Shutdown - The tea party`s last move?

[Crossless2.0]

Where were they when Bush was running up the debt? Where were they when Reagan was running up the debt?

This. The timing of the Tea Party's emergence is -- suspicious. It's not like runaway borrowing and spending is news. Did they just get the memo?

[Ryantology]

I am sick and tired of the misunderstanding on this forum about the motives of the tea party. I have been to many tea party rallies and I understand their motives. The primary goal of the tea party is to reduce government spending and to prevent over taxation. TEA in tea party stands for taxed enough already.

Why don't you tell us exactly which programs should be cut, then, and why?

There are a many races represented at these rallies and many good ideas exchanged.

Translation: you occasionally see a person at a rally who isn't white. As for good ideas, what good ideas? The tea party is nothing but base populism. They sure know what they hate, but none of them seem to have any ideas except "fuck the federal government".

Since Obama has not taken any steps towards reducing our debt limit, then yes he is attacked for his fiscal policies. They also attack other republican ideals that have gotten us to where we are today. For instance, Bushes fiscal policies are not very popular either. The main goal is reducing debt spending, that is it.

So, why don't we start slashing defense spending and corporate welfare? No. This is horse shit. The Tea Party and their corporate leash-holders only care about cutting spending on things they personally don't want.

That being said, politics separates us the people. The very people here stating that republicans are trying to criticize Obama are the very same people who have criticized George W. Bush. I don't see democrats rushing to protect Condeleeza Rice, Herman Cain, Allen West, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, nor any minority who stands against the liberal mantra. Also, there is a great tea party supporter named Kevin Jackson, who happens to be african american. I have seen democrats call him Uncle Tom for supporting the Tea Party. Why isn't that called racist?

Why should anybody protect those people? They are all really terrible people with terrible ideas. Allen West is an insane nutjob and Rafael Eduardo Cruz has got to be the most dangerous traitor in America. Just because you have a few token minorities who support your cause doesn't erase the virulent racism that forms much of the character of that cause.

Also, why do democrats claim that the democrat party isn't about big business? Really? Who is behind the democrat party, names like George Soros, Larry Page and the Google leviathan, most of Hollywood? Since when is Google, George Soros, and Hollywood not considered big business?

It's unfortunate that the Democrats are still in many ways beholden to the corporate leash, but that's because the liberal element is only in the process of finally taking over the party. The Tea Party, on the other hand, wants nothing more than complete deregulation. No thanks. I don't want a future in which people are working for a dollar a day in America.

Anyone who thinks that a $17 trillion debt is not worth worrying about is deluding themselves and something needs to be done about our ever increasing debt.

Anyone who thinks the debt is the biggest issue we have on our plates has a seriously fucked-up set of priorities.

That is why the tea party has come out, because previous republican politicians have not addressed spending nor our ever increasing debt.

It has nothing to do with the debt. Conservatives care only about the debt when a Democrat is in the White House. The Tea Party has come out because the hate-driven conservative element realizes that a combination of demographics, secularism and growing appreciation for the damage done by runaway corporatism have conspired to doom the conservative cause. That's why we have Teahadists not caring that their methods will ruin the economy and hurt millions of people. They're a cornered animal, one that, if the voting populace has any brains, will finally put down in the midterms next year, so that we can finally start rebuilding what 30 years of Reaganomics have destroyed.

[Raeven]

I am sick and tired of the misunderstanding on this forum about the motives of the tea party. I have been to many tea party rallies and I understand their motives. The primary goal of the tea party is to reduce government spending and to prevent over taxation. TEA in tea party stands for taxed enough already.

I stand by my characterization of the Tea Party. I do know what TEA stood for. And I actually know quite a few of them, both personally and on various forums I frequent. Certainly there is a common characteristic of wanting less taxation -- but the other characteristics I listed are frequently true as well. They may not be strictly true for you, but they are nonetheless true across a wide swath of your peers.

I don't disagree that the middle class is already taxed enough. But the wealthy among us, including corporations themselves (not really people but treated that way within the definition of Citizens United) historically have never enjoyed such tax favored treatment. So I fail utterly to understand why your outrage does not extend to this huge disparity in taxation.

There are a many races represented at these rallies and many good ideas exchanged. Since Obama has not taken any steps towards reducing our debt limit, then yes he is attacked for his fiscal policies. They also attack other republican ideals that have gotten us to where we are today. For instance, Bushes fiscal policies are not very popular either. The main goal is reducing debt spending, that is it.

The mechanism for reducing deficit spending (which is what I think you meant when you said 'debt') is to hammer out a budget. It is NOT to scare the entire world about the stability of its reserve currency by failing to raise the debt ceiling. You really, really need to understand the difference between these things.

That being said, politics separates us the people. The very people here stating that republicans are trying to criticize Obama are the very same people who have criticized George W. Bush.

Politics does separate us, the People. Divide and conquer is not a new concept. It's up to us to understand when we're debating competing values -- and when the wool is being pulled over our eyes.

Obama is not immune -- nor should he be -- from criticism. What irritates me is criticism borne from a lack of knowledge, and there is an awful lot of that.

I don't see democrats rushing to protect Condeleeza Rice, Herman Cain, Allen West, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, nor any minority who stands against the liberal mantra. Also, there is a great tea party supporter named Kevin Jackson, who happens to be african american. I have seen democrats call him Uncle Tom for supporting the Tea Party. Why isn't that called racist?

Protect them from what? As for calling Kevin Jackson Uncle Tom, I don't know the context of that, but racist terms are thrown about all too eagerly by those who like to stir the pot. That can be true in either party, though I see more of it among Republicans.

Also, why do democrats claim that the democrat party isn't about big business? Really? Who is behind the democrat party, names like George Soros, Larry Page and the Google leviathan, most of Hollywood? Since when is Google, George Soros, and Hollywood not considered big business?

The Koch brothers could buy and sell George Soros ten times over. But that said, yes, big money infests the Democratic Party as well. I have advocated in other posts on the forum to get big money out of our political process all together. Think we could make that happen?

Anyone who thinks that a $17 trillion debt is not worth worrying about is deluding themselves and something needs to be done about our ever increasing debt.

Why does your side always equate anyone who doesn't agree with you with being advocates for big spending? It's simply not true. The debt IS worth worrying about. But deal with it effectively, by passing a budget -- not doing things like failing to raise the debt ceiling, which ironically INCREASES the debt you're so worried about!

---

Hey, here's an idea for you: I heard Benjamin Netanyahu speaking the other night about the American budget impasse. He shared that in Israel, they have a different system. If their Parliament is unable to agree on a budget, the existing budget is divided by 12 and extended in monthly installments for up to 6 months. If, after 6 months, no budget is passed, then all the seats in the Parliament go to automatic and immediate elections. He smiled wryly and noted that since that law had been passed, they had never failed to pass a budget.

What do you think?

[sarcasticgeographer]

I am sick and tired of the misunderstanding on this forum about the motives of the tea party. I have been to many tea party rallies and I understand their motives. The primary goal of the tea party is to reduce government spending and to prevent over taxation. TEA in tea party stands for taxed enough already.

Why don't you tell us exactly which programs should be cut, then, and why?

First, there are many elements that under federal control that can go to the states. For instance, national parks should be returned to the states. The federal government has lost complete sight of the tenth amendment. The federal government should only be involved in matters that the constitution expressly grants it. Many, many departments within the federal government can be abolished by simply giving the power back to the states.

Second, all branches of the federal government should consider cutting staff levels. Why does the first lady require staff? What other job would cater to someone's spouse? Why does the vice president's wife require staff? Read above.

Third, keep our military home and do not get involved in international affairs. The only time the US military should get involved is if there is an imminent danger to our country.

Lastly, the social security system should be based like a ROTH IRA, whereby the money you put into it is deposited into stocks, bonds, etc.

There are a many races represented at these rallies and many good ideas exchanged.

Translation: you occasionally see a person at a rally who isn't white. As for good ideas, what good ideas? The tea party is nothing but base populism. They sure know what they hate, but none of them seem to have any ideas except "fuck the federal government".

Yes the federal government has grown to behemoth proportions.

Since Obama has not taken any steps towards reducing our debt limit, then yes he is attacked for his fiscal policies. They also attack other republican ideals that have gotten us to where we are today. For instance, Bushes fiscal policies are not very popular either. The main goal is reducing debt spending, that is it.

So, why don't we start slashing defense spending and corporate welfare? No. This is horse shit. The Tea Party and their corporate leash-holders only care about cutting spending on things they personally don't want.

That being said, politics separates us the people. The very people here stating that republicans are trying to criticize Obama are the very same people who have criticized George W. Bush. I don't see democrats rushing to protect Condeleeza Rice, Herman Cain, Allen West, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, nor any minority who stands against the liberal mantra. Also, there is a great tea party supporter named Kevin Jackson, who happens to be african american. I have seen democrats call him Uncle Tom for supporting the Tea Party. Why isn't that called racist?

Why should anybody protect those people? They are all really terrible people with terrible ideas. Allen West is an insane nutjob and Rafael Eduardo Cruz has got to be the most dangerous traitor in America. Just because you have a few token minorities who support your cause doesn't erase the virulent racism that forms much of the character of that cause.

Also, why do democrats claim that the democrat party isn't about big business? Really? Who is behind the democrat party, names like George Soros, Larry Page and the Google leviathan, most of Hollywood? Since when is Google, George Soros, and Hollywood not considered big business?

It's unfortunate that the Democrats are still in many ways beholden to the corporate leash, but that's because the liberal element is only in the process of finally taking over the party. The Tea Party, on the other hand, wants nothing more than complete deregulation. No thanks. I don't want a future in which people are working for a dollar a day in America.

Anyone who thinks that a $17 trillion debt is not worth worrying about is deluding themselves and something needs to be done about our ever increasing debt.

Anyone who thinks the debt is the biggest issue we have on our plates has a seriously fucked-up set of priorities.

That is why the tea party has come out, because previous republican politicians have not addressed spending nor our ever increasing debt.

It has nothing to do with the debt. Conservatives care only about the debt when a Democrat is in the White House. The Tea Party has come out because the hate-driven conservative element realizes that a combination of demographics, secularism and growing appreciation for the damage done by runaway corporatism have conspired to doom the conservative cause. That's why we have Teahadists not caring that their methods will ruin the economy and hurt millions of people. They're a cornered animal, one that, if the voting populace has any brains, will finally put down in the midterms next year, so that we can finally start rebuilding what 30 years of Reaganomics have destroyed.

Reagan's policies did a lot better than Carter ever did, and Obama is no competition. If you grow employment numbers, then you add your growth. This is simple economics. The federal government has not learned that you if tax people so heavily, companies will be forced to go overseas. This is not rocket science. If you make it so expensive for companies (via taxation), that they find it cheaper elsewhere, they will relocate. Cost is essential for business.

---

Anyone who thinks that a $17 trillion debt is not worth worrying about is deluding themselves and something needs to be done about our ever increasing debt.

Why does your side always equate anyone who doesn't agree with you with being advocates for big spending? It's simply not true. The debt IS worth worrying about. But deal with it effectively, by passing a budget -- not doing things like failing to raise the debt ceiling, which ironically INCREASES the debt you're so worried about!

---

Hey, here's an idea for you: I heard Benjamin Netanyahu speaking the other night about the American budget impasse. He shared that in Israel, they have a different system. If their Parliament is unable to agree on a budget, the existing budget is divided by 12 and extended in monthly installments for up to 6 months. If, after 6 months, no budget is passed, then all the seats in the Parliament go to automatic and immediate elections. He smiled wryly and noted that since that law had been passed, they had never failed to pass a budget.

What do you think?

A constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget every year would be amazing. Also, if congress fails to pass a balanced budget, then they should forfeit pay and be fined.

[Ryantology]

Reagan's policies did a lot better than Carter ever did, and Obama is no competition. If you grow employment numbers, then you add your growth. This is simple economics. The federal government has not learned that you if tax people so heavily, companies will be forced to go overseas. This is not rocket science. If you make it so expensive for companies (via taxation), that they find it cheaper elsewhere, they will relocate. Cost is essential for business.

I'm sure this explains why, when tax rates for the richest Americans hovered around 90% and a single breadwinner made wages sufficient to live a middle-class lifestyle (i.e., the 1950s), the economy was barreling and the idea of outsourcing jobs to Asia was virtually unheard of. Whereas in the 2010s, the rich pay a mere fraction of that in taxes, two people working multiple full-time jobs may not rise above the poverty line, and corporations outsource jobs because minimum wage laws don't allow them to pay American laborers 25 cents an hour. Or, do you think it's coincidence that outsourcing became a full-force phenomenon as Reaganomics took hold?

Growing employment numbers means very little when greed-driven corporations (Wal-Mart being an excellent example) pay so little that employees are often forced to resort to government assistance to make ends meet, while the Walton kids make billions every year on top of the billions they already have. I don't know why that seems like a good idea to you, but shit like that is why the economy is in the toilet. Employed Americans can't stimulate the economy very much when they don't even make enough money to cover necessities. You say that's taking away from the rich? Fuck that. I worked for that company for years, and I certainly devoted more of my time and energy towards that company's success than any of the Walton kids ever have. Why should those fucks make billions when people like me, the people who make their fucking business exist, get poverty wages? How is that right?

You want actual economic growth? Enact a minimum wage that puts every American over the poverty level. Not only will this give laborers real purchasing power once again, it will also drastically reduce the numbers of people who need government assistance to get by. Companies who can't afford to pay employees a living wage are companies who can't manage costs properly and shouldn't be in business anyway. It's a fucking no-brainer.

http://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM

You need to watch this video, because it demonstrates precisely what is wrong with your approach to economics.

[Raeven]

Ok, no offense, but you’ve got to figure out the quote thing. It’s almost impossible to know what you posted v. what someone else posted, so I’ll try and address what YOU posted (I think).

How does shifting the burden from the Feds to the states reduce costs of operation in parks, etc.? You think the Feds are just automatically more expensive?

Cutting staff levels? Seriously? They’re already doing more with a lot less. Clearly you’re not aware of the extent to which the Obama Administration made cuts to Federal staffing when he first came into office: Fed Jobs Decline Under Obama

As for the First Lady not having staff, wow. You really don’t know what they do, do you? Think she just sits around all day, eating bon bons and watching the soaps? She serves as a surrogate for her husband, makes many official appearances and shares her home daily with the public. She also advocates for her personal causes – as all First Ladies traditionally have. But you honestly think she should be back in the kitchen making shit on a shingle for hubby when he gets home? Ignorance on a breathtaking scale. But hey, I’m pretty sure that even if we eliminated every single staff position for her and Vice President Biden’s wife, it wouldn’t make a noticeable dent in reduction of the debt. Do you?

Keep our military home? Ok, again, this is the sort of ignorance I’m talking about. Do you honestly have no idea the extent to which our interests lie abroad? I do think there are absolutely places where we oughtn’t be sticking our noses (invading Iraq comes to mind), but again, you can't take an all-or-nothing approach to this. And I’m not saying we can’t cut military and defense. These are in fact very bloated budgets. But you have to do it thoughtfully, gradually and with care. Remember, too, a lot of Americans rely on the industrial military complex for their livelihood. How many good, patriotic Americans do you want to throw out of work all at once, anyway?? Why do you hate America??

Social Security like a ROTH IRA? Oh, dear. Do you not remember 2008 through 2010? What if you happened to be retiring then? No, thanks. And again – how does that save money? You haven’t drawn a nexus between those two things, privatizing SS and governmental spending. Will you explain that to me?

I prefer Netanyahu's approach to a Constitutional Amendment. It's already hard enough to get good people to run for public office without threatening them with forfeited pay and fines.

I’m sorry, but you have so much homework to do. Stop taking your talking points from Fox News. Start by researching historical tax rates for both corporations and individuals. That alone should leave your jaw on the floor.

[Captain Colostomy]

Rae-

That was a well thought out response. That said...shit on a shingle? You be dating yourself with that reference.

Mmm...chipped beef.

[Raeven]

ROFL, I never claimed to be a nubile young thing. But really -- I'm a nubile young thing who just happens to read a lot. Yeah, yeah. That's it!

[Doubting Thomas]

Where were they when Bush was running up the debt? Where were they when Reagan was running up the debt?

This. The timing of the Tea Party's emergence is -- suspicious. It's not like runaway borrowing and spending is news. Did they just get the memo?

But Bush and Reagan weren't black!

[Minimalist]

But Bush and Reagan weren't black!

Do you think that's a factor?