Hey Tea Baggers

[Findog]

If I understand the Tea Bagger ethos correctly, they basically postulate that the US Government is on a path of extreme fiscal recklessness, with spending priorities that are unsustainable over the long run, and if we do not reverse course, this will have dire economic consequences on all of us, as well as future generations. So with that in mind, I have the following questions:

1. Do you support cuts in Social Security, and if you are over the age of 65, would you be willing to accept lower monthly payments?

2. Do you support cuts in Medicare, and if you are over the age of 65, would you be willing to accept less in Medicare benefits?

3. Do you support the immediate withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a significant scaleback in the number of American military bases overseas (over 700 in more than 120 countries)?

4. Should the government let the Bush tax cuts expire, and should the government consider implementing tax hikes at all?

5. If your answer to the first four questions is no, why should I take you seriously when you have no constructive solutions for the problems you complain about, and don't have a coherent understanding of these problems in the first place?

[CosmicCowboy]

First, I don't consider myself a "teabagger" but you probably are arrogantly referring to fiscally conservative people like me.

If I understand the Tea Bagger ethos correctly, they basically postulate that the US Government is on a path of extreme fiscal recklessness, with spending priorities that are unsustainable over the long run, and if we do not reverse course, this will have dire economic consequences on all of us, as well as future generations. So with that in mind, I have the following questions:

1. Do you support cuts in Social Security, and if you are over the age of 65, would you be willing to accept lower monthly payments?

I support increasing the retirement age for Social Security

2. Do you support cuts in Medicare, and if you are over the age of 65, would you be willing to accept less in Medicare benefits?

I'm not over 65, but fully expect to have limited medicare benefits by the time I am. At the very least, it will be only your worst doctors/hospitals that accept it

3. Do you support the immediate withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a significant scaleback in the number of American military bases overseas (over 700 in more than 120 countries)?

it depends how you define "immediate" , but yes, we need to dramatically cut our defense spending and quit trying to be the worlds policeman.

4. Should the government let the Bush tax cuts expire, and should the government consider implementing tax hikes at all?

Yes, they need to make the tax cuts permanent. We will spend our money more responsibly than the federal government. We need to balance the budget by cutting expenses, not raising taxes.

5. If your answer to the first four questions is no, why should I take you seriously when you have no constructive solutions for the problems you complain about, and don't have a coherent understanding of these problems in the first place.

Why the should I take YOU seriously?

[Findog]

Yes, they need to make the tax cuts permanent. We will spend our money more responsibly than the federal government. We need to balance the budget by cutting expenses, not raising taxes.

http://washingtonindependent.com/989...-bush-tax-cuts

I would favor extending the cuts for two years, then let them expire. If people are serious about cutting into the long-term deficit, you can't solve by just cutting spending or just raising taxes.

"Permanently or temporarily extending all or part of the expiring income tax cuts would boost income and employment in the next few years relative to what would occur under current law. However, even a temporary extension would add to federal debt and reduce future income if it was not accompanied by other changes in policy. A permanent extension of all of those tax cuts without future increases in taxes or reductions in federal spending would roughly double the projected budget deficit in 2020; a permanent extension of those cuts except for certain provisions that would apply only to high-income taxpayers would increase the budget deficit by roughly three-quarters to four-fifths as much. As a result, if policymakers then wanted to balance the budget in 2020, the required increases in taxes or reductions in spending would amount to a substantial share of the budget — and without significant changes of that sort, federal debt would be on an unsustainable path that would ultimately reduce national income."

[CosmicCowboy]

It really comes down to what you think the federal governments role in society should be. The answer IMHO is admitting that the government can't and shouldn't do everything and limit the spending accordingly. Flat tax, no deductions, no exceptions. Live within the budget, even if it means cutting en lements.

[Spurminator]

I would let the tax cuts expire for everyone until we can get a significant chunk of the deficit paid off. I'm not against revisiting tax cuts in the future, but it has to be paired with a reduction in spending.

[balli]

even if it means cutting en lements.

You can talk all the foreign policy, anti military crap you want, but I'd easily bet you weren't spewing that line before Iraq, and that given a choice, you'd still support a failed effort in Iran.

You supported and left unfinanced 3 trillion dollars in wars. And tax cuts that were enacted without complementary cuts in spending. Go spew your anti-en lement crap to a crowd that won't call you on your total bull .

[DarrinS]

I think raising taxes on everyone right now will really help the economy.

<sarcasm intentional>

[Findog]

I think raising taxes on everyone right now will really help the economy.

<sarcasm intentional>

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would go a long way towards curbing the deficits that tea baggers love to complain about. Raising taxes alone to meet current spending would cripple the economy in the long run...but many teabaggers talk about cutting government between 15 and 30%. Well, since roughly 50% of the GDP is from government expenditure and about the same percentage of Americans are employed by the government, from the muni to federal level, it doesn't take a genius to see what that would accomplish. We could turn our recession into a full blown depression with 30% unemployment. Republicans sure are good at ing things up.

[Findog]

Tea Baggers, you can have 35% marginal tax rates on the top income earners or you can make significant inroads towards cutting the deficit. You can't have both.

[CosmicCowboy]

Tea Baggers, you can have 35% marginal tax rates on the top income earners or you can make significant inroads towards cutting the deficit. You can't have both.

That raises 70 billion a year. Big ing deal. Congress pisses off more than that before lunch.

BTW, Cut it with the teabagger crap. If I'm a teabagger you are the one licking my nuts.

[CosmicCowboy]

You can talk all the foreign policy, anti military crap you want, but I'd easily bet you weren't spewing that line before Iraq, and that given a choice, you'd still support a failed effort in Iran.

You supported and left unfinanced 3 trillion dollars in wars. And tax cuts that were enacted without complementary cuts in spending. Go spew your anti-en lement crap to a crowd that won't call you on your total bull .

Go yourself balli. You are a pimple on the ass of this forum.

[balli]

I am a complete hypocrite. And I know everything I'm saying is complete bull and completely at odds with my real positions... but Ima say it anyway. How dare you call my obvious bluff. Go yourself.

And...

I'm not a teabagger!!!

[Findog]

That raises 70 billion a year. Big ing deal. Congress pisses off more than that before lunch.

.

Supply-side orthodoxy holds that money freed up for the highest tax brackets is money that is available to be pumped into the private sector as opposed to be "wasted" on "inefficient" government programs. But in practice it hasn't worked out that way, the rich do not automatically invest in new business ventures, and Reagan and Bush Pere and Jr gave us record deficits. That $70 billion isn't worth capturing and applying to the deficit when income equality has soared over the past 30 years?

I see a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts as the only way out of this problem; focusing efforts all on one side is not realistic or wise. And the biggies are SS, Medicare and the Defense Budget. Tea Party types like to talk about abolishing the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts or food stamps as a huge waste of money, but they all represent a drop in the bucket compared to the above three items. I'm not saying one way or the other whether the government should provide food stamps or funding for the arts, but cutting those kinds of programs don't amount to diddly .

[CosmicCowboy]

[QUOTE=Findog;4662365]Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would go a long way towards curbing the deficits that tea baggers love to complain about. Raising taxes alone to meet current spending would cripple the economy in the long run...but many teabaggers talk about cutting government between 15 and 30%. Well, since roughly 50% of the GDP is from government expenditure and about the same percentage of Americans are employed by the government, from the muni to federal level, it doesn't take a genius to see what that would accomplish. We could turn our recession into a full blown depression with 30% unemployment. Republicans sure are good at ing things up.[/QUOTE

Well, since roughly 50% of the GDP is from government expenditure

think about that for a minute...You are saying government produces half the goods and services produced in America?

[balli]

Tea Party types like to talk about abolishing the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts or food stamps as a huge waste of money, but they all represent a drop in the bucket compared to the above three items. I'm not saying one way or the other whether the government should provide food stamps or funding for the arts, but cutting those kinds of programs don't amount to diddly .

About 7% actually. The teabags think we can solve the deficit without raising anyones taxes if we just starve poor kids, get rid of the national parks and a coherent education policy.

[CosmicCowboy]

Supply-side orthodoxy holds that money freed up for the highest tax brackets is money that is available to be pumped into the private sector as opposed to be "wasted" on "inefficient" government programs. But in practice it hasn't worked out that way, the rich do not automatically invest in new business ventures, and Reagan and Bush Pere and Jr gave us record deficits. That $70 billion isn't worth capturing and applying to the deficit when income equality has soared over the past 30 years?

I see a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts as the only way out of this problem; focusing efforts all on one side is not realistic or wise. And the biggies are SS, Medicare and the Defense Budget. Tea Party types like to talk about abolishing the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Arts or food stamps as a huge waste of money, but they all represent a drop in the bucket compared to the above three items. I'm not saying one way or the other whether the government should provide food stamps or funding for the arts, but cutting those kinds of programs don't amount to diddly .

You are just figuring this out? I MIGHT be for increasing taxes some AFTER they showed REAL progress on the spending reduction side.

[CosmicCowboy]

I agree you can't balance the budget by cutting even 100% of discretionary spending. Some sacred cows are going to have to be slaughtered.

[Findog]

think about that for a minute...You are saying government produces half the goods and services produced in America?

Okay, you got me. It's actually around 45 percent.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...ury_chart.html

[Findog]

You are just figuring this out? I MIGHT be for increasing taxes some AFTER they showed REAL progress on the spending reduction side.

No, I'm not just figuring it out. I'm wondering when the Tea Party types will figure it out, because they want "government spending cut" but then they declare SS, Medicare, the wars and tax hikes off the table. Well, okay then.

[jack sommerset]

I would favor extending the cuts for two years, then let them expire. If people are serious about cutting into the long-term deficit, you can't solve by just cutting spending or just raising taxes.

Sounds like a great idea. To bad Pelosi and the gang took off before making a decision on the Bush tax. Extending them 2 more years might have saved a few dem seats.

[CosmicCowboy]

Okay, you got me. It's actually around 45 percent.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...ury_chart.html

Thanks for the link. Absolutely disgusting. The ticks are almost bigger than the dog.

[DarrinS]

Tea Baggers, you can have 35% marginal tax rates on the top income earners or you can make significant inroads towards cutting the deficit. You can't have both.

Or, don't quadruple the spending of GWB in 2 years.

[DarrinS]

Or, we can be like liberal Mecca, California, and just pay govt employees with IOU's.

[CosmicCowboy]

No, I'm not just figuring it out. I'm wondering when the Tea Party types will figure it out, because they want "government spending cut" but then they declare SS, Medicare, the wars and tax hikes off the table. Well, okay then.

LMAO at you blaming "Tea Party types" for congressional refusal to touch the political third rail of Social Security and Medicare Cuts. Your most "progressive" democrats are just a guilty. They have had a Democrat President and a majority in the House and Senate. I see they didn't do anything except vote for even MORE "free" benefits from the government.

[Findog]

Or, don't quadruple the spending of GWB in 2 years.

Where are you getting your facts from? Fiscal Year 2009 was the last budget authorized by GWB and Congress, it amounted to $3.1 trillion in spending and $2.7 trillion in revenue. Fiscal Year 2010 was the first budget authorized by BO and Congress, it amounted to $3.4 trillion in spending and $2.3 trillion in revenue.

I wasn't a math major in college, but I'm pretty sure $3.1 trillion x 4 = $12.4 trillion.