So what exactly does the Tea Party want to cut?

[Pulsar]

Double post.

 

[Pulsar]

I did. They all say they are for "smaller government" and "more freedom"

From Christine O'Donnels website:

Believes jobs are created when businesses are freed from endless taxes and bureaucratic red tape.

Believes heaping trillions in debt on the backs of our grandchildren is immoral and that Congress is elected to make the hard choices to preserve our nation’s future prosperity.

Believes our country was founded on core values of faith, family and freedom and will fight to defend those values. Will always fight for maximum choice for parents about where to educate their kids, including private, parochial and charter schools or in the home.

Believes unrestrained government spending is eroding our freedom, destroying our economy and ceding our sovereignty to foreign debt-holders like China.

etc.

That's IT. Nothing about what she will cut.

Wow, you sure got me there techs. 10 seconds and one google search resulted in:

Demand a Balanced Budget amendment. (Jul 2010)
Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate. (Jul 2010)
Cancel unspent stimulus; freeze spending & hiring. (Oct 2010)
Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced. (Jul 2010)

Wow. 10 seconds and I found stuff you seem utterly incapable of funding. I wonder if that has anything to do with your political leaning?

 

[techs]

Wow, you sure got me there techs. 10 seconds and one google search resulted in:

Demand a Balanced Budget amendment. (Jul 2010)
Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate. (Jul 2010)
Cancel unspent stimulus; freeze spending & hiring. (Oct 2010)
Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced. (Jul 2010)

Wow. 10 seconds and I found stuff you seem utterly incapable of funding. I wonder if that has anything to do with your political leaning?

Huh. Not going to cut ONE program.
See, I told you.
Oh, and I went to her ACTUAL WEBSITE.

 

[Aegeon]

Wow, you sure got me there techs. 10 seconds and one google search resulted in:

Demand a Balanced Budget amendment. (Jul 2010)
Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate. (Jul 2010)
Economic recovery comes when government gets out of the way. (Oct 2010)
Cancel unspent stimulus; freeze spending & hiring. (Oct 2010)
Private sector solutions over growth of government. (Sep 2010)
Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced. (Jul 2010)

Wow. 10 seconds and I found stuff you seem utterly incapable of funding. I wonder if that has anything to do with your political leaning? Or maybe you just have a bad gene or two.

You failed to provide links clarifying who is saying these things for starters.

Obviously number two is not in any way shape or form a spending cut proposal, neither is the "private sector" talking point. (Both of them are also clearly extremely vague.)

The limit government spending growth to per-capital inflation rate is not a big deal since the US will almost certainly do that next year regardless of who is in power. (In the short term its more like a sounds good proposal which actually doesn't do anything.)

The only notable proposals are the remaining two. Canceling unspent stimulus funds would hurt the economy, and would potentially be simply stupid depending on how its implemented. (I.E. suddenly canceling projects mostly completed.) An outright government hiring freeze would also be extremely dumb since there are plenty of cases where someone with critical skills at an agency retires or finds another job, and they have to be replaced for the agency to function properly. In general, government hiring freezes sound allot better than they actually work in practice.

The earmark moratorium also is not actually a spending cut. The problem is in practice there would be other ways to achieve the same effect as earmarks even if they were actually banned. This is also an area where clearly plenty of incumbent Republicans will oppose really ending any way to effectively get earmarks into bills, so its clearly an area where nothing is really going to happen.

I will note that glaringly nothing you mentioned involved specific cuts to a program (since getting specific risks political consequences) and they all remained quite vague.

 

[techs]

Wow, you sure got me there techs. 10 seconds and one google search resulted in:

Demand a Balanced Budget amendment. (Jul 2010)
Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate. (Jul 2010)
Cancel unspent stimulus; freeze spending & hiring. (Oct 2010)
Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced. (Jul 2010)

Wow. 10 seconds and I found stuff you seem utterly incapable of funding. I wonder if that has anything to do with your political leaning?

You failed to provide links clarifying who is saying these things for starters.

Obviously number two is not in any way shape or form a spending cut proposal, neither is the "private sector" talking point. (Both of them are also clearly extremely vague.)

The limit government spending growth to per-capital inflation rate is not a big deal since the US will almost certainly do that next year regardless of who is in power. (In the short term its more like a sounds good proposal which actually doesn't do anything.)

The only notable proposals are the remaining two. Canceling unspent stimulus funds would hurt the economy, and would potentially be simply stupid depending on how its implemented. (I.E. suddenly canceling projects mostly completed.) An outright government hiring freeze would also be extremely dumb since there are plenty of cases where someone with critical skills at an agency retires or finds another job, and they have to be replaced for the agency to function properly. In general, government hiring freezes sound allot better than they actually work in practice.

The earmark moratorium also is not actually a spending cut. The problem is in practice there would be other ways to achieve the same effect as earmarks even if they were actually banned. This is also an area where clearly plenty of incumbent Republicans will oppose really ending any way to effectively get earmarks into bills, so its clearly an area where nothing is really going to happen.

I will note that glaringly nothing you mentioned involved specific cuts to a program (since get specific risks political consequences) and they all remained quite vague.

To add to Aegeon's fine points.
A hiring freeze? Yeah, that's stupid. If the Veterans Adminstration needs a specialist at a hospital they can't hire him? Even if they let go of a doctor in another less neeeded specialty? Or when an oil well blows out in the Gulf and the cleanup will take years they don't have a guy who has experience or knowledge in cleanup, they can't hire them? A hiring freeze just means more money for the "beltway bandits" who come in as "consultants" and make far more than you would pay some new employees.

As to limiting spending growth to per capita inflation, not only has Obama done that, if you don't count the bailout/stimulus, this is a form of PAYGO which the Republicans fought tooth and nail against. The only difference is that IF something important were needed you could authorize the funds BUT you either have to cut something else or specifically add a tax for it, forcing the public to see exactly what they were going to pay for.

Demand a balanced budget amendment? You do realize that the US couldn't get out of the Great Depression without increased government spending, right? I wonder if FDR could have done what he could to build up the military prior to WW2 if he had a balanced budget amendment? Of course, if you had to balance budget this year you would have to make huge cuts in programs. Which brings me back to the question of what do the Tea Baggers want to cut?

Private sector solutions over growth of government. (Sep 2010)
She must mean like California privatizing the electrical grid? That cost California as a state and its residents tens of billions of dollar up in smoke.
In fact, privatization of government services has an almost 100 percent failure rate. And of course, this doesn't save the government money, but costs it money. btw we are still seeing the fallout of Bushes idea to give churches money to run social programs. Seems a large amount of the money has gone missing or unaccounted for.

Moratorium on earmarks? As previously stated they can just be part of regular spending bills. Unless you are arguing for a unitary Presidency where the Congress just gives the President a set amount each year and the President decides where all the money goes? So, once again you have not come up with even ONE program.

The Tea Baggers problem is they have been whipped into a state of rage, exactly what at is different for alot of people.
You have your racists who joined the Tea Party because they hate a black President.
You have the super rich who see the Tea Party as a way to accumulate more wealth, at the expense of everyone else.
You have the right wing propaganda victims who spend every waking minute listening to Fox news, Rush Limbaugh, etc with their carefully crafted propaganda telling them their country is in danger. And that instead of actually making a sacrifice like buying a smaller car, paying more in taxes, etc they can go to a rally and blame their problems on liberals.
You have the losers who didn't get a good education who are so insecure they can't stand it when smart, educated people try and explain complex problems and solutions, so they hate these people and want to destroy them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

They probably hope your keyboard breaks.

 

[techs]

They probably hope your keyboard breaks.

Unlike most tea baggers I have an education and run a successful business.
I have 5 personal computers and at least three extra keyboards.
So, if I were going to go to a protest march I could use spell check so I wouldn't look like a fool like many of the tea baggers.

And, I would have realized right away that calling yourself a tea bagger was, well, major LULZ.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

The small government chant is a great one when you don't actually have to propose how you are going to do it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Unlike most tea baggers I have an education and run a successful business.
I have 5 personal computers and at least three extra keyboards.
So, if I were going to go to a protest march I could use spell check so I wouldn't look like a fool like many of the tea baggers.

And, I would have realized right away that calling yourself a tea bagger was, well, major LULZ.

So you think they are idiots. Ok, I get that, but whether or not you realize it you perseverate in going over it a lot recently. Is the coming election?

Seriously, post all you like, but there's a saturation limit as to what anyone can feel. It's like Palin. I'm sure I don't think anything more of her than you do, however I'm thinking that oh, a dozen threads on her would get boring to do.

Feel free to carry on though

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Unlike most tea baggers I have an education and run a successful business.
I have 5 personal computers and at least three extra keyboards.
So, if I were going to go to a protest march I could use spell check so I wouldn't look like a fool like many of the tea baggers.

And, I would have realized right away that calling yourself a tea bagger was, well, major LULZ.

Yet you post like a raving idiot.........I'm beginning to believe that those Teabaggers are in control of your emotions.

 

[dali71]

Has anyone determined how much government revenue from income taxes has been lost from all the good jobs that went to China because of the punitive corporate tax rates in the US???

fixed

 

[techs]

Originally Posted by techs
Has anyone determined how much government revenue from income taxes has been lost from all the good jobs that went to China because of the punitive corporate tax rates in the US???

fixed

You are aware that most US corporations don't pay any tax, and that whether a US corporation makes a product in the US or China and sells it in the US the corporate tax in the US applies so your argument is completely false.

 

[senseamp]

Was reading in local newspaper today about some ice cream shop that got started using small business loans under the stimulus. Teabaggers would cut those, stimulus is evil.

 

[techs]

Was reading in local newspaper today about some ice cream shop that got started using small business loans under the stimulus. Teabaggers would cut those, stimulus is evil.

Why do the Tea Baggers hate ice cream?

 

[matt0611]

Was reading in local newspaper today about some ice cream shop that got started using small business loans under the stimulus. Teabaggers would cut those, stimulus is evil.

Thats awesome what would we ever do without the government? There were no ice cream shops before the stimulus, and now we have ice cream, thank you government overlords, you have provided us with great rewards. Ice cream, yum yum.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Has anyone determined how much government revenue from income taxes has been lost from all the good jobs that went to China???

Less than what our federal government gives them straight-up in aid every year?

 

[techs]

Has anyone determined how much government revenue from income taxes has been lost from all the good jobs that went to China???

Less than what our federal government gives them straight-up in aid every year?

Would you please explain that? Are you referring to US aid to China? Or are you referring to aid that the unemployed and underemployed people who lost their jobs get from the US government?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Would you please explain that? Are you referring to US aid to China? Or are you referring to aid that the unemployed and underemployed people who lost their jobs get from the US government?

Well, there's only one "them" in your original post - China.

 

[techs]

You guys keep bringing up the Bush tax cuts. Most agree that it has cost us $100 billion a year for the past 10 years. Obama is adding MORE THAN that much PER YEAR for the past 2 years. Ok, retroactively repeal the Bush tax cuts. Our national debt is now 13 trillion instead of 14? Oh boy, THAT really helped.

And for all that spending we get 2% growth? A trillion+ more per year than Bush and we get 2%?

http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm


• Over the ten-year period, the richest Americans—the best-off one percent—are slated to receive tax cuts totaling almost half a trillion dollars. The $477 billion in tax breaks the Bush administration has targeted to this elite group will average $342,000 each over the decade. •

By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers.


• Although the rich have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts—averaging just under $12,000 each this year—80 percent of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won’t take effect until after this year, mostly from items that phase in after 2005.
• In contrast, the vast majority of taxpayers have already received most of their tax cuts from the 2001 legislation.

And, this doesn't take into account the debt interest on the debt over the decades it will take to pay it off.

 

[Pulsar]

Originally Posted by techs
Has anyone determined how much government revenue from income taxes has been lost from all the good jobs that went to China because of the punitive corporate tax rates in the US???





You are aware that most US corporations don't pay any tax, and that whether a US corporation makes a product in the US or China and sells it in the US the corporate tax in the US applies so your argument is completely false.

Most US corporatations don't pay any tax? What the FUCK are you smoking?

 

[techs]

Most US corporatations don't pay any tax? What the FUCK are you smoking?

Are you looking to make a bet?
Oh, who am I kidding. You have to be right. After all, you are an educated man of the world, right?

WRONG

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes

(Reuters) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.


http://boomersurvive-thriveguide.ty...2009/04/many-corporations-dont-pay-taxes.html

From 1998 to 2005, about two-thirds of corporations operating in the United States didn’t pay taxes annually, according to a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

 

[Pens1566]

The small government chant is a great one when you don't actually have to propose how you are going to do it.

^ This. They will never name any one specific thing they will cut from the federal budget. They'll mumble something about bailouts/stimulus/socialism, but can't come up with one concrete example of something that should be cut.

 

[matt0611]

^ This. They will never name any one specific thing they will cut from the federal budget. They'll mumble something about bailouts/stimulus/socialism, but can't come up with one concrete example of something that should be cut.

- ~10% cut in defense spending
- cut in federal government salaries
- cut / phase out pensions from what can be done legally
- cut the number of government employees in general
- phase out of medicaid over time
- phase out of SS over time (increase retirement, reduce benefits etc), move to an optional private personal 401k system perhaps
- cut foreign aid to all countries
- cut aid that goes from the feds to states
- cut money that goes to fighting the war on drugs
- get rid of federal departments that have no purpose (Department of Education comes to mind)
- cut subsidies to all industries
- cut unneeded projects
- cut medicaid
- cut welfare, food stamps, etc
...

 

[Zebo]

Since they are like 75% geriatrics from crowds I've seen on TV, I'm betting NOT SS and MEdicaid two of the HUGE ones sucking down over 50% of budget. I call them whacktivists because if we really got into the meat of what they claim they want many would be homeless.

My guess is they would cut black people.

 

[techs]

Since they are like 75% geriatrics from crowds I've seen on TV, I'm betting NOT SS and MEdicaid two of the HUGE ones sucking down over 50% of budget. I call them whacktivists because if we really got into the meat of what they claim they want many would be homeless.

My guess is they would cut black people.

hehe. I lol'ed

I find it interesting that some people think the tea baggers should end medicaid. Millions of Social Security recipients get Medicaid to help them with their Medicare premiums.
And tens of millions(or maybe just millions) are in nursing homes/long term care which Medicare doesn't pay for, but Medicaid does.
End Medicaid and empty the Nursing Homes? REALLY?