What the TEA Parties Want...

[Samson]

[4. The TP needs to be specific about what runaway government spending they want ended. Social Security, Defense, Medicare, Veterans benefits....are they on the table? or only programs that help poor people?

None of those things are on the table for most tea partiers. And when you add interest on the debt to that, which you can't take off the table, that's pretty much the budget.

The tea partiers are just an overexcited bunch of Republicans or Republican sympathizers who can't get over the fact that they lost a couple elections. They can dress it up in any costume they want but that's what they really are.

I'm sure you're correct to some extent, but I don't see many Republicans rushing to do anything the Tea Party is demanding. In fact, I see (and hear) Republican Talking Heads like Limbaugh denegrating anything that smacks of third party politics. Hannity seems to have drastically altered course, from sneering contempt of a third party to leg humping Palin during Tea Party Rallys.

Rather than waiting to see if the Tea Party will join Republicans, Republicans should join the Tea Party. Their own platform is so watered down with bullshit, half-assed typical beltway back scratching it needs more than reform, it needs burning.

 

[California Girl]

[What is wrong with having a balanced budget that is tied to the US income?

Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it. Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.

It would be hard. Not impossible. We used to be able to do hard. "We go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard". John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

When did we become a nation of whiners who want everything to be handed to them? We have to make hard decisions. We have to stop spending money we don't have. We really must not be mortgaging our country, and future generations, to other countries.

 

[VaYank5150]

THIS is the problem with the "movement". There are no specifics because they are so fractured, you cannot pin them down on the "how" part. They all agree they want less government spending. However, get 10 of them in a room together and ask "how" and you would probably end up with 10 different answers.

Obviously, neither of you bothered to read the specifics through the link.

It took VaYank a while just to work out that there WAS a link. You don't honestly expect them to read it, do you? Damn, they might actually agree with some of it! Too great a risk involved in being educated.

Clearly, certain posters struggle with the whole concept of a 'movement'.... clearly they need to spoon fed by others. Idiots.

Fair enough, Cali....can one of you "movement" people explain HOW you want these things accomplished.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[What is wrong with having a balanced budget that is tied to the US income?

Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it. Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.

It would be hard. Not impossible. We used to be able to do hard. "We go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard". John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

When did we become a nation of whiners who want everything to be handed to them? We have to make hard decisions. We have to stop spending money we don't have. We really must not be mortgaging our country, and future generations, to other countries.

Ok, I'm putting a 5% per year cut in defense spending, for 10 years, on the table. You accept that, and then you can put something on the table.

Go!

 

[Si modo]

[What is wrong with having a balanced budget that is tied to the US income?

Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it. Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.

Not impossible at all to balance the budget. It's been done.

 

[Samson]

[What is wrong with having a balanced budget that is tied to the US income?

Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it. Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.

Thus the need for a large groundswell of popular support for it.



Can we dance around in circles a little more? I need the exercise.

 

[California Girl]

[What is wrong with having a balanced budget that is tied to the US income?

Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it. Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.

Thus the need for a large groundswell of popular support for it.



Can we dance around in circles a little more: I need the exercise?

May I dance with you Samson?

 

[rightwinger]

Not too bad. However....

1. EVERYONE wants to protect the Constitution and the TP has not proven anything is un-constitutional

2. I see nothing about Social Security, Medicare or the Bush Prescription Drug plan....all of which represent a significant portion of our national debt. Is this just a case of "cut other peoples entitlements and don't touch mine"??

3. If you scream about a balanced budget why object to repealing the Bush tax cuts that added $2.5 trillion to national debt. Isn't a balanced budget balancing what you take in and what you spend?

4. The TP needs to be specific about what runaway government spending they want ended. Social Security, Defense, Medicare, Veterans benefits....are they on the table? or only programs that help poor people?

THIS is the problem with the "movement". There are no specifics because they are so fractured, you cannot pin them down on the "how" part. They all agree they want less government spending. However, get 10 of them in a room together and ask "how" and you would probably end up with 10 different answers.

Obviously, neither of you bothered to read the specifics through the link.

Yes, I did and it still does not address my concerns. I would never sign up to that. Primarily because it is too simplistic and does not address critical events like wars, economic collapse, national emergency
TP still avoids going after Social Security, Defense and Medicare which are the major budget items

 

[Samson]

Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it. Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.

Thus the need for a large groundswell of popular support for it.



Can we dance around in circles a little more: I need the exercise?

May I dance with you Samson?

 

[California Girl]

Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it. Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.

It would be hard. Not impossible. We used to be able to do hard. "We go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard". John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

When did we become a nation of whiners who want everything to be handed to them? We have to make hard decisions. We have to stop spending money we don't have. We really must not be mortgaging our country, and future generations, to other countries.

Ok, I'm putting a 5% per year cut in defense spending, for 10 years, on the table. You accept that, and then you can put something on the table.

Go!

I haven't looked at the defense budget but I would say 5% would be a conservative estimate on waste within it. We can cut crap out of that without doing impacting on the effectiveness or safety of our service personnel just by controlling the out of control spiraling costs etc.

The private sector see defense contracts as a cash cow. Control that, you got more than the 5%.

 

[Samson]

It would be hard. Not impossible. We used to be able to do hard. "We go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard". John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

When did we become a nation of whiners who want everything to be handed to them? We have to make hard decisions. We have to stop spending money we don't have. We really must not be mortgaging our country, and future generations, to other countries.

Ok, I'm putting a 5% per year cut in defense spending, for 10 years, on the table. You accept that, and then you can put something on the table.

Go!

I haven't looked at the defense budget but I would say 5% would be a conservative estimate on waste within it. We can cut crap out of that without doing impacting on the effectiveness or safety of our service personnel just by controlling the out of control spiraling costs etc.

The private sector see defense contracts as a cash cow. Control that, you got more than the 5%.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[What is wrong with having a balanced budget that is tied to the US income?

Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it. Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.

Thus the need for a large groundswell of popular support for it.



Can we dance around in circles a little more? I need the exercise.

The groundswell is not real. There is no groundswell for cutting defense, SS, Medicare. There is no groundswell, obviously, for raising taxes as the alternative.

 

[Si modo]

THIS is the problem with the "movement". There are no specifics because they are so fractured, you cannot pin them down on the "how" part. They all agree they want less government spending. However, get 10 of them in a room together and ask "how" and you would probably end up with 10 different answers.

Obviously, neither of you bothered to read the specifics through the link.

Yes, I did and it still does not address my concerns. I would never sign up to that. Primarily because it is too simplistic and does not address critical events like wars, economic collapse, national emergency
TP still avoids going after Social Security, Defense and Medicare which are the major budget items

Yes, they are major budget concerns and the Tea Party does not exclude them as areas for solution. That is the beauty of simple and concise principles. It leaves room for many possible solutions as long as the first principle is adhered to. Balance the budget, just for example. This way, the principle is actually accomplished.

 

[Si modo]

Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it. Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.

Thus the need for a large groundswell of popular support for it.



Can we dance around in circles a little more? I need the exercise.

The groundswell is not real. There is no groundswell for cutting defense, SS, Medicare. There is no groundswell, obviously, for raising taxes as the alternative.

Cutting funding is not the only solution to balancing the budget.

I have no idea what 'the groudswell is not real' means and it appears that you are just typing nonsense for diversion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It would be hard. Not impossible. We used to be able to do hard. "We go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard". John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

When did we become a nation of whiners who want everything to be handed to them? We have to make hard decisions. We have to stop spending money we don't have. We really must not be mortgaging our country, and future generations, to other countries.

Ok, I'm putting a 5% per year cut in defense spending, for 10 years, on the table. You accept that, and then you can put something on the table.

Go!

I haven't looked at the defense budget but I would say 5% would be a conservative estimate on waste within it. We can cut crap out of that without doing impacting on the effectiveness or safety of our service personnel just by controlling the out of control spiraling costs etc.

The private sector see defense contracts as a cash cow. Control that, you got more than the 5%.

Politicians in Florida are throwing a fit that the NASA budget might get cut a little. Multiply that by a zillion and you get a picture of the defense industry. Almost every politician, right, center, or left, with defense related industries or bases in his district will fight against defense cuts that affect his district.

 

[Si modo]

Ok, I'm putting a 5% per year cut in defense spending, for 10 years, on the table. You accept that, and then you can put something on the table.

Go!

I haven't looked at the defense budget but I would say 5% would be a conservative estimate on waste within it. We can cut crap out of that without doing impacting on the effectiveness or safety of our service personnel just by controlling the out of control spiraling costs etc.

The private sector see defense contracts as a cash cow. Control that, you got more than the 5%.

Politicians in Florida are throwing a fit that the NASA budget might get cut a little. Multiply that by a zillion and you get a picture of the defense industry. Almost every politician, right, center, or left, with defense related industries or bases in his district will fight against defense cuts that affect his district.

Of course they will. But, the bigger picture is who supports balancing the budget. You get hung up on details where the bigger picture is the point.

The budget has already been balanced, so any claims that it can't be done are nonsense.

 

[Samson]

Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it. Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.

Thus the need for a large groundswell of popular support for it.



Can we dance around in circles a little more? I need the exercise.

The groundswell is not real. There is no groundswell for cutting defense, SS, Medicare. There is no groundswell, obviously, for raising taxes as the alternative.

Ah, I see, you are the arbitrator of What is REAL.

Well, I choose to not believe the Wizard of Oz.

Eventually, the curtain will be pulled away, one way or another, and the Bloated Deformity that the US Federal Government has become, will be exposed either before or after they are forced to balance a budget.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Of course they will. But, the bigger picture is who supports balancing the budget. You get hung up on details where the bigger picture is the point.

That's always the issue. Its also why nothing gets done. Talking higher principles is fine, but at some point you have to move on to specific details.

 

[Samson]

Of course they will. But, the bigger picture is who supports balancing the budget. You get hung up on details where the bigger picture is the point.

That's always the issue. Its also why nothing gets done. Talking higher principles is fine, but at some point you have to move on to specific details.

Interesting.

I wonder how my employer would react, if I told him that, well, I understand you need to balance your budget, and that this year I won't get a bonus, but I have my OWN budget, and, well, I need to talk to you about the details regarding the braces that my kid needs before you decide not to give out bonuses this year.

I suppose he would react: "OH MY GOD, SAMSON, we hadn't even considered those specific details!!! Well, There's clearly no way in hell you can cut your budget!!! We'll just need to make sure you get your bonus this year!!!"

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Of course they will. But, the bigger picture is who supports balancing the budget. You get hung up on details where the bigger picture is the point.

That's always the issue. Its also why nothing gets done. Talking higher principles is fine, but at some point you have to move on to specific details.

Interesting.

I wonder how my employer would react, if I told him that, well, I understand you need to balance your budget, and that this year I won't get a bonus, but I have my OWN budget, and, well, I need to talk to you about the details regarding the braces that my kid needs before you decide not to give out bonuses this year.

I suppose he would react: "OH MY GOD, SAMSON, we hadn't even considered those specific details!!! Well, There's clearly no way in hell you can cut your budget!!! We'll just need to make sure you get your bonus this year!!!"

Your analogy fails because your employer's budget is made by him, without the need to consult with you.

The Federal budget is made up by, and voted on by, the very folks that would have to accept a cut in Federal Monies. Federal Monies that fund jobs, hospitals, and other popular projects back home that get them elected.