lot of money from the very rich to keep the status quo the way it is: good for them and bad for everybody else. That's what we should be mad about.
I don't covet rich people's money. I think they should pay an appropriate amount in taxes, like I don't know, at least as much as the rest of us? Many corporations pay zero taxes. ZERO! A lot of that needs to be fixed by closing loop holes in the tax code, but a lot of it is also appreciating the common sense that the very rich can afford to pay more than the poor. I don't want to punish them, I just want them to participate in the system that gave them their fortunes. Many of the richest individuals make their fortunes by manipulating money, they pay almost nothing in taxes and don't invest it in the U.S. economy.
Our economy is centered around Wall Street these days, money manipulation instead of tangible industry and that's why it's so unstable. That's the foundational problem but I have no idea where to start fixing that.
|
@Mr_Shado your enthusiasm is appreciated, and I guarantee that this crisis will be the defining moment of our generation. We will need to sacrifice more to pay off the debt of previous generations. However, if you really want to help this country there are two things you can do: 1.)become informed especially for the upcoming elections on who you choose to elect to Congress. This means learning the basics of economics and electing people who hold sensible centrist positions. 2.)spend the money on something. The money would be better spent circulating within the economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
