A question for Dems about the TEA Party

[daveman]

Let me guess....it was Mitt who made the signs

Yup. I was right. You can't acknowledge a conservative's work for civil rights.

I don't think anybody here has said an unkind word about George. it's his worthless piece of trash son.

Let's ask Joe, shall we?

 

[rightwinger]

I'll guarantee he doesn't count George Romney:

How (George) Romney Championed Civil Rights and Challenged His Church - Edward J. Blum and Paul Harvey - The Atlantic

Let me guess....it was Mitt who made the signs

Yup. I was right. You can't acknowledge a conservative's work for civil rights.

Ummmm...hate to tell you

But George Romney was a LIBERAL Republican

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...a9eea0-2cf5-11e2-9ac2-1c61452669c3_story.html

Romney was a leader of the GOP’s then-sizable liberal-to-moderate wing. He was pro-business, chilly toward labor unions — and believed civil rights was both good policy and, for Republicans, good politics.

He fiercely resisted Barry Goldwater’s right-wing takeover of the party in 1964

 

[rightwinger]

Sorry, dood -- you called those who support the terrorists in the Muslim Brotherhood "patriots".

Well, in fairness, they might be...but just not patriotic towards America.

Daveman can't stop daving


Of course everyone knows Obama doesn't support the Muslim Brotherhood....but it is a good way to divert a thread

Alinsky has taught you well Comrade Dave

You've made an attempt to learn your lessons, but you SUCK at lying -- which is strange, since you get so much practice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/opinion/roger-cohen-working-with-the-muslim-brotherhood.html?_r=0

Perhaps the most radical change in U.S. foreign policy under President Obama has occurred here in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood, long shunned as a collection of dangerous Islamist extremists, is now the de facto object of American support.​

Biden Admits Obama is Arming Muslim Brotherhood to Take Over Syria

That Obama is arming and training, directly or indirectly, the Syrian rebels, would be an important revelation in and of itself. Biden’s dismissal of the UN, after years of Democratic whining about Bush’s unilateralism, should also excite comment, but most significantly Biden admits that our view of who should get them derives from the view of Turkey’s Islamist government and Saudi Arabia’s even more Islamist regime. Saudi Arabia is as bad as Pakistan and Turkey is being run by an Islamist party that is backing the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Syria. Both consider Hamas a legitimate group, and yet Obama has decided to make his plan for regime change in Syria subservient to what the Saudi and Turkish lobbies tell him to do.

This is near confirmation that Obama is arming and training the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Syria.​

Obama Prepares Huge Bailout for Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

The Obama administration is close to finalizing a massive $1-billion bailout for the increasingly totalitarian Muslim Brotherhood regime ruling over Egypt, according to U.S. government officials cited in news reports.​

Reality once again kicks RW's ass.

The Glenn Beck is strong in this one

Egypt Democtaticaly elected their government. The fact that it does not reflect your personal choice is irrelevant

 

[Pinocchio]

As the name denotes, the Tea Party is about colonial rights directed against the British empire and the strict interpretation of the original constitution.

We are not 50 different countries or colonies. We are one country, the USA. State rights is an outdated concept from the colonial and confederate era. The real force behind states rights is the old Dixiecrats and the preservation of slavery. If we put social security, medicare, medicaid, freedom of choice and protection of minority rights under the states, many states will gut these programs.

The purpose of the Fed is for the richer states to help the poorer states and keep the union strong. In the Eurozone, the different countries aren't uniform or have standards in their banking or country budgets and education. They are more focused on their own self national interests. That is why some like Greece and Spain are such a mess.

The Tea Party was willing to sink the American economy to get Obama out, ie willing to default on the debt and the resulting lower bond rating. These are not rational government reps or patriots of the US.

The constitution was fashioned as compromise to bring the colonies together, with states rights, slavery and no vote for women. The constitution is an evolving document that has been amended many times.

 

[Koios]

US Labor Against the War*:*THE COST OF U.S. OVERSEAS MILITARY BASES

Add that $125 billion with the hundreds of billions from the closing down/restructuring of all the unnecessary Cabinet Departments (Education, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, HUD, Agriculture).

Add in $70 billion in foreign aid...

$3 Billion to the UN

Now we're getting somewhere...

No argument. Just nowhere near enough to balance to avoid tax increases. Therein lies the rub.

Are you seeing?

Your better than halfway there and we still haven't talked about a DIME of the over $1 TRILLION we spend on welfare, or the $140 billion at the Department of Labor.

We can also discuss THIS...
$1 Trillion In Tax Loopholes : Planet Money : NPR

Another trillion there...

Welfare spending, FY2012, in the US (Fox News' fuzzy math notwithstanding) is not a Trillion Dollars. It's $438.5 Billion, and familes/children is only $104.1 Billion of that. Other costs under "Welfare" include Unemployment Insurance, Workers Comp, and Social Security Exclusions, etc.

Moreover, the flat-head, flat-earth Rightie flat-economics, is both simplistic and utterly ignorant of the relatonal aspects of modern economies. For example, cut $50 Billion in food aid, and it doesn't save $50 Billion. Losses of that much food sales has a huge economic impact on farms, transport, packaging, retail and more, all the way down the line. You simply cannot eliminate $50 Billion in food sales, and not have other impacts on the economy.

And to the Left, Right and Middle, we'd be nuts to think that our military is not multiples of what we need to be safe and defend ourselves. But it's our monster, which we created, and entire economies have been built up around it that depend on it: Base communites, defense contractors with huge, well-paid worker forces, and non-college-bound kids depend on it as an option. Cut even 10% of Defense Spending and a million or more jobs could be effected. Thus we'd raise the burden on Unemployment, Food Assistance, Crime Prevention / Criminal Justice and much more, all the way down the line. So we need to be very cautious in how we cut it, and what replaces it, in terms of meeting the needs resulting from the cuts.

The simple truth is, we have historically low taxes, which are too low to adequately fund the world's largest economy, which ours is. Taxes are less than under Kennedy, or even Reagan through most of his Admin, or Clinton, or even Bush 43. So taxes simply need to be raised back up to levels sufficient to fund what we've created, since if we do not, we'd plunge ourselves into recession and bring the world economy down with it.

Any who suggest otherwise, simply do not understand political economics.

 

[Koios]

We can also discuss THIS...
$1 Trillion In Tax Loopholes : Planet Money : NPR

Another trillion there...

Definitely worth discussing separately, since, in my opinion, it was perhaps the most comical of the assertions advanced by Romney in his losing campaign, which was not short on comedy.

In essence, while he'd lower tax rates, he'd also close loopholes so the same taxes would be paid. Really, Governor? Why go to all the trouble for zero net gain? Hmmm?

Answer: he knew it was hogwash. Taxes would be lowered, raising the deficit yet again, as a percentage of GDP, and few if any loopholes will be closed, since closing them requires Congressional approval. The very same Congress that created them in the first place, for special interests near and dear to many, which will not change. Maybe it's good for their districts, or they're a heavy contributor, or maybe the No-New-Taxes-Pledge lemmings will oppose them on principle, since closing a loophole = tax rate increase.

There is simply no magic wand to close loopholes, nor even the slightest grasp of them by average Americans. Rest assured while closing one loophole, tiny tidbits that no lay person could possibly understand, will create two new loopholes. Bet on it, just as "campaign finannce reform did little but open the floodgates to more and more unmitigated funding, in myriad and creative new ways.

Just raise taxes. Every diversionary tactic creates new and bigger problems. Fact. Just look back at you'll see.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No argument. Just nowhere near enough to balance to avoid tax increases. Therein lies the rub.

Are you seeing?

Your better than halfway there and we still haven't talked about a DIME of the over $1 TRILLION we spend on welfare, or the $140 billion at the Department of Labor.

We can also discuss THIS...
$1 Trillion In Tax Loopholes : Planet Money : NPR

Another trillion there...

Welfare spending, FY2012, in the US (Fox News' fuzzy math notwithstanding) is not a Trillion Dollars. It's $438.5 Billion, and familes/children is only $104.1 Billion of that. Other costs under "Welfare" include Unemployment Insurance, Workers Comp, and Social Security Exclusions, etc.

Moreover, the flat-head, flat-earth Rightie flat-economics, is both simplistic and utterly ignorant of the relatonal aspects of modern economies. For example, cut $50 Billion in food aid, and it doesn't save $50 Billion. Losses of that much food sales has a huge economic impact on farms, transport, packaging, retail and more, all the way down the line. You simply cannot eliminate $50 Billion in food sales, and not have other impacts on the economy.

And to the Left, Right and Middle, we'd be nuts to think that our military is not multiples of what we need to be safe and defend ourselves. But it's our monster, which we created, and entire economies have been built up around it that depend on it: Base communites, defense contractors with huge, well-paid worker forces, and non-college-bound kids depend on it as an option. Cut even 10% of Defense Spending and a million or more jobs could be effected. Thus we'd raise the burden on Unemployment, Food Assistance, Crime Prevention / Criminal Justice and much more, all the way down the line. So we need to be very cautious in how we cut it, and what replaces it, in terms of meeting the needs resulting from the cuts.

The simple truth is, we have historically low taxes, which are too low to adequately fund the world's largest economy, which ours is. Taxes are less than under Kennedy, or even Reagan through most of his Admin, or Clinton, or even Bush 43. So taxes simply need to be raised back up to levels sufficient to fund what we've created, since if we do not, we'd plunge ourselves into recession and bring the world economy down with it.

Any who suggest otherwise, simply do not understand political economics.

What's your source.
There is no such thing as taxes that are "too low"..Spending is always the problem. Cut spending FIRST..Then you may ask for more money.
Not before.

 

[Koios]

What's your source.
There is no such thing as taxes that are "too low"..Spending is always the problem. Cut spending FIRST..Then you may ask for more money.
Not before.

Source (scroll down the page about 1/3 of the way): US Welfare Budget: US Federal Budget FY11 Estimated Spending Breakdown - Pie Chart

Spending is the solution, whether as individuals or collectively through our government. Businesses that sell the stuff that's bought depend on it greatly.

Spending borrowed money is the problem, which we can eliminate by restoring sensible tax policy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

As the name denotes, the Tea Party is about colonial rights directed against the British empire and the strict interpretation of the original constitution.

We are not 50 different countries or colonies. We are one country, the USA. State rights is an outdated concept from the colonial and confederate era. The real force behind states rights is the old Dixiecrats and the preservation of slavery. If we put social security, medicare, medicaid, freedom of choice and protection of minority rights under the states, many states will gut these programs.

The purpose of the Fed is for the richer states to help the poorer states and keep the union strong. In the Eurozone, the different countries aren't uniform or have standards in their banking or country budgets and education. They are more focused on their own self national interests. That is why some like Greece and Spain are such a mess.

The Tea Party was willing to sink the American economy to get Obama out, ie willing to default on the debt and the resulting lower bond rating. These are not rational government reps or patriots of the US.

The constitution was fashioned as compromise to bring the colonies together, with states rights, slavery and no vote for women. The constitution is an evolving document that has been amended many times.

Hey genius, the reason why the Framers wrote the 10th Amendment was to keep the federal government from becoming too powerful.
Of course you libs who have a goal of all power and wealth going through the federal government would jump for glee if States had no rights. It would clear your path to an all powerful federal government. Well you can ******* FORGET IT.
As for the rest of your theories, they are just that.
Nowhere in that document is it mentioned where the so called "richer states" are supposed to "help" the poorer states. If that were true all 50 states would be equally fiscally balanced.
Let's look at oil rich North Dakota. If what you claim is true, the federal government would be taking the lion's share of wealth from that state and redistributing it to the other 49 states. Such is not the case. ND's economy is booming.
You really need to study your history. Read the US Constitution. Once you've done that, you earn the right to have an opinion.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What's your source.
There is no such thing as taxes that are "too low"..Spending is always the problem. Cut spending FIRST..Then you may ask for more money.
Not before.

Source (scroll down the page about 1/3 of the way): US Welfare Budget: US Federal Budget FY11 Estimated Spending Breakdown - Pie Chart

Spending is the solution, whether as individuals or collectively through our government. Businesses that sell the stuff that's bought depend on it greatly.

Spending borrowed money is the problem, which we can eliminate by restoring sensible tax policy.

HA! That is what is being done NOW. And there is another 6 trillion dollars that have been added to the debt.
No, government must get away from baseline budgeting and automatic spending increases.
Government needs to be restricted. Government should be limited by law to spending only what it takes in.
You people have to stop looking to government to do things for you. You have to start thinking and doing for yourselves.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What's your source.
There is no such thing as taxes that are "too low"..Spending is always the problem. Cut spending FIRST..Then you may ask for more money.
Not before.

Source (scroll down the page about 1/3 of the way): US Welfare Budget: US Federal Budget FY11 Estimated Spending Breakdown - Pie Chart

Spending is the solution, whether as individuals or collectively through our government. Businesses that sell the stuff that's bought depend on it greatly.

Spending borrowed money is the problem, which we can eliminate by restoring sensible tax policy.

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Social programs consume HALF of the federal budget.
That's enough. It's all you're going to get. If you want government to operate more efficiently, cut some the funding for social programs.
You will bleat "what are these people supposed to do?!!!!!!"..
Well the ones that are gaming the system, will just have to do the responsible thing.....find a ******* job.

 

[Koios]

What's your source.
There is no such thing as taxes that are "too low"..Spending is always the problem. Cut spending FIRST..Then you may ask for more money.
Not before.

Source (scroll down the page about 1/3 of the way): US Welfare Budget: US Federal Budget FY11 Estimated Spending Breakdown - Pie Chart

Spending is the solution, whether as individuals or collectively through our government. Businesses that sell the stuff that's bought depend on it greatly.

Spending borrowed money is the problem, which we can eliminate by restoring sensible tax policy.

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Social programs consume HALF of the federal budget.
That's enough. It's all you're going to get. If you want government to operate more efficiently, cut some the funding for social programs.
You will bleat "what are these people supposed to do?!!!!!!"..
Well the ones that are gaming the system, will just have to do the responsible thing.....find a ******* job.

Sorry; you're simply wrong, which can be frustrating. So I understand your anger.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Tom Delay

Ok..... Tom Daschle?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Source (scroll down the page about 1/3 of the way): US Welfare Budget: US Federal Budget FY11 Estimated Spending Breakdown - Pie Chart

Spending is the solution, whether as individuals or collectively through our government. Businesses that sell the stuff that's bought depend on it greatly.

Spending borrowed money is the problem, which we can eliminate by restoring sensible tax policy.

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Social programs consume HALF of the federal budget.
That's enough. It's all you're going to get. If you want government to operate more efficiently, cut some the funding for social programs.
You will bleat "what are these people supposed to do?!!!!!!"..
Well the ones that are gaming the system, will just have to do the responsible thing.....find a ******* job.

Sorry; you're simply wrong, which can be frustrating. So I understand your anger.

That's a fairly generalized statement.. care to provide details of exactly where he is wrong?

 

[Koios]

Here's why ...

Social Security and Medicare are things every worker pays into, and are entitled to vis a vis having paid into them. Ergo, "Entitlements."

Social welfare, or in essence, government assistance, is a relatively small percentage of the total budget, albeit much of non-defense discretionary spending.

 

[Koios]

That's a fairly generalized statement.. care to provide details of exactly where he is wrong?

^^^^ Work for ya?

 

[GuyPinestra]

No argument. Just nowhere near enough to balance to avoid tax increases. Therein lies the rub.

Are you seeing?

Your better than halfway there and we still haven't talked about a DIME of the over $1 TRILLION we spend on welfare, or the $140 billion at the Department of Labor.

We can also discuss THIS...
$1 Trillion In Tax Loopholes : Planet Money : NPR

Another trillion there...

Welfare spending, FY2012, in the US (Fox News' fuzzy math notwithstanding) is not a Trillion Dollars. It's $438.5 Billion, and familes/children is only $104.1 Billion of that. Other costs under "Welfare" include Unemployment Insurance, Workers Comp, and Social Security Exclusions, etc.

Moreover, the flat-head, flat-earth Rightie flat-economics, is both simplistic and utterly ignorant of the relatonal aspects of modern economies. For example, cut $50 Billion in food aid, and it doesn't save $50 Billion. Losses of that much food sales has a huge economic impact on farms, transport, packaging, retail and more, all the way down the line. You simply cannot eliminate $50 Billion in food sales, and not have other impacts on the economy.

And to the Left, Right and Middle, we'd be nuts to think that our military is not multiples of what we need to be safe and defend ourselves. But it's our monster, which we created, and entire economies have been built up around it that depend on it: Base communites, defense contractors with huge, well-paid worker forces, and non-college-bound kids depend on it as an option. Cut even 10% of Defense Spending and a million or more jobs could be effected. Thus we'd raise the burden on Unemployment, Food Assistance, Crime Prevention / Criminal Justice and much more, all the way down the line. So we need to be very cautious in how we cut it, and what replaces it, in terms of meeting the needs resulting from the cuts.

The simple truth is, we have historically low taxes, which are too low to adequately fund the world's largest economy, which ours is. Taxes are less than under Kennedy, or even Reagan through most of his Admin, or Clinton, or even Bush 43. So taxes simply need to be raised back up to levels sufficient to fund what we've created, since if we do not, we'd plunge ourselves into recession and bring the world economy down with it.

Any who suggest otherwise, simply do not understand political economics.

Ranking Member Sessions and the minority staff of the Senate Budget Committee requested from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) an overview of cumulative means-tested federal welfare spending in the United States in the most recent year for which data is available (fiscal year 2011). The results are staggering. CRS identified 83 overlapping federal welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011—more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these 80-plus federal welfare programs amounts to roughly $1.03 trillion. Importantly, these figures solely refer to means-tested welfare benefits. They exclude entitlement programs to which people contribute (e.g., Social Security and Medicare).

Total Welfare Spending Now at $1 Trillion - By NRO Staff - The Corner - National Review Online

You were saying?

 

[Koios]

Total Welfare Spending Now at $1 Trillion - By NRO Staff - The Corner - National Review Online

You were saying?

I was saying what was appropriated, in law, pursuant to the Constitution, for FY 2012, is not a Trillion as was asserted, orginally.

And a GOPnik-requested summary, we have not seen, and is only mentioned as saying $750 Billion Fed; $250 Billion States, seems a) questionable, and b) lumping state spending into Federal Government spending.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Total Welfare Spending Now at $1 Trillion - By NRO Staff - The Corner - National Review Online

You were saying?

I was saying what was appropriated, in law, pursuant to the Constitution, for FY 2012, is not a Trillion as was asserted, orginally.

And a GOPnik-requested summary, we have not seen, and is only mentioned as saying $750 Billion Fed; $250 Billion States, seems a) questionable, and b) lumping state spending into Federal Government spending.

So the CRS gives different answers depending on the party of the requester?

How much of that $750 billion do you think can be saved by eliminating 80-some overlapping programs?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Tell me Dante, what is it about that sign that bothers you?

Is it simply the use of the misspelled '******', or is it the correct observation that we are ALL slaves to the whims of an ever more powerful government?

ETA: Do you feel that the use of the term '******' in this instance is a racial one, or a comparative one?

Well said Guy.