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.
It seems to me that most of the TP recommendations are either purely ideological (no taxes ever!), or misguided ( slash the deficit on strongly partisan lines). None of these make any sense with the economy in the tank. It all comes across as scorched earth tactics to appease their funders and to sabotage Obama. As it stands they look like ridiculous corporate lapdogs, not true leaders.
How about if the compromise with Obama on the tax levels, debt ceiling, and bipartisan spending cuts, but shift their attention to the balanced budget amendment in 2012. If they could pull that off, they might tick off guys like Grover Norquist (no taxes ever), but they would come over as really pushing for a long-term, pay as you go, way of funding the government. That would be a huge accomplishment, as neither the Bush era Republicans nor the Obama Democrats would have ever done it. I would think it would make them look pretty good, just as the current debacle makes them look very bad.
It seems to me that most of the TP recommendations are either purely ideological (no taxes ever!), or misguided ( slash the deficit on strongly partisan lines). None of these make any sense with the economy in the tank. It all comes across as scorched earth tactics to appease their funders and to sabotage Obama. As it stands they look like ridiculous corporate lapdogs, not true leaders.
How about if the compromise with Obama on the tax levels, debt ceiling, and bipartisan spending cuts, but shift their attention to the balanced budget amendment in 2012. If they could pull that off, they might tick off guys like Grover Norquist (no taxes ever), but they would come over as really pushing for a long-term, pay as you go, way of funding the government. That would be a huge accomplishment, as neither the Bush era Republicans nor the Obama Democrats would have ever done it. I would think it would make them look pretty good, just as the current debacle makes them look very bad.
We do NOT need any tax increases.
Obama has INCREASED spending by $4 trillion. Cut the budget back to prior to those increases and cut useless programs (Read the post about Sen. Tom Coburn's list of programs) and really look at waste, fraud, and abuse.
We have enough tax revenues. We just need to spend it wisely.
Tea party is attempting a government coup through the medium of government finance. Tea party has always been for shutting down the government or reducing it to an ineffective level. Any political movement that requires signed pledges to be a member has foundational fascist tendencies.
With my tin-foil hat firmly in place I project the following........
Tea party members will vote down any and all bills that will allow congress to raise the debt ceiling. They want to force President Obama to use the "Nuclear Option" of raising the debt ceiling by executive order, Tea Party will then challenge the executive order saying it is unconstitutional, thereby creating a constitutional crisis and attempting to remove Obama through the courts. At a minimum this constitutional challenge will distract the voters from the real issues for the 2012 election. If Obama signs an executive order raising the debt ceiling(which he will have to do), then it's a win-win for the tea party. This is really their attempt to perform a coup and take over the government. That's what I think.
Obama has INCREASED spending by $4 trillion. Cut the budget back to prior to those increases and cut useless programs (Read the post about Sen. Tom Coburn's list of programs) and really look at waste, fraud, and abuse.
We have enough tax revenues. We just need to spend it wisely.
We have enough tax revenues? Really?
Currently the tax revenue per GDP is 16.1%
Under:
Reagan 18.2%
Bush I 17.9%
Clinton 19.1%
Bush Jr. 18.0%
Taxes Revenues were higher under every other president in the past 20 years.
Your problem is that Bush and the Republicans never paid down the debt when they had the chance. We were on track to pay off $5 trillion in debt by 2010, instead Bush spent an extra $7 trillion of money which is a $12 trillion shift.
The Republican Party even takes responsibility for this mess, even though they won't admit it.
The 2008 Republican Party Platform:
The last thing Americans need right now is tax hikes. On the federal level, Republicans lowered taxes in 2001 and 2003 in order to encourage economic growth, put more money in the pockets of every taxpayer, and make the system fairer. It worked. If Congress had then controlled its spending, we could have done even more.
Who controlled Congress from 2001-2006?
Republicans are so dumb and brainwashed that they don't realize they could of had even FURTHER tax cuts had the Republicans in Congress had "controlled its spending."
Reagan 18.2%
Bush I 17.9%
Clinton 19.1%
Bush Jr. 18.0%
Taxes Revenues were higher under every other president in the past 20 years.
Your problem is that Bush and the Republicans never paid down the debt when they had the chance. We were on track to pay off $5 trillion in debt by 2010, instead Bush spent an extra $7 trillion of money which is a $12 trillion shift.
The Republican Party even takes responsibility for this mess, even though they won't admit it.
The 2008 Republican Party Platform:
The last thing Americans need right now is tax hikes. On the federal level, Republicans lowered taxes in 2001 and 2003 in order to encourage economic growth, put more money in the pockets of every taxpayer, and make the system fairer. It worked. If Congress had then controlled its spending, we could have done even more.
Who controlled Congress from 2001-2006?
Republicans are so dumb and brainwashed that they don't realize they could of had even FURTHER tax cuts had the Republicans in Congress had "controlled its spending."
It seems to me that most of the TP recommendations are either purely ideological (no taxes ever!), or misguided ( slash the deficit on strongly partisan lines). None of these make any sense with the economy in the tank. It all comes across as scorched earth tactics to appease their funders and to sabotage Obama. As it stands they look like ridiculous corporate lapdogs, not true leaders.
How about if the compromise with Obama on the tax levels, debt ceiling, and bipartisan spending cuts, but shift their attention to the balanced budget amendment in 2012. If they could pull that off, they might tick off guys like Grover Norquist (no taxes ever), but they would come over as really pushing for a long-term, pay as you go, way of funding the government. That would be a huge accomplishment, as neither the Bush era Republicans nor the Obama Democrats would have ever done it. I would think it would make them look pretty good, just as the current debacle makes them look very bad.
IMO, the main push for the Tea Parties "No new taxes" pledge is because they don't trust the president, the house or the senate to actually live within their means and cut spending to a level that is sustainable. Nor do they believe the promises they make. We spend what, $3.7 trillion a year...and they want more money to pizz away? I understand the TPs feelings-cut spending!
Here's a proposal for you.
Start with our current year's spending. It's a record, this is a gift for Dems as a baseline. I believe it's about $3.7T. Prove we are serious about cutting spending by, oh, doing so, instead of talking about it. At the end of the following year, see how much below $3.7T the government's spending is. Raise taxes by 25% of what was reduced the preceeding year.
Obama's bullchit "we'll cut spending by $4 trillion if you increas taxes by $1T is a lie to the American people, and no one is calling him on it. He proposes cuts in his pipedream of increased spending (a reduction of the increase) for the next 10 years, with none to take place till he is out of office. But wants tax increases immediately. OBAMA'S PLAN WOULD CONTINUE TO INCREASE SPENDING EVERY YEAR. His talk of cuts is a lie. But many will fall for it. Including, it seems, the compromisers on the "gang of 6".
Edit to add-no this isn't all Obama's fault, the Rs in congress and Bush were just as guilty earlier in the decade, as has been every other admin and pres for what, the last 60 years? They all lie! That is why the Tea Party isn't loved much more by Republicans in power than they are by the Dems. If anything, the RINOs hate them more, for calling them on their lies and hyprocasy.
Well, I do think the TP are trying for a coup, preying on this crisis to undermine Obama. I thiink most Americans share Mohaukx view on this. They will be drop kicked in 2012 at current rates. The power grab is completely transparent. I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
I realize plenty of people want no tax raises. However, we cannot honor our current commitments with the unsustainably low tax rates we have now. And slashing the government will do nothing to help us out of this recession. I don't share this view, and a good number of Americans share my view, so a no new taxes /slash the government in a recession is really a minority view for our society. I think everyone has gotten so sensitive about taxes it is just ridiculous. We should run our government at between 18% and 22% of GDP. No big whoop. Nobody is going for 30% tax rates or anything. But 16% with two wars going, huge public benefits, bailouts, and an impending boomer retirement crisis just makes no sense whatsoever.
I share Toyman's view. BOTH parties lie, because that gets them elected. But it is bad governance. Accumulating debt will bankrupt this country, and both parties do it.That we can agree on, right? A balanced budget keeps one administration from undermining its successors. For instance, Bush IIs disastrous policies are undermining Obama, and it appears that some of Obama's policies will pass the buck to those in the future. So, if the TP folks were really fiscal conservatives rather than aggressive social conservatives attempting a power grab, they would argue for the long-term solution rather than the short-term, super partisan approach. Arguing for such a long-term solution f for government solvency would earn the TPers a place in history rather than in infamy.
...I share Toyman's view. BOTH parties lie, because that gets them elected. But it is bad governance. Accumulating debt will bankrupt this country, and both parties do it.That we can agree on, right? A balanced budget keeps one administration from undermining its successors. For instance, Bush IIs disastrous policies are undermining Obama, and it appears that some of Obama's policies will pass the buck to those in the future. So, if the TP folks were really fiscal conservatives rather than aggressive social conservatives attempting a power grab, they would argue for the long-term solution rather than the short-term, super partisan approach. Arguing for such a long-term solution f for government solvency would earn the TPers a place in history rather than in infamy.
I think that most people will agree that balancing the budget is necessary. If not immediately, in the near future. And I think the bulk of the population is waking up to the fact that both parties lie, and hand out "goodies", paid for by the taxpayer, in return for votes. I also think that most people believe that congress and the pres can not be trusted to balance a budget and must be forced to do so. The balanced budget amenedment is the tool to ensure that happens.
I am not opposed to limited tax increases, as long as they are done fairly. I don't think rates on the highest incomes must be raised, but would support limited cuts in allowable deductions. Much as it would hurt, we perhaps need to roll back more of the Bush tax cuts. The lowest tax bracket was cut by a full 33 percent, with smaller cuts across the board. Perhaps each needs to be increased by say half of what they were cut.
However, before I would support such a move, I want to see real, demonstrated cuts in SPENDING. We don't have a revenue problem as such, we have a spending problem. Make some real reductions in spending, not the BS cuts in the projected increases in spending. That is nothing more than an attempt to deceive the American people.
Reagan 18.2%
Bush I 17.9%
Clinton 19.1%
Bush Jr. 18.0%
Taxes Revenues were higher under every other president in the past 20 years.
Your problem is that Bush and the Republicans never paid down the debt when they had the chance. We were on track to pay off $5 trillion in debt by 2010, instead Bush spent an extra $7 trillion of money which is a $12 trillion shift.
The Republican Party even takes responsibility for this mess, even though they won't admit it.
The 2008 Republican Party Platform:
The last thing Americans need right now is tax hikes. On the federal level, Republicans lowered taxes in 2001 and 2003 in order to encourage economic growth, put more money in the pockets of every taxpayer, and make the system fairer. It worked. If Congress had then controlled its spending, we could have done even more.
Who controlled Congress from 2001-2006?
Republicans are so dumb and brainwashed that they don't realize they could of had even FURTHER tax cuts had the Republicans in Congress had "controlled its spending."
You are wrong on several counts but, since you want to revert to usual liberal insults, I will not engage with you.
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.
