Shutdown - The tea party`s last move?

[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.