Serious question for "Tea Partiers"

[SourD]

Originally Posted by Old Gringo

The tea party is a bunch of white middle class retirees trying to get the public to feel sorry for their terrible plight.

Hey Gringo, don't sound so old... ... I would consider myself a TP'er in many of their principles. I would also like to see the cuts mentioned in the OP. Our Govt. is getting ripped off. Errrrrrrrrr, the tax payer is getting ripped off. The Govt. let's it happen... Shhhhhh. Don't tell anyone.

[parfleche]

Seniors have paid into SS and medicare all their lives. unlike the young alcoholics and drug addicts that live off it but turn around and complain about the elderly getting it in their old age. I know 3 young adults within 4 blocks of my house on SSD cause they are drunks and drug users and therefore can collect. This must end now. the young complainers living off the elderly and what they paid for all their lives Gosh do you really think the old person collecting 900 a month is killing you when there are 20 year olds collecting 1200 a month on UE and demanding more? shame on those young leeches

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by Old Gringo

The tea party is a bunch of white middle class retirees trying to get the public to feel sorry for their terrible plight.

If you are going to play the race card instead of discussing the issues why are you here?
The people you support have brought this nation to its knees with its out of control spending and economic manipulation. It's time to wake up and stop the theft.

reduce the debt, smaller Federal government

[geofra]

Originally Posted by Ferd

While I get the accusatory nature of the post, you do actually hit on something that is fundamental to the debate.

Each side has a sacred cow. And then there are the “third rail” issues.

For conservatives defense spending is going to be a hard sell to cut. Especially while in the middle of a couple of wars.
For liberals any discretionary spending is a hard sell. That includes traditional welfare spending and other areas like EPA etc…

Then there are the “third rail” issues. It used to be Social Security but now it is all of the mandates. Medicare and Medicaid as well as Social Security are such hot potatoes that anyone who talks about touching them the other side starts yelling.

That puts us in a real mess. Every item is someone’s sacred political cow.


But what those of us on the right who are serious about cutting the spending are saying is that we just have to cut. Not silly little minor cuts like President Obama offered with the pay freeze for federal workers but real deep-use-a-chainsaw type cutting until we have reached a place where we are spending less than we are bringing in type cutting.

If we don’t we are in serious trouble. We cannot raise taxes to get out of this mess. We cannot continue down the road we are on where taxes are fairly low and yet we are still spending like drunken sailors… (I should know I used to be a drunken sailor).

Cutting cannot be “lets start with your sacred cow. It has to be cut everything until we have reached sanity levels.

Then and only then can we look at what we are doing and decide if we need more/less spending and more/less taxes.

Another fundamental issue to the debate that the OP touches is how to deal with the effects of big cuts to defense and entitlements.

What if big defense cuts entail closing some domestic military bases? What contingency should be provided for the unemployed which that action will create?

The same can be said about the effects of social security and medicare benefit cuts.

Large cuts in spending are necessary, but what are the plans to deal with the consequences of large cuts?

[geofra]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

Defense spending is one of the most legitimate budget items, since the primary purpose of the Federal government is the common defense.

We should have the best and most advanced weapons that our technology can provide That is what keeps us free. Why do you people always want to cut defense?

One issue is that not only do we defend our freedom, but we defend most of the world's freedoms. Maybe they are grown up enough to take care of themselves.

Another issue, do we need a military base in just about every Congressional district to defend our freedom? The network of military bases seem more like a drift net than a protective shell.

[nycwind]

Originally Posted by geofra

One issue is that not only do we defend our freedom, but we defend most of the world's freedoms. Maybe they are grown up enough to take care of themselves.

Another issue, do we need a military base in just about every Congressional district to defend our freedom? The network of military bases seem more like a drift net than a protective shell.

Exactly. We can easily defend ourselves and more with 1/4th the military with an emphasis on more advanced weapons and tactics. Plus you always have nukes as a deterrent.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by nycwind

So are you ready to face the wrath of seniors and dump them on the street by cutting their social security and medicare benefits? How about in a time of crisis we ALL sacrifice including the wealthy by giving up a measly few percentage points in tax cuts? Why should the middle class bear the brunt of deficit reduction when they are the ones most hurt by any cut? The value of a thousand dollars is far greater to a person making 40K than to a person making 400K. Why should hedge fund managers continue to be taxed at a capital gains rate on their income? WHY SHOULD THE RICH NOT SACRIFICE AS WELL TO PRESERVE A COUNTRY AND A SYSTEM THAT HAS GIVEN THEM SO MUCH?

Because the US does not own it's citizens. Quit calling for the theft of peoples money for your causes.
We know tax increases DO NOT reduce the debt. How could they? Government workers are compensated almost twice as much as the private sector and is not nearly as efficient. When you rob from Peter to give to Paul you will always have Paul on your side.

Reduce the size of our overreaching, inefficient Federal Government to reduce the debt.