Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not at all...i get it over the long run. I get what you're "about"...but if one of you were in power on January 20, 2009, what exactly would have happened to correct a crisis that was spiraling out of control on a minute by minute basis?
Is the answer, tax breaks for the rich? (which also have to be paid for)....or what? I just don't see that as a valid game plan faced with what we were facing.
What?? Who said anything about giving tax breaks to the rich? There are ways to stimulate the economy by giving tax breaks to small business (who employ the vast majority of americans), but that does not equate to giving rich people a free ride. That's not what TP movement is about at. all.
That was in the answer you got like I said you wish to ignore it. Who said tax breaks for the rich. But how many jobs have you gotten from a poor man?
How many jobs are you getting now that the business are leaving to go over seas because the taxes arent as high so the cost of running that company isnt as high plus labor is cheaper
So like I said you've gotten the answers you just wish to ignore them because they arent the answer you wanted.
why do you assume it's "not the answer (I) wanted"? I am an independent, I cannot be labeled, I am not partisan, I have no agenda, I vote for the person who i think can be most effective, but it's a poor choice we have for sure. Its not that the answer wasn't what I "want", it's that in my rational mind, that doesn't solve the crisis. Sorry. Call me not convinced.
We shall have to agree to disagree.
What?? Who said anything about giving tax breaks to the rich? There are ways to stimulate the economy by giving tax breaks to small business (who employ the vast majority of americans), but that does not equate to giving rich people a free ride. That's not what TP movement is about at. all.
OK again...one last time for emphasis. On January 20, 2009, what would you, as a tea party member, have done to solve the crisis? Right then and there, can you lay out your strategy, long and short term? I just want to understand, Scully
OK again...one last time for emphasis. On January 20, 2009, what would you, as a tea party member, have done to solve the crisis? Right then and there, can you lay out your strategy, long and short term? I just want to understand, Scully
And I (and others) have answered. For one, I would not have passed that huge pork-laden stimulus bill (what have we gotten for that other than increased unemployment and more debt?), nor any of the bailouts. Let the failing companies fail. There was a reason they were failing and that's because of a failing business plan... let them go through (albeit painful) restructuring and come out stronger. I would have looked for ways to CUT spending while stimulating the economy in a fiscally conservative and responsible way.... like tax incentives for small businesses. I would not be pushing for a HUGE new entitlement program (AKA health care reform), that will further cripple our economy and increase taxes and federal deficits, as well as cripple state budgets whom will have to pay for medicare expansion (with the exception of Nebraska, thank you dumdum Nelson). I would not expand the growth of the federal government at a time when revenues to the federal government are at an all-time low. The only sector of the economy expanding is GOVERNMENT. I would not resort to spend, borrow, spend, print money, spend, borrow more, spend spend spend. All those actions have ramifications that we are going to feel very soon. When your $3.00 can no longer buy a loaf of bread, you will begin to understand that inflation is the direct result result of printing money.
Hope that answers some of your questions. We are not the party of "NO", the libs just don't like ideas that don't include spending our way out of debt. How moronic is that? Who, when facing bankruptcy, decides that spending more money makes sense?
Now please find the signs that tea party members are holding that incites violence to the President at the time Bush that compares to the ones I posted above please
And that is just the icing on the cake to the ones that can be found about Bush
One difference is that Bush actually WAS responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands people. Obama so far has not invaded any random countries to avenge his pappy.
However, that's besides the point. You can call the people in your pics whatever names you like. I'll still keep calling teabaggers, teabaggers.
why do you assume it's "not the answer (I) wanted"? I am an independent, I cannot be labeled, I am not partisan, I have no agenda, I vote for the person who i think can be most effective, but it's a poor choice we have for sure. Its not that the answer wasn't what I "want", it's that in my rational mind, that doesn't solve the crisis. Sorry. Call me not convinced.
We shall have to agree to disagree.
Lets make it simple
Company A has to pay say 50% ( not real just an example) taxes in America
Same company only has to pay 10% taxes in say India what country do you think they are going to go to?
Its not complex give business tax breaks and a reason to stay in this country and there will be jobs for people in this country.
People in this country have to give some also. They cant keep going the way they are living off credit cards and not within their means.
One difference is that Bush actually WAS responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands people. Obama so far has not invaded any random countries to avenge his pappy.
However, that's besides the point. You can call the people in your pics whatever names you like. I'll still keep calling teabaggers, teabaggers.
No doubt there is threats against Obama but we are talking about tea party members here. Your claim was that Tea party members was inciting violence against the president and I am waiting to see you actually back that up. I am waiting for you to show me 1 sign from a tea party member that compares to the ones I posted. I'll be waiting
Psst there were many threats against Bush also
Hey you can be a hypocrite all you like. Thats on you
And I (and others) have answered. For one, I would not have passed that huge pork-laden stimulus bill (what have we gotten for that other than increased unemployment and more debt?), nor any of the bailouts. Let the failing companies fail. There was a reason they were failing and that's because of a failing business plan... let them go through (albeit painful) restructuring and come out stronger. I would have looked for ways to CUT spending while stimulating the economy in a fiscally conservative and responsible way.... like tax incentives for small businesses. I would not be pushing for a HUGE new entitlement program (AKA health care reform), that will further cripple our economy and increase taxes and federal deficits, as well as cripple state budgets whom will have to pay for medicare expansion (with the exception of Nebraska, thank you dumdum Nelson). I would not expand the growth of the federal government at a time when revenues to the federal government are at an all-time low. The only sector of the economy expanding is GOVERNMENT. I would not resort to spend, borrow, spend, print money, spend, borrow more, spend spend spend. All those actions have ramifications that we are going to feel very soon. When your $3.00 can no longer buy a loaf of bread, you will begin to understand that inflation is the direct result result of printing money.
Hope that answers some of your questions. We are not the party of "NO", the libs just don't like ideas that don't include spending our way out of debt. How moronic is that? Who, when facing bankruptcy, decides that spending more money makes sense?
ok so you have a pretty purist view...but how do you think the American people would react to 20%+ unemployment? The fundamental problem is that if you want business to grow, you've got to first get people to spend and we are not going to do that if we're unemployed. So what comes first? The chicken or the egg? It's not an easy question and I most certainly don't have the answer.
You say it will be "painful", but I think it would have been catastrophic. I am in total agreement that pork has no place in our government, but alas, that is how the system is and apparently no one can change that. With respect to healthcare, I do think it needs fixing, but I agree, timing is an issue.
ok so you have a pretty purist view...but how do you think the American people would react to 20%+ unemployment? The fundamental problem is that if you want business to grow, you've got to first get people to spend and we are not going to do that if we're unemployed. So what comes first? The chicken or the egg? It's not an easy question and I most certainly don't have the answer.
You say it will be "painful", but I think it would have been catastrophic. I am in total agreement that pork has no place in our government, but alas, that is how the system is and apparently no one can change that. With respect to healthcare, I do think it needs fixing, but I agree, timing is an issue.
Not to hijack the thread, but many reforms to our current health system can be made without enacting a huge new entitlement program (tort reform, increase competition between ins co's, truly investigate and work on medicare fraud just to name a few). These wouldn't have added to our federal deficit, nor would it have increased taxes. As it stands, the current bill doesn't even accomplish what it set out to do... insure all the uninsured. It's a failure of a bill, to put it mildly.
And who is to say that we don't actually have 20% unemployment now? I think if you include the longterm unemployed, the underemployed, and those that have simply given up, we would see a much different number than the 10% we are being told. I have very little faith that the stimulus bill actually had any effect on unemployment. I don't think even half of it has been spent yet, and we got an additional 2% uptick in unemployment from the half that has been spent.
Where you may think it would have been catastrophic to not do the stimulus bill, I feel that the stimulus bill (and all other pork spending) is in and of itself catastrophic. We haven't felt the brunt of it yet, but rest assured that we will.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
