Discussion in 'Tea Party' started by manifold, Jun 27, 2010.
Apart from universal mistrust and fear of brown skinned presidents that is?
Excellent question. I cannot wait to hear some replies.
So far, all's I got is "change is bad".
A little "Google" goes a long way. You guys have a computer right? Internet access?
From the Wikipedia that the the Left loves (just so you can't complain about the source):
Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't see anything about "Brown Skinned Presidents" there. Oh yeah, that's just more smears from the Left. It's what you do.
It doesn't seem to have a unified platform.
About all I can see is that it taps into the (quite understandable) disaffection most Americans seem to have for the government.
Why I have even spoken to TeaPartians who seem to make sense. Who seem to understand the game that's being played on them and the rest of America
Until, of course, you mention Obama, of course.
Then they sound every so much like very loyal Republicans.
Some thoughts on those planks:
I dare say most significant bills already do this. For example, the text of the beginning of (what, seeing what some Tea Partiers have to say, I assume to be) the most hated part of the most hated bill signed into law this Congressional term (i.e. the individual mandate bit of the health care bill) begins with an explicit and detailed Constitutional, legislative, and policy justification for its inclusion.
That won't stop them from arguing it's unconstitutional.
Given that 66% of Tea Party sympathizers in the recent NY Times poll of Tea Partiers either thought climate change doesn't exist or won't have any serious impact, it makes sense that they'd reject something like cap and trade.
But their characterization of it as an administrative approach is exactly backwards. I'll let the CBO explain the two approaches one could take to this problem:
The most fundamental choice facing policymakers is whether to adopt conventional regulatory approaches, such as standards for energy-using machinery and equipment, or to employ market-based approaches, such as taxes on emissions or cap-and-trade programs. Market-based approaches, most experts conclude, would generally limit emissions at a lower cost than command-and-control regulations would. Whereas conventional regulatory approaches would impose specific requirements that might not be the least costly means of reducing emissions, market-based approaches would provide more latitude for firms and households to determine the most cost-effective means of accomplishing that goal.
Cap-and-trade is a market-based approach aimed at shaping incentives. Not passing it and allowing the EPA to regulate carbon would be the administrative approach.
One of the primary reasons this hasn't been done before is that it's a terrible idea. Contractionary fiscal policy during good economic times (e.g. the '90s) is fine but during a recession it won't work. Tax revenues fall and spending rising automatically during recessions--this is true even without any sort of stimulus spending. Take away the automatic stabilizers and you'll merely deepen the recession. There are times to seek a balanced budget and there are times when running a deficit is necessary.
I think there's fairly wide agreement that it's time for a tax simplification. Here's a decent article on the Wyden-Gregg effort to do exactly that. There's no need to take the progressivity out of the federal income tax, however. The argument that this is "fairer" just doesn't hold up when you consider the tax burdens imposed by things like payroll taxes which, being capped, fall more heavily on 5-figure earners than 6-figure-and-above earners. Part of that inequity is corrected by the fact that the marginal tax rates for dollars earned in those higher categories is higher.
Sounds like another version of Clinton-Gore's National Performance Review (aside from the bit about assessing the constitutionality of the bureaucracy). Okay.
Where is the growth in federal spending going to happen? Let's break government spending down into two categories: 1) Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Net Interest, and 2) Everything else. Let's start with everything else:
Spending Other Than That for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Net Interest, 1962 to 2080 (Percentage of GDP)
Not really running away there. Most of the growth comes from system-wide rising health care costs:
But what does the NYT poll reveal about Tea Party attitudes toward the entitlement programs that drive spending increases?
Overall, do you think the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs of those programs for taxpayers, or are they not worth the costs?
Worth it/Not worth it/DK
That's somewhat perplexing.
Replace with what?
If we look back at the NYT poll, we see this:
Do you approve or disapprove of requiring health insurance companies to cover anyone who applies for health insurance regardless of whether or not they have an existing medical condition or a prior illness?
The question doesn't ask which level of government should impose this requirement, although given this was one of the major tenets of the bill just signed law, it's not particularly far-fetched to read in the question the distinct possibility the feds would be doing the regulating. Regardless, then you get responses like these:
As long as the federal government provides financial help to those who cannot afford health insurance, do you think the federal government should or should not require all Americans to have health insurance?
At which point, like most Americans, it becomes difficult to see how the mechanics of their world views are supposed to work.
Sounds like a pro-drilling, pro-nuclear stance. The President seems to be in their corner on this one.
I can't tell if this is supposed to be symbolic or if people really think earmarks play a significant part in creating the deficit.
Surprising this is the lowest of the ten priorities. But it leads back to the question that always has to come up. If you don't like those higher (but still historically low by the standards of most of the 20th century) tax rates and you don't like deficits, then what spending are you specifically going to cut? The only specific spending cut in this entire list is earmarks, or about 1% of the budget (and not a driver of spending increases). A generic "stop spending" plank is questionable without actual suggestions as to how one goes about doing this. Which makes the wisdom of extending deficit-financed tax cuts indefinitely questionable as well.
I just saw some tea party chick interviewed on Foxnews; she said the tea party wants to return this country to fiscal responsibility,
like it was under Reagan in the 80's!!
too funny. Just proves though that the Reagan myth is alive and well to anyone who's too young and/or too ignorant to know the truth.
on social security
We had one.
Guess what president it was.
Step one: stop starting wars
Which Tea Party? The corporate Republican one led by politicians and corporations (circa 2009) or the one with a strong libertarian anti-war anti-big brother anti-George Bush message (circa 2007)?
The morons bitch about spending and deficits but love their Medicare part D
Separate names with a comma.