Tea Party Democrats

[Night Strike]

What is most dangerous, right now, is that people are no longer willing to sit down and work things out. We have groups who are perfectly willing to let the US government default instead of giving even a little on their "points". That's not guts, its not "standing on principle", its stupidity. Its playing Russian Roullette with all of us!

Continuing to spend trillions more dollars per year than we take in WILL kill our country. I'd rather play Russian Roulette with not extending our debt ceiling than guarantee our death through endless debt.

Then you don't understand what will happen.. you TRULY do not.

By the way, the idea that we would default on our debt is a stupid scare-tactic. We take in more than $2 trillion in taxes every year (and I don't think that counts Social Security, and maybe Medicare/Medicaid). We owe $212 billion in net interest on our current debt level. Therefore, all Congress has to do is re-appropriate the expenditures to pay off the interest FIRST and we won't default. It's a really novel idea.

Yes, you make clear that you DO NOT understand what is at stake, here. Even just the threat of a delay in payment will drive up interest rates for everyone in the country, make it immediately more expensive to borrow.

Actually, yes I do. America has spent WAY too much money, and it's beyond time to cut that spending. Vote NOW to re-appropriate the money to go to interest payments FIRST and none of these bad things that you claim will actually happen. It's really not as hard as you make it out to be. First you beg the government to spend more money, and then you force the rest of us to raise the debt ceiling to pay for that spending. We do not have a debt ceiling if we keep raising it to pay for every single government program. It's past time to treat the ceiling as an actual ceiling and stop spending to much damn money.

and, for the record, there was a deal, agreed to by Obama, Democrats and Republicans, which would have given a 4 trillion dollar savings. The Republicans agreed, but the next day backed out to their Tea Party -basis "no new taxes" garbage.

The taxes in question.. ONLY for the wealthiest. The cuts.. would have hit particularly the middle class and seniors.

Taxing the wealthy more will cost the middle class jobs. Fact. Besides, Obama has already increased taxes by $500 billion via Obamacare. We don't need more taxes.

[PLAYER57832]

Here's what you stated:

far right = fanatic, stop listening to reason, want their will imposed.
far left = fanatic, stop l istening to reason, want their will imposed.

The "details" might shift a tad, but ironically enough not always.

Obama fits the above description of a fanatic pretty well. What is not radical about Obama's spending policies? The deficit gap has been increasingly become ginamormous, and such policies are being pushed during a recession. How unreasonable can one get?

BALONEY.

At the very least, he can be characterized as a radical or unreasonable. Since his spending policies for a recession are unreasonable and he wants his will imposed, he can be labeled as a fanatic.

Whether his policies are unreasonable or not is a matter of debate. Characterizing him as a "fanatic" is the kind of mentality that led to this mess.

My main point is that you're oversimplifying, so please stop, kthx.

No, there was nothing unreasonable about my statement. It is, in fact a classic definition of extremism. But , the fact that so many jump to the conclusion that the definition of a fanatic or extremist is someone who disagrees with the speaker IS pretty indicative of today's climate. I would expect you to do better, however.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's what you stated:

far right = fanatic, stop listening to reason, want their will imposed.
far left = fanatic, stop l istening to reason, want their will imposed.

The "details" might shift a tad, but ironically enough not always.

Obama fits the above description of a fanatic pretty well. What is not radical about Obama's spending policies? The deficit gap has been increasingly become ginamormous, and such policies are being pushed during a recession. How unreasonable can one get?

BALONEY.

At the very least, he can be characterized as a radical or unreasonable. Since his spending policies for a recession are unreasonable and he wants his will imposed, he can be labeled as a fanatic.

Whether his policies are unreasonable or not is a matter of debate. Characterizing him as a "fanatic" is the kind of mentality that led to this mess.

My main point is that you're oversimplifying, so please stop, kthx.

No, there was nothing unreasonable about my statement. It is, in fact a classic definition of extremism. But , the fact that so many jump to the conclusion that the definition of a fanatic or extremist is someone who disagrees with the speaker IS pretty indicative of today's climate. I would expect you to do better, however.

Saying "BALONEY" isn't an argument, but thanks for trying.

Not compromising on excessive expenditures while operating with very little increase in tax revenues and very little decrease in expenditures even during a recession is unreasonable. If Obama was a CEO of a large organization, it would fail miserably.

Your statement isn't accurately describing extremism; you were describing "far right" and "far left" fanaticism, which is different from being on the extreme far right of the political spectrum. By your definition, radicals and reactionaries are on the far extremes of the political spectrum, so they are fanatics, and since they are fanatics, then the American Revolution and the founding fathers were a bunch of fanatics. You see what happens with the logic of your silly statements?


My main point is that you should at least understand that saying stuff like:

far right = fanatic, stop listening to reason, want their will imposed.
far left = fanatic, stop l istening to reason, want their will imposed.

The "details" might shift a tad, but ironically enough not always.

is just silly, and you should stop that because I'll exercise your logic with my Obama example, to which you'll provide a piss-poor argument, and with my American Revolution example. Just do us a favor, and stop saying silly things.

[PLAYER57832]

There is no official Tea Party position clearly.

Exactly my point, but then you say I "don't understand" the Tea Party?

As Phatscotty indicated, there are certain ideas that the Tea Party movement supports - less taxes, less government spending for example. These ideas are supposed to be supported by the Republican Party. However, as we have seen in at least the last few Republican presidencies and Republican Congresses, clearly the Republicans do not support less government spending. Therefore, the Tea Party movement was appropriate.

No. its a spoiled children's demand.

What it REALLY means is that average people are to take very serious cuts in everything from education to road repairs to the military to medical assistance to social security.. namely every single service people recieve from the government.

It means heavy cutting in any and ALL enforcement and regulatory bodies, even though failure to fund those groups lead directly to huge disasters ranging from the securitizing of mortgages to deep water drilling without appropriate safegaurds. Halliburton alone is a "poster child" for why we need more oversite and why shoving every government service into private contracting is NOT really a good answer (unless you want to make lots of money by investing in Halliburton)

AND.. far from meaning "no taxes for all", it really means "we keep paying what we pay.. or more, while the rich keep paying almost nothing". Further, in many cases these costs are simply being passed down the chain onto states and localities. I, myself, am literallybeing asked to help feed local people here. We qualify for food supports ourselves, but I grow a garden, am very budget-conscious (was TAUGHT how to be), etc. Know who is not paying a dime? My husband's old boss who made millions selling his factory. He gave a few bucks to the local kid's football team, stuff like that.
THAT is what really happens when the "Tea Party agenda" gets passed.

Okay, I have some follow-up questions (to which I will provide my own answers before you provide yours):

(1) Why do we have people who are not willing to "work things out?" The answer, from my point of view, is that the people that are elected to Congress have not and continue to not represent the people that voted for them. The people elected to Congress do not do what their constituents want or what is best for their constituents; rather, the people elected to Congress do what their biggest donors want them to do. Therefore, when 90% of Congress is not representing their constituents, but is instead continuing to spend money, making small cuts instead of large ones, the constituents get angry. Instead of thinking about this as a Republican vs. Democrat thing (which is what you're doing), think of it as a constituent vs. government thing, which is what it is. When your elected officials stop listening to you, why should you "work things out" with them? Why should you continue to bend over when your representatives no longer represent you?

Wrong. Congress IS representing constituents, but what constituents want is "more more more for me"... and don't make me pay for it!
meanwhile, the groups that actually have been able to talk "sensibly" and "make deals" to a poin were the big players.. the lobbiests, etc. Faced with a bunch of toddlers screaming and a nice old man with "a plan".. the congressmen follow the "nice old man"... and don't bother or cannot see that this "nice old man" has a very evil heart. Or rather, has a bunch of toxic waste on his shoes.. whether he knows or doesn't...that he persists in spreading around.

2) Regarding the debt ceiling - Why is it bad if the US government defaults?

Because we ARE the government. Why does it matter if you are late to pay your bills? If the US defaults, the ALL of our interest rates, etc go up.

But here... link: http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-10/b ... bt-ceiling

(3) Regarding the debt ceiling debate - Why are the Tea Party movement members (and their associated members) the group that must compromise? Why are you not railing against the people who want to raise the debt ceiling so that they may spend more money?!

The Tea Partiers are the ones who seem to think this is all just a big joke.. and keep wanting to pretend that there is something called the US government that is somehow apart from the rest of us, instead of being this country and very much tied to us all.

(4) Why do you think Tea Party members won't discuss the Tea Party? It seems to me there are a number of frequent posters on this website who are perfectly willing to discuss their political views.

They can discuss their views, but disccussing "the Tea Party views" beyond the "footstomping toddler tantrum "no new taxes" garbage, is impossible because there IS no Tea Party.. and yes, that is very much the point of those who came up with the whole thing

I listen to a radio show every morning that discusses Tea Party type views (although the host is more libertarian). I have yet to see a comprehensive interview done by any major network with an actual, intelligent Tea Party representative.

There are NONE. That is, there are no true Tea Party representatives. There are intelligent people who claim to be part of the Tea Party or who would like to be representing it, but they cannot because there is no Tea Party.

(I mean you have a guy running for president who basically is the Tea Party yet I have not seen any substantive interview on any major network. All you (Player) hear about the Tea Party are the terms "radical," and "racist," and "anti-government," and "subversive."

No. Not even close. I have read everything you have said, here various politicians cite the Tea Party, etc, etc. The problem is that because there is no tea party the idiots can and do have just as much a claim to the title. Second, becuase there is no real uniform platform, people argue all over the place and like here, the debate winds up being not so much about the topic as about the Tea Party (or whether this idea is really a tea party idea), In amongst that , you do get some actual talk of ideas, but any reference to the Tea party usually means just "I stand here".. "I will not compromise"... and "if you don't like it, I have millions behind me".

(5) Why is the Tea Party movement the only group that is being uncompromising?

Never said they were the only party. I said they have taken this trend to an extreme.

(Clearly your own political views have colored this argument. The Tea Party movement shouldn't have to compromise because it's not a political party in the same vein as the Republicans or Democrats. You think the Tea Party movement is the death of congeniality and compromise in politics? Oh please...

[/quote]

We need to be taken seriously, because we are a legitimate view (not that we have any true leaders ), but we should not compromise because we are not a party..

[Woodruff]

(1) Why do we have people who are not willing to "work things out?" The answer, from my point of view, is that the people that are elected to Congress have not and continue to not represent the people that voted for them. The people elected to Congress do not do what their constituents want or what is best for their constituents; rather, the people elected to Congress do what their biggest donors want them to do. Therefore, when 90% of Congress is not representing their constituents, but is instead continuing to spend money, making small cuts instead of large ones, the constituents get angry. Instead of thinking about this as a Republican vs. Democrat thing (which is what you're doing), think of it as a constituent vs. government thing, which is what it is. When your elected officials stop listening to you, why should you "work things out" with them? Why should you continue to bend over when your representatives no longer represent you?

A-freaking-men.

(3) Regarding the debt ceiling debate - Why are the Tea Party movement members (and their associated members) the group that must compromise? Why are you not railing against the people who want to raise the debt ceiling so that they may spend more money?!

For me personally, it comes down to what I see as politicians using the debt ceiling as a weapon in an ideological war. In my view, the ONLY reason that so many politicians are unwilling to compromise is because their only goal is to make the other side look bad. Frankly, I believe the Republican/Tea Party side of things has been the worst offender in this regard, and for the reason I've stated. I don't believe they would be behaving in this manner if it were a Republican President in office and that can be clearly seen by looking at those who WERE in office during President Bush's terms.

Aside from that, compromise is a good thing. We can all work toward our goals, even if those goals are different, by compromising. Honestly, I have zero respect for someone that outright refuses to compromise under anything but the most extreme situations.

(5) Why is the Tea Party movement the only group that is being uncompromising?

God, I wish that were the case. Things would be much simpler. Sadly, it is not.

Clearly your own political views have colored this argument. The Tea Party movement shouldn't have to compromise because it's not a political party in the same vein as the Republicans or Democrats.

I tend to disagree, simply because I believe the Tea Party would like to be viewed in that vein. As well, as someone who likes the ideals of the Tea Party, I don't want to see them become just another damn lobbying group.

You think the Tea Party movement is the death of congeniality and compromise in politics? Oh please...

Rather, I think it is the excuse that those who want to use no-compromise as a weapon. I don't blame the Tea Party, so much...but I do blame those who don't stand up against the idea of no-compromise, because it's foolish. But as we see in these fora so often, as long as someone holds the same ideological pattern, nobody wants to correct them. I wish people would get embarrassed enough about the people that are associated with their beliefs to start standing up to them, but apparently being viewed as "winning" is more important than anything else...and it's pathetic. That's why you never see Phatscotty get corrected by the conservatives around here and you never see PLAYER get corrected by the liberals around here.

[thegreekdog]

I'm going to try to get this as comprehensive as possible without going batshit crazy with explanation.

What it REALLY means is that average people are to take very serious cuts in everything from education to road repairs to the military to medical assistance to social security.. namely every single service people recieve from the government.

No actually, it does not mean this. Not raising the debt ceiling does not mean any of these things. Stop spouting off your liberal and corporatist agenda and pretending it's fact. Here is what the consequences are:

Here's what Treasury Secretary Geithner said:

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told Congress he would have to suspend investments in federal retirement funds until August 2nd in order to create room for the government to continue borrowing in the debt markets. The funds will be made whole once the debt limit is raised, Geithner said in a letter. "Federal retirees and employees will be unaffected by these actions." If lawmakers don't get it together by Aug. 2, Geithner said, the United States will no longer be able to pay its bills in full.

So, what is the debt ceiling? It's a cap set by Congress on the amount of debt the federal government can legally borrow. The cap applies to debt owed to the public plus debt owed to the federal government trust funds such as those for Social Security and Medicare (ha, trust funds my ass).

So what happens if Congress cannot borrow additional funds? If the government cannot pay all its bills because it doesn't get to borrow enough money, the government must pick and choose who to pay and who to put off. And then, the federal government could either cut spending or raise taxes to get through the end of the fiscal year (or it could default on its loans).

The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since March 1962. It has been raised ten times since 2001. The Congressional Research Service wrote that barring major changes to spending and tax policies, Congress would repeatedly face demands to raise the debt limit. The debt ceiling is there so that Congress controls spending; but it obviously doesn't work.

But none of those things refutes your point, right? So, here's this from CNN Money:

Will reaching the debt ceiling for good cause a government shutdown? Not technically. A government shutdown occurs if lawmakers fail to appropriate money for federal agencies and programs. By contrast, if the debt ceiling is breached, Uncle Sam would still have revenue coming in that could be used to fund the government[.]

In sum, this is exactly what I (thegreekdog) wants to happen.

Wrong. Congress IS representing constituents, but what constituents want is "more more more for me"... and don't make me pay for it!
meanwhile, the groups that actually have been able to talk "sensibly" and "make deals" to a poin were the big players.. the lobbiests, etc. Faced with a bunch of toddlers screaming and a nice old man with "a plan".. the congressmen follow the "nice old man"... and don't bother or cannot see that this "nice old man" has a very evil heart. Or rather, has a bunch of toxic waste on his shoes.. whether he knows or doesn't...that he persists in spreading around.

It appears that you are the one who is screaming and shoving her fingers in her ears. Constituents don't want more, more, more. Constituents want less, less, less... especially those who self-identify with the Tea Party and believe in less government spending. The rest of your stuff is nonsense.

The Tea Partiers are the ones who seem to think this is all just a big joke.. and keep wanting to pretend that there is something called the US government that is somehow apart from the rest of us, instead of being this country and very much tied to us all.

Well that's not it at all, frankly. A Tea Party movement leader (I can't remember her name... I think she's from South Carolina) recently made a threat to all the members of Congress that were elected thanks to Tea Party support that if they voted to increase spending, the Tea Party movement would find someone else.

In any event, I'm kind of shocked that you, of all people, would propose that the federal government is not apart from its constituents. You rail constantly about corporatism in the federal government (and in Pennsylvania); that corporations are controlling our country. And yet when it comes to a discussion about a political movement that you've been told by those same corporations is evil, racist, and radical, you're all of the sudden pro federal government.

We need to be taken seriously, because we are a legitimate view (not that we have any true leaders ), but we should not compromise because we are not a party..

What?

Look, come back when you settle down and want to discuss this reasonably. So far, all I'm seeing from your posts is the same crap I can see from any other liberal parrot. "Oh noes... those nasty Tea Partiers... no accountability... debt ceiling... we need spending... poor people and old people will die if we don't raise the debt ceiling..."

[thegreekdog]

For me personally, it comes down to what I see as politicians using the debt ceiling as a weapon in an ideological war. In my view, the ONLY reason that so many politicians are unwilling to compromise is because their only goal is to make the other side look bad. Frankly, I believe the Republican/Tea Party side of things has been the worst offender in this regard, and for the reason I've stated. I don't believe they would be behaving in this manner if it were a Republican President in office and that can be clearly seen by looking at those who WERE in office during President Bush's terms.

Aside from that, compromise is a good thing. We can all work toward our goals, even if those goals are different, by compromising. Honestly, I have zero respect for someone that outright refuses to compromise under anything but the most extreme situations.

I do agree that the current crop of Republicans in Congress are using this as a political weapon. I don't agree that they are any worse than the Democrats except that the top Republicans are among the worst big spenders, so you have the hypocrisy angle (which I hate). As far as I'm concerned Boehner and Bachmann and the rest can go to hell. They are as much a part of the problem for me as any of the Democrats. At least the Democrats aren't hypocrits with respect to spending (they are just hypocrits with respect to pretending to care about the "average person.")

Most people in the Tea Party movement would indicate to you that government spending, especially the spending that has occurred in the last 10 years, is a "most extreme situation." I have no problem with compromise. I do have a problem with compromise in this instance because, as I indicated in my response to Player above, the debt ceiling was created to control spending; it has not controlled spending because it is raised every year. So, do people expect me to believe that if Congress compromises and raises the debt ceiling without any significant cuts in spending that there will be significant cuts in the future? Is this issue not going to raise its ugly head every year until someone actually makes significant cuts to spending?

I tend to disagree, simply because I believe the Tea Party would like to be viewed in that vein. As well, as someone who likes the ideals of the Tea Party, I don't want to see them become just another damn lobbying group.

Most Tea Party movement supports are already members of an existing political party. I am a registered Libertarian. My brother is a registered Republican (he likes big business more than me). My brother-in-law is a registered Democrat. I know I'm giving "personal life" examples which people don't like, but I'd be willing to bet 90% of the Tea Party movement members are registered with a particular political party.

Rather, I think it is the excuse that those who want to use no-compromise as a weapon. I don't blame the Tea Party, so much...but I do blame those who don't stand up against the idea of no-compromise, because it's foolish. But as we see in these fora so often, as long as someone holds the same ideological pattern, nobody wants to correct them. I wish people would get embarrassed enough about the people that are associated with their beliefs to start standing up to them, but apparently being viewed as "winning" is more important than anything else...and it's pathetic. That's why you never see Phatscotty get corrected by the conservatives around here and you never see PLAYER get corrected by the liberals around here.

I'm not sure about all this. I will say that I have argued/discussed with PhatScotty and Night Strike before, and I will do it again. BBS and I argue/discuss all the time. When I don't "correct" them it's because they have been corrected already. Further, as Player indicated above, PhatScotty and I don't have the same beliefs with respect to a lot of different things. We just have more similar beliefs than I do with Player or than PhatScotty does with Democrats (as an example).

On a related note, I'm still not sure that people understand that the Tea Party movement was a response to out of control government spending. The people that joined at the beginning are still there; there is attempted co-opting by big government Republicans and corporatists, as well as racially-motivated hate groups, but the core of the Tea Party movement is still there. Think of the Tea Party the same way you think of any other group of people that thinks the same way about politics that is not an identified political party. It's not that hard to do (unless you buy into the crap you hear on television and the radio).

[PLAYER57832]

I'm going to try to get this as comprehensive as possible without going batshit crazy with explanation.

What it REALLY means is that average people are to take very serious cuts in everything from education to road repairs to the military to medical assistance to social security.. namely every single service people recieve from the government.

No actually, it does not mean this. Not raising the debt ceiling does not mean any of these things. Stop spouting off your liberal and corporatist agenda and pretending it's fact. Here is what the consequences are:

Here's what Treasury Secretary Geithner said:

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told Congress he would have to suspend investments in federal retirement funds until August 2nd in order to create room for the government to continue borrowing in the debt markets. The funds will be made whole once the debt limit is raised, Geithner said in a letter. "Federal retirees and employees will be unaffected by these actions." If lawmakers don't get it together by Aug. 2, Geithner said, the United States will no longer be able to pay its bills in full.

So, what is the debt ceiling? It's a cap set by Congress on the amount of debt the federal government can legally borrow. The cap applies to debt owed to the public plus debt owed to the federal government trust funds such as those for Social Security and Medicare (ha, trust funds my ass).

So what happens if Congress cannot borrow additional funds? If the government cannot pay all its bills because it doesn't get to borrow enough money, the government must pick and choose who to pay and who to put off. And then, the federal government could either cut spending or raise taxes to get through the end of the fiscal year (or it could default on its loans).

The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since March 1962. It has been raised ten times since 2001. The Congressional Research Service wrote that barring major changes to spending and tax policies, Congress would repeatedly face demands to raise the debt limit. The debt ceiling is there so that Congress controls spending; but it obviously doesn't work.

But none of those things refutes your point, right? So, here's this from CNN Money:

Will reaching the debt ceiling for good cause a government shutdown? Not technically. A government shutdown occurs if lawmakers fail to appropriate money for federal agencies and programs. By contrast, if the debt ceiling is breached, Uncle Sam would still have revenue coming in that could be used to fund the government[.]

In sum, this is exactly what I (thegreekdog) wants to happen.

Then why do so many economists disagree with you.

Wrong. Congress IS representing constituents, but what constituents want is "more more more for me"... and don't make me pay for it!
meanwhile, the groups that actually have been able to talk "sensibly" and "make deals" to a poin were the big players.. the lobbiests, etc. Faced with a bunch of toddlers screaming and a nice old man with "a plan".. the congressmen follow the "nice old man"... and don't bother or cannot see that this "nice old man" has a very evil heart. Or rather, has a bunch of toxic waste on his shoes.. whether he knows or doesn't...that he persists in spreading around.

It appears that you are the one who is screaming and shoving her fingers in her ears. Constituents don't want more, more, more.

Sure they have... from the "bridge to nowhere" to John Murtha, etc. People elect those who "bring home the bacon". IIts every body else's bacom to which they object. In the last couple of years some have begun to realize that's hypocritical and stupid, but that doesn't mean people were unhappy about it earlier.

Constituents want less, less, less... especially those who self-identify with the Tea Party and believe in less government spending. The rest of your stuff is nonsense.

NOW.. they claim they want less spending. However, when you look, they really want other people to get less.

You want to know why we have so many government services? Its because private industry FAILED. We HAD HUNGER, until the federal food programs began eliminating it. Shoot.. I can remember when my mom found out that a friend of my brothers was going home at lunch.. to not eat. That in one of the wealthiest counties in the state of CA!

Its easy to complain about the government. It tells people no and funds unpopular causes, because they need funding.

The Tea Partiers are the ones who seem to think this is all just a big joke.. and keep wanting to pretend that there is something called the US government that is somehow apart from the rest of us, instead of being this country and very much tied to us all.

Well that's not it at all, frankly. A Tea Party movement leader (I can't remember her name... I think she's from South Carolina) recently made a threat to all the members of Congress that were elected thanks to Tea Party support that if they voted to increase spending, the Tea Party movement would find someone else.

In any event, I'm kind of shocked that you, of all people, would propose that the federal government is not apart from its constituents. You rail constantly about corporatism in the federal government (and in Pennsylvania); that corporations are controlling our country. And yet when it comes to a discussion about a political movement that you've been told by those same corporations is evil, racist, and radical, you're all of the sudden pro federal government.

Teh corporation DO have heavy control.. precisely because people keep playing this "attack the government", don't work within it" game. And that IS all it is.

The REAL reason our economy is in the tank has nothing at all to do with Obama.. or even Bush, for that matter. The reason our economy is in the tank is that there is almost no incentive for corporations to look at the very long term. Historically, that was the place of government. But.. guess what is getting attacked!

We need to be taken seriously, because we are a legitimate view (not that we have any true leaders ), but we should not compromise because we are not a party..

What?

That is the genius of the Tea Party. It is the opposite of a scape goat . Instead of taking the blame for everything, it takes the credit for whatever ideas people want to espouse... as long as they are willing to attack the status quo. Except, its all a front for don't make the corporations pay any more (no more taxes), don't make them be more responsible (shrink government) and who cares if people suffer (cut,cut, cut programs ... everywhere).

[Night Strike]

Then why do so many economists disagree with you.

Because they are either stuck in the belief that Keynesian economics works and/or that Congress is not capable of prioritizing spending.

[Phatscotty]

I say we have been compromising the spenders way for far too long. Every single year spending goes up and gov't grows. Yet the problems are worse than ever...hmmm

When have the spenders ever compromised?

[thegreekdog]

Preposterous nonsense.

Then why do so many economists disagree with you.

You mean why do large corporations and their stooges disagree with me.

Sure they have... from the "bridge to nowhere" to John Murtha, etc. People elect those who "bring home the bacon". IIts every body else's bacom to which they object. In the last couple of years some have begun to realize that's hypocritical and stupid, but that doesn't mean people were unhappy about it earlier.

So naive. John Murtha isn't bringing home the bacon for his constituents, he's bringing home the bacon for the guys who gave him the most loot.

NOW.. they claim they want less spending. However, when you look, they really want other people to get less.

You want to know why we have so many government services? Its because private industry FAILED. We HAD HUNGER, until the federal food programs began eliminating it. Shoot.. I can remember when my mom found out that a friend of my brothers was going home at lunch.. to not eat. That in one of the wealthiest counties in the state of CA!

Its easy to complain about the government. It tells people no and funds unpopular causes, because they need funding.

More nonsensical parrotting. Obviously I want others to get less. I want to stop subsidies for large corporations that don't need them. I want to stop spending money on foreign wars. I want to stop people from taking an extended unemployment vacation.

And I hate to break it to you, but we still have hunger and homelessness and hardship and all those others things. How many times have we discussed how government has failed... from the post office to foreign wars to Section 8 housing to unemployment compensation to Social Security.

Teh corporation DO have heavy control.. precisely because people keep playing this "attack the government", don't work within it" game. And that IS all it is.

Don't work within the government? I'm not talking about attacking the government. I'm talking about voting out the people who are there and keep voting new people in until the majority of them get the point. Stop pandering to corporations and special interest groups and start paying attention to the people who may or may not vote for you. That's what I want.

The REAL reason our economy is in the tank has nothing at all to do with Obama.. or even Bush, for that matter. The reason our economy is in the tank is that there is almost no incentive for corporations to look at the very long term. Historically, that was the place of government. But.. guess what is getting attacked!

I'm not talking about the economy. I'm talking about politics! Where did you get this idea that I'm blaming the economic collapse on anyone other than the companies and people that caused the collapse? I don't blame President Obama for the economic collapse. Only idiots do that. What I do blame Congress and the last two presidents for is out of control spending including bailouts of reckless companies so that Wall Street can get its share and the auto workers can get their shares. That's what I blame Congress and the presidents for. "You know what, thegreekdog can give a little more of his hard earned money so that Joe Stock Broker can get his bonus and Jane Auto Worker can get her super huge pension." Oh, and that doesn't even mention the foreign wars...

Except, its all a front for don't make the corporations pay any more (no more taxes), don't make them be more responsible (shrink government) and who cares if people suffer (cut,cut, cut programs ... everywhere).

I really don't think you read or listen to anything other than what you hear from NPR and MSNBC. What Tea Party members espouse the idea that they want to lower corporate taxes? Me? Have I not written multiple times about ending subsidies for corporations? The first item of business is not to cut taxes. The first item of business is to cut spending... cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut... programs everywhere.

Here... read this and enjoy (you won't do either, but I'm offering it up anyway).

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/

[PLAYER57832]

Well, sadly, the truth will likely out pretty soon.

[PLAYER57832]

What Tea Party members espouse the idea that they want to lower corporate taxes?

They refuse to raise taxes.... including the massive breaks that the wealthy and corporations have gotten in the past.

Me? Have I not written multiple times about ending subsidies for corporations?

yes.. but you also say you are a Tea Partier. Your position is not that of the Tea Party.

The first item of business is not to cut taxes. The first item of business is to cut spending... cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut... programs everywhere.

Cut.. things for whom? The corporation "bennies" if you think so, then you haven't been paying attention. Obama talked about a deal just yesterday.. the holding point? Asking corporations to pay more.

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/

I can agree with some of those.

However, it really is just a standard theme....ignore why we have so many rules like worker safety regulations, research funding, etc.

The trouble is not that we cannot cut. Certainly, ANYBODY can agree on cuts. The problem is that the cuts being proposed are not the places that make sense.

For example, they cut a program that teaches teens to be better parents.. it is a cost-effective, proven program. But, it costs money up front, so .. it goes. Preschool education is being cut.. again, these are cost-effective programs that wind up saving the country far more that actually generate income in the long term.

What are NOT being cut? corporate subsidies.

[thegreekdog]

They refuse to raise taxes.... including the massive breaks that the wealthy and corporations have gotten in the past.

OOOOOH... they refuse to RAISE taxes! Ah, now I see. So, they don't want to raise taxes. Why not? Could it be because they are sick of government spending money on stuff like bailing out failed industries and companies, giving money to pay for foreign wars that gain us nothing, giving money to be groped at airports? How about instead of taxpayers being accountable, the federal government is accountable? And spare me the "federal government is the people" nonsense. It's not and hasn't been for a long time.

yes.. but you also say you are a Tea Partier. Your position is not that of the Tea Party.

And... that's because you don't know anything about the Tea Party movement.

Cut.. things for whom? The corporation "bennies" if you think so, then you haven't been paying attention. Obama talked about a deal just yesterday.. the holding point? Asking corporations to pay more.

Yes, but that only gets you so far. You need to cut some of this other crap too. Like this stupid health insurance plan that solves nothing, does nothing. Like get us out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, etc.

[Night Strike]

When have the spenders ever compromised?

They're only spending $4 trillion instead of $5 trillion.

They refuse to raise taxes.... including the massive breaks that the wealthy and corporations have gotten in the past.

Good. It's about time someone stop playing this game of class warfare and actually start fixing the problem of massive spending.

What are NOT being cut? corporate subsidies.

Corporations buy products and create jobs, preschoolers do not.

[thegreekdog]

They're only spending $4 trillion instead of $5 trillion.

Actually, that's not true.

It's a series of smaller, projected cuts over 10 years. This year's portion is $200 billion (less than we pay in interest on the federal debt). And it would only reduce baseline spending... in other words there are still spending increases through 2021. It's actually a spending increase of $1.8 trillion instead of like $2.8 trillion. In still other words, they aren't cutting spending, they are reducing the increase to spending.

[PLAYER57832]

Corporations buy products and create jobs, preschoolers do not.

If you think about it, you will realize this is utterly false.

[Night Strike]

They're only spending $4 trillion instead of $5 trillion.

Actually, that's not true.

It's a series of smaller, projected cuts over 10 years. This year's portion is $200 billion (less than we pay in interest on the federal debt). And it would only reduce baseline spending... in other words there are still spending increases through 2021. It's actually a spending increase of $1.8 trillion instead of like $2.8 trillion.

I was mostly being facetious (even though the premise is still valid).

Corporations buy products and create jobs, preschoolers do not.

If you think about it, you will realize this is utterly false.

You've been paid an income by a preschooler?? That's a damn smart preschooler.

[thegreekdog]

I was mostly being facetious (even though the premise is still valid).

I know... I was anticipating the "SEE? THEY ARE CUTTING SO MUCH!"

I wanted to head that one off at the pass.

[PLAYER57832]

Corporations buy products and create jobs, preschoolers do not.

If you think about it, you will realize this is utterly false.

You've been paid an income by a preschooler?? That's a damn smart preschooler.

You WILL be.. at least if you give them a chance.

Killing tommorrow for today is what we OUGHT to be decrying.. instead... its "go ahead and cut education".. "go ahead and cut food subsidies"... etc. AND.. oh yeah.. how dare you even think about asking the wealthiest in America.. the same group that has seen their income grow when the rest of us were tanking.. we cannot possible ask them to pay even a penny more.

[Night Strike]

Corporations buy products and create jobs, preschoolers do not.

If you think about it, you will realize this is utterly false.

You've been paid an income by a preschooler?? That's a damn smart preschooler.

You WILL be.. at least if you give them a chance.

Killing tommorrow for today is what we OUGHT to be decrying.. instead... its "go ahead and cut education".. "go ahead and cut food subsidies"... etc. AND.. oh yeah.. how dare you even think about asking the wealthiest in America.. the same group that has seen their income grow when the rest of us were tanking.. we cannot possible ask them to pay even a penny more.

In 2013, those "rich" people will start paying 0.9% more in Medicare taxes, 2.8% more in capital gains/dividends taxes, and another 0.9% in excise taxes on those capital gains/dividends. So yes, they WILL be paying more. How about we make the bottom 50% of wage earners pay just 1% of their income? If everyone is supposed to be paying for government services, let's make that a reality instead of just blaming every single problem on the rich who already pay an exorbitant amount of taxes?

[PLAYER57832]

Corporations buy products and create jobs, preschoolers do not.

If you think about it, you will realize this is utterly false.

You've been paid an income by a preschooler?? That's a damn smart preschooler.

You WILL be.. at least if you give them a chance.

Killing tommorrow for today is what we OUGHT to be decrying.. instead... its "go ahead and cut education".. "go ahead and cut food subsidies"... etc. AND.. oh yeah.. how dare you even think about asking the wealthiest in America.. the same group that has seen their income grow when the rest of us were tanking.. we cannot possible ask them to pay even a penny more.

In 2013, those "rich" people will start paying 0.9% more in Medicare taxes, 2.8% more in capital gains/dividends taxes, and another 0.9% in excise taxes on those capital gains/dividends.

These have absolutely NOTHING to do with taxing pollution, which was what we were just discussing, OR my original statement regarding a moderate, slighly graduated income tax for general needsm AFTER removing all the many deductions, etc.

So yes, they WILL be paying more. How about we make the bottom 50% of wage earners pay just 1% of their income? If everyone is supposed to be paying for government services, let's make that a reality instead of just blaming every single problem on the rich who already pay an exorbitant amount of taxes?

I agree with the 1% bit for general costs, things like general roads, etc.

However, 1% is not going to pay for what we need, not fully and certainly won't pay down the debt. It would be more like 10% for all but the truly poor (who are subsidized anyway), but even that won't be enough, which is why I said a graduated tax was necessary. Also, there is nothing wrong with charging polluters extra tax on their pollution. Nor for having some other highly directed taxes.

Its funny.. you talk about change, but keep insisting that things have to basically stay the same.. Isay we need a complete change.

[Night Strike]

Killing tommorrow for today is what we OUGHT to be decrying.. instead... its "go ahead and cut education".. "go ahead and cut food subsidies"... etc. AND.. oh yeah.. how dare you even think about asking the wealthiest in America.. the same group that has seen their income grow when the rest of us were tanking.. we cannot possible ask them to pay even a penny more.

In 2013, those "rich" people will start paying 0.9% more in Medicare taxes, 2.8% more in capital gains/dividends taxes, and another 0.9% in excise taxes on those capital gains/dividends.

These have absolutely NOTHING to do with taxing pollution, which was what we were just discussing, OR my original statement regarding a moderate, slighly graduated income tax for general needsm AFTER removing all the many deductions, etc.

I was just correcting your lie about the rich not being asked to pay a penny more. We already asked (read: made) them pay more for the massive health care entitlement, but now we have to ask (read: make) them to pay more for pollution? Of course, this means nothing for debt reduction.

Its funny.. you talk about change, but keep insisting that things have to basically stay the same.. Isay we need a complete change.

I'm pretty sure requiring the government to stop spending more money than they take in WOULD be a radical change and nothing close to basically staying the same.

[john9blue]

(1) Why do we have people who are not willing to "work things out?" The answer, from my point of view, is that the people that are elected to Congress have not and continue to not represent the people that voted for them. The people elected to Congress do not do what their constituents want or what is best for their constituents; rather, the people elected to Congress do what their biggest donors want them to do. Therefore, when 90% of Congress is not representing their constituents, but is instead continuing to spend money, making small cuts instead of large ones, the constituents get angry. Instead of thinking about this as a Republican vs. Democrat thing (which is what you're doing), think of it as a constituent vs. government thing, which is what it is. When your elected officials stop listening to you, why should you "work things out" with them? Why should you continue to bend over when your representatives no longer represent you?

A-freaking-men.

would you have replied that way if i had said that instead of greek?