The ridiculousness of the Tea Party attacks.

[FederalRepublic]

Well, as soon as the conservative fascists take over congress in January 2011, then we'll see if their policies are any better. However, history has already proven it was their policies that created the mess we are in now, so don't count on things getting any better now that they are back. In fact, it will probably get worse.

My 401k looks better already...

 

[FederalRepublic]

We just had an election that proves you wrong.

My reply was to CouncilMan. Since you so conveintly ignored his defining liberals as socialists and lumping all liberals into the same batch, then likewise you shouldn't have a problem ignoring my defining conservatives as fascists. Otherwise, it just looks like you have a double standard. But of course, if you have a well reasoned and fact based argument as to why you think today's conservatives aren't fascists, then by all means spit it out, because I have a long list that suggests they are in every sense of the word, Fascists.

Let's have it then.

 

[kwickymartkidd]

Regarding the Tea Party:

Tea Party Contract from Wikipedia:

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

Sure. Doesn't stop anyone from hammering anything through Congress, even if it's constitutionality is questionable. And arguably obviates a need for a judicial branch, or alternatively gives previously judicial power to Congress.

1. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%)

Absolutely ridiculous. Cap and trade *is* an economic incentive to reduce emissions, and it's by definition more efficient.

1. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)

Forcing a balanced budget is patently stupid. Most Tea Party candidates have credit cards and mortgages. Also flies in the face of Keynesian as well as neoclassical economics.

1. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the Internal Revenue Code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)

The closest thing to an actual proposal that i've heard is rand paul's 23% consumption tax. That favors the rich, because the rich can save more money by not consuming, making the tax regressive. Current tax system is much more "fair", if you presume that favoring the rich and hurting the poor is "unfair".

1. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)

Judiciary's job. And to be constitutional *is* to be ineffective.

1. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

Ridiculous. If medicine prices go up more than at an inflationary rate (or food prices, which aren't even included in that rate), then what the hell happens with your balanced budget provision in place too? Cut services? But they're legally entitled to them, so now you've engineered your own catch-22. Also, none of these numbers are even known until after a budget proposal has been passed and used for half a year.

1. Repeal the healthcare legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Work towards the repudiating the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%)

Legitimate. Barely a majority though.

1. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%)

Legitimate. Barely a majority though.

1. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

Legitimate. Don't know enough about earmarks.

1. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend current temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)

How do you balance a budget and reduce taxes? Reduce spending. I believe that over 70% of the budget goes to social security, medicare, defense, and debt payments, if not higher, and it's going to increase going forward. Nothing to cut.

As far as you liberal/socialists go (pick whichever one you'd rather be called, i don't mean to pigeonhole), you guys are really great. As far as civil liberties go. Economically, I never heard such ridiculousness since 3rd grade. Now, being an anarchist, I don't mean to proffer my opinions as a solution since no one would listen to it anyway.

As far as history proving that "fascist conservatives" screwed up the economy... facts. One singular fact or even the slightest hint of causality, and I'll give you the argument. Nothing any conservative did was any worse than the economy than any liberal, and things conservatives do are sometimes beneficial. Like gridlock. Or tax cuts. Or de-regulation. Also, not all conservatives are fascist. Some conservatives want a religious theocracy, some conservatives are fascist, and some conservatives are libertarians/anarchists. Also, there's Ron and Rand Paul (I can't really tell you what they are, but it ain't fascist).

Thanks for your time.

 

[kwickymartkidd]

My 401k looks better already...

That's not because of conservatives or liberals, that's because there's nearly another 5 trillion dollars injected into the US money supply. Hell, there wouldn't be anything left to buy if people weren't buying stock with it. I suggest you look at some inflation-hedging portfolios for down the road. Or buy ridiculous amounts of long-terms futures contracts on your choice of commodity. Or, if you really wanna stick it to the man, I know a guy who can hook you up with mortgage-backed securities and credit derivative swaps

 

[FederalRepublic]

That's not because of conservatives or liberals, that's because there's nearly another 5 trillion dollars injected into the US money supply. Hell, there wouldn't be anything left to buy if people weren't buying stock with it. I suggest you look at some inflation-hedging portfolios for down the road. Or buy ridiculous amounts of long-terms futures contracts on your choice of commodity. Or, if you really wanna stick it to the man, I know a guy who can hook you up with mortgage-backed securities and credit derivative swaps

I was specifically referring to the last three days, and it does have something to do with conservatives and liberals, but you do have a point. Just because the dollar value of my portfolio increases doesn't necessarily mean its value has increased.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Delusional people can't be successful? I have two words for you.

Lady Gaga.

Only if you measure success by making money.

 

[ecofarm]

As the tea party can't possibly be protesting because they are not represented, which would easily be shown false, we should dig further into history, or their lack of understanding of that history. You show your misunderstanding rather clearly.

It's so funny. Do you really not get it, or are you just being obstinate. You take their major claim (that congress is acting against the will of the people, in regard to fiscal policy) and say "ok, that cannot possibly be true... so let's figure out what they really want!"

You're funny. I wonder what you would be like if you could just take people at their (pretty reasonable) word and progress from there instead of turning every political or ideological enemy into Satan the Destroyer. Maybe someday you'll join the rest of us. Until then, enjoy the soapbox - the view is great from up there.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Regarding the Tea Party:

Tea Party Contract from Wikipedia:

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

Sure. Doesn't stop anyone from hammering anything through Congress, even if it's constitutionality is questionable. And arguably obviates a need for a judicial branch, or alternatively gives previously judicial power to Congress.

I agree that this would be purely symbolic, but they should be able to justify their authority. It's a good exercise. I don't think you can argue that it obviates the need for a judicial branch though.

2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%)

Absolutely ridiculous. Cap and trade *is* an economic incentive to reduce emissions, and it's by definition more efficient.

Cap and trade is an economic disincentive to do that which is more efficient. Everything you said on this point is exactly opposite of reality. Not to mention it opens the door to new and exciting possibilities to make large sums of money for those who have posititioned themselves properly. You might not remember this, but Enron was one of the early proponents of cap & trade. I can guarantee you their support had nothing to do with efficiency.

3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)

Forcing a balanced budget is patently stupid. Most Tea Party candidates have credit cards and mortgages. Also flies in the face of Keynesian as well as neoclassical economics.

There is such a thing as debt to income ratio, and ignoring that ratio is patently stupid. Most people who have credit cards and mortgages realize there is a level of debt beyond which they will not be able to repay. Once that point is crossed, there won't be any more borrowing because nobody in their right mind will lend you anything.

4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the Internal Revenue Code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)

The closest thing to an actual proposal that i've heard is rand paul's 23% consumption tax. That favors the rich, because the rich can save more money by not consuming, making the tax regressive. Current tax system is much more "fair", if you presume that favoring the rich and hurting the poor is "unfair".

If the proposal taxed the poor, I might agree with you. Since the proposal eliminates FICA and includes a tax rebate up to the poverty level, your statement is simply incorrect. The rich can save more if they choose to invest rather than spend (either way helps the economy), but the poor effectively wouldn't have any tax burden. You can hardly call that unfair to the poor.

5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)

Judiciary's job. And to be constitutional *is* to be ineffective.

I can't tell you just how much I agree with this statement. The last thing we need is another blue ribbon committee. Congress needs to audit the judiciary. Not a blue ribbon committee, but Congress. That's their job. If a judge continually makes rulings that go against the constitution, they should be fair game for impeachment. Checks and balances work both ways...

6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

Ridiculous. If medicine prices go up more than at an inflationary rate (or food prices, which aren't even included in that rate), then what the hell happens with your balanced budget provision in place too? Cut services? But they're legally entitled to them, so now you've engineered your own catch-22. Also, none of these numbers are even known until after a budget proposal has been passed and used for half a year.

See #3.

7. Repeal the healthcare legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Work towards the repudiating the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%)

Legitimate. Barely a majority though.

If more people realized that this legislation will directly cause their insurance premiums to increase significantly, I don't think this would even be close.

8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%)

Legitimate. Barely a majority though.

Ok

9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

Legitimate. Don't know enough about earmarks.

Ok

10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend current temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)

How do you balance a budget and reduce taxes? Reduce spending. I believe that over 70% of the budget goes to social security, medicare, defense, and debt payments, if not higher, and it's going to increase going forward. Nothing to cut.

Who says you can't reduce spending. Once you reach a certain debt level, you don't have any other choice. It's much better to take your medicine by your own choice rather than have it forced on you.

 

[cpwill]

It has for decades its not a new problem.

um, actually, yes, it is rather new, especially in its' severity, and especially with regards to food shortages.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

um, actually, yes, it is rather new, especially in its' severity, and especially with regards to food shortages.

SE's right - it's not new.
Point out to me when they were solid, prosperous and everyone had their **** squared away.

They have implimented policies to try to keep these same problems from repeating - accusing the elite of taking all there was. Pointing to the abusive control of corporations and so forth. They've employed socialism to keep food costs low and available for all - which still doesn't advert the problem seeing as how their own leader who's merely buying votes with illusion directly caused some of their most dire situations recently.

They've been in turmoil for centuries.

 

[Boo Radley]

It's so funny. Do you really not get it, or are you just being obstinate. You take their major claim (that congress is acting against the will of the people, in regard to fiscal policy) and say "ok, that cannot possibly be true... so let's figure out what they really want!"

You're funny. I wonder what you would be like if you could just take people at their (pretty reasonable) word and progress from there instead of turning every political or ideological enemy into Satan the Destroyer. Maybe someday you'll join the rest of us. Until then, enjoy the soapbox - the view is great from up there.

Congress wasn't acting against the will of the people. Some thought the Bill was too much, some too little. How do representatives reconcile that? The way this is suppose to work is that we vote for representatives. they represent us. All of us, those who want more and those who want less. it is this exact conpromise that has made everyone unhappy.

And as best I can tell, it is your side who do the satan destroyer claiming nonsense. Don't the tea party types make everything socialism? Or is it marxism? Communism? Seriously, before rebuke others here, best to remove that log from your own eye.

 

[cpwill]

SE's right - it's not new.

with what we are looking at now, yes, it is. when you impose socialism, you get poor results. Chavez took his nation hard-left, and his people have been paying the price for it.

They've employed socialism to keep food costs low and available for all

Venezuelan Socialism: Food Fight, How to destroy an industry

control of food was siezed by the government, quickly resulting in food shortages - Just Like Every Other Time In History That The Government Has Tried Price Controls.