If the tea party were liberal

Idris

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Seems to me that liberal activists are having sour grapes that the first grass-roots conservative activist group has seen success in their agenda and made an impact.

Not bad for a bunch of illiterate, racist, hillbillies. I find it odd that an intellectually superior group of individuals isn't able to mount an effective counter-attack.

they are a minority of the minority party in the senate and a minority in the house yet they held everything hostage and refused to compromise on anything. they viewed coming to negotiate as compromising, as eric cantor so famously said. i guess that might be a good thing to you, but it is selfish and inexcusable to me. the strategy of grind everything to a halt and oppose everything is effective for sure. i just wish the dems would have done that to gwb when they were the minority party. we would be a completely different country if they had...

Why did the dems not do it?...That is the question.
--

Indeed, if the dems did that, we would be a different country for sure, but the dems did not do it, because they are just about the same as the other 'side'.

Even now, it's not to late for the dems to stand up and start spitting some 'truth and reality', but they are silent, no doubt because most dems and republicans are stuck in the same 'reality', a reality of propaganda,greed and whatever else.
-
I also kinda agree about the 'sour grapes' comment...

Go Beavers

Parachute wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I support the Tea Party and I have a PhD in economics (specializing in public economics), work as an economist and teach economics. Do I also "lack even the most basic understanding of history, economics or government"?

When is this charade of insulting people's intelligence because of their economic/political ideology going to end?

And what specific tea party ideas and proposals do you support?

I asked you what plan you support a couple hours ago...

Sorry, we liberals actually work! (joking)

Here's some ideas:
cut the miltary by 200-250 billion to start
social security: increase retirement age, reduce benefits for the wealthy retirees, bump SS taxes to higher incomes.
Medicare: limit civil suits and therefore reduce the amount of unnecessary testing done by docs. The elephant: a huge chunk of $ is spent on people's last years of their life, this will eventually have to be looked at differently.
Let Bush's tax cuts expire.

I could come up with some more, later.

arthurdent

Go Beavers wrote:

Let Bush's tax cuts expire.

that would solve a pretty good chunk of our debt right there.

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

they are a minority of the minority party in the senate and a minority in the house yet they held everything hostage and refused to compromise on anything. they viewed coming to negotiate as compromising, as eric cantor so famously said. i guess that might be a good thing to you, but it is selfish and inexcusable to me. the strategy of grind everything to a halt and oppose everything is effective for sure. i just wish the dems would have done that to gwb when they were the minority party. we would be a completely different country if they had...

I think the democrats finally figured out how to play hardball this past year as a minority, at least by judging their actions in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio. At least the Tea Party reps didn't go hide in Canada and Mexico.

Anywho, the whole debt deal was a political charade in my opinion. I've read that there will be 2-3 more political showdowns in the next year and they will all play out the same way.

Parachute

So...
1. Cut the military
2. Tax successful people.
3. Let politicians determine if a life is worth saving "at the end." (Death Panel)
4. Tax successful people.

Man, you could be President!!

I think we can agree that we disagree.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

jnaught wrote:

The tea party is nothing more than a group of domestic terrorists who lack even the most basic understanding of history, economics or government.

I support the Tea Party and I have a PhD in economics (specializing in public economics), work as an economist and teach economics. Do I also "lack even the most basic understanding of history, economics or government"?

When is this charade of insulting people's intelligence because of their economic/political ideology going to end?

And what specific tea party ideas and proposals do you support?

Put simply,... cutting government spending dramatically. No more "job-creating" stimulus plans. Repeal Obamacare. etc...

arthurdent

inlet13 wrote:

Put simply,... cutting government spending dramatically.

government's a pretty big arena. Which parts of government spending would you like to cut?

Go Beavers

Parachute wrote:

So...
1. Cut the military
2. Tax successful people.
3. Let politicians determine if a life is worth saving "at the end." (Death Panel)
4. Tax successful people.

Man, you could be President!!

I think we can agree that we disagree.

I think we can agree that I want to destroy the country.

Really, though, by the time we're old and crusty, I'm sure medical technology will be at a point where we can extend our lifeless bodies another ten years, so I'm just saying how we respond to that needs to enter into the discussion. Right now should pop-pop have a $1500 CT scan because his shoulder is sore? It's probably sore because he hasn't done any physical activity for 8 years.

arthurdent

arthurdent wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Put simply,... cutting government spending dramatically.

government's a pretty big arena. Which parts of government spending would you like to cut?

here's a handy pie chart to help you:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php

Jason P

Go Beavers wrote:

Here's some ideas:
cut the miltary by 200-250 billion to start
social security: increase retirement age, reduce benefits for the wealthy retirees, bump SS taxes to higher incomes.
Medicare: limit civil suits and therefore reduce the amount of unnecessary testing done by docs. The elephant: a huge chunk of $ is spent on people's last years of their life, this will eventually have to be looked at differently.
Let Bush's tax cuts expire.

I could come up with some more, later.

I agree w/ cuts to the military, but both sides will be reluctant to even touch the issue. The other problem is discretionary spending which bloats military spending even more then the current budget shows.

I have a sinister idea to help both healthcare and social security budget impacts ... death panels! :twisted: On a serious note (kind of), it is a conundrum that by using medical care and allowing people to live longer, not only is healthcare cost bloated, social security is doled out longer as well.

Logan's Run, anyone? (I'm exempt, of course )

jnaught

inlet13 wrote:

jnaught wrote:

The tea party is nothing more than a group of domestic terrorists who lack even the most basic understanding of history, economics or government.

I support the Tea Party and I have a PhD in economics (specializing in public economics), work as an economist and teach economics. Do I also "lack even the most basic understanding of history, economics or government"?

When is this charade of insulting people's intelligence because of their economic/political ideology going to end?

If you think the best way towards recovery is as simple as cutting spending without raising taxes and infusing capitol into the economy, then, yes, I would question your understanding of the principles you supposedly teach. Timothy Gaithner has pretty strong credentials himself, but I assume you think him unequipped to fix this crises?

What I don't understand, most of all, is why the people who vote for these (mostly) independently wealthy politicians, are so against raising taxes on wealthiest 1% of Americans? Allowing the Bush tax cuts to revert to Clinto era levels would have an ENORMOUS impact on cutting the deficit.

Jason P

jnaught wrote:

What I don't understand, most of all, is why the people who vote for these (mostly) independently wealthy politicians, are so against raising taxes on wealthiest 1% of Americans? Allowing the Bush tax cuts to revert to Clinto era levels would have an ENORMOUS impact on cutting the deficit.

My reasoning is that once the top 5% get taxed and that still doesn't fix the problem, the rest of us are next in line to pay our "fair share".

And "fair share" should not be used anymore then a term like "death panel". Call a spade a spade. It's insulting to say someone who made $500K and payed $175K in taxes to pony up and pay their "fair share". The term should be, "hey-man-we-really-fucked-up-with-our-budgeting-and-we-really-need-some-of-your-money share".

arthurdent

Jason P wrote:

My reasoning is that once the top 5% get taxed and that still doesn't fix the problem, the rest of us are next in line to pay our "fair share".

I think we ought to look really hard at closing these tax loopholes and shady accounting practices that are about as wide as the Grand Canyon. If we could get the rich to pay what they honestly owe, without hiding behind their accountants, that would be a nice start.

inlet13

jnaught wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

jnaught wrote:

The tea party is nothing more than a group of domestic terrorists who lack even the most basic understanding of history, economics or government.

I support the Tea Party and I have a PhD in economics (specializing in public economics), work as an economist and teach economics. Do I also "lack even the most basic understanding of history, economics or government"?

When is this charade of insulting people's intelligence because of their economic/political ideology going to end?

If you think the best way towards recovery is as simple as cutting spending without raising taxes and infusing capitol into the economy, then, yes, I would question your understanding of the principles you supposedly teach. Timothy Gaithner has pretty strong credentials himself, but I assume you think him unequipped to fix this crises?

I think you meant Timothy Geithner, wise one.

So, in other words, you would question anyone who doesn't subscribe to Keynesian economics? Please, go tell all the Nobel Prize winners and top economists throughout world history including the following non-Keynesian ideologies: Classicals, Monetarists, Austrian, Real-Business Cycle theorists, Neo-Classicals and The Chicago School.... that the only approach to economics is Keynesian and you question their understanding of economic principals.

Seriously, man. Grow up.

jnaught wrote:

What I don't understand, most of all, is why the people who vote for these (mostly) independently wealthy politicians, are so against raising taxes on wealthiest 1% of Americans? Allowing the Bush tax cuts to revert to Clinto era levels would have an ENORMOUS impact on cutting the deficit.

Says you. Some would argue that lowering taxes and properly enforcing them, can actually spur GDP growth. In doing so, because there's more production and jobs... it can increase tax revenues. These people would argue that raising taxes will do the opposite.

More importantly: The Debt/GDP ratio is what S&P were looking at when they decided to downgrade. Some non-Keynesian economists believe that raising taxes, even if it's on the top 1% (who pay about 40% of all income taxes), hurts the GDP growth (which means a decline in the Debt/GDP ratio). Moreover, if they are right, that means you could end up with less tax revenues (increasing the debt - numerator) and less GDP (the denominator) despite increasing taxes on the top 1%.

arthurdent

inlet13 wrote:

So, in other words, you would question anyone who doesn't subscribe to Keynesian economics? Please, go tell all the Nobel Prize winners and top economists throughout world history including the following non-Keynesian ideologies: Classicals, Monetarists, Austrian, Real-Business Cycle theorists, Neo-Classicals and The Chicago School.... that the only approach to economics is Keynesian and you question their understanding of economic principals.

jnaught

"I think you meant Timothy Geithner, wise one."

- I was unaware of the editorial standards of the Pearl Jam message board. My apologies to Mr. Geithner and his family.

"So, in other words, you would question anyone who doesn't subscribe to Keynesian economics? Please, go tell all the Nobel Prize winners and top economists throughout world history including the following non-Keynesian ideologies: Classicals, Monetarists, Austrian, Real-Business Cycle theorists, Neo-Classicals and The Chicago School.... that the only approach to economics is Keynesian and you question their understanding of economic principals."

"Seriously, man. Grow up."

- As it relates to the current U.S. economic crises, yes. The "grow up" part was a nice touch, though. Really shows off your humility.

jnaught wrote:

What I don't understand, most of all, is why the people who vote for these (mostly) independently wealthy politicians, are so against raising taxes on wealthiest 1% of Americans? Allowing the Bush tax cuts to revert to Clinto era levels would have an ENORMOUS impact on cutting the deficit.

"Says you. Some would argue that lowering taxes and properly enforcing them, can actually spur GDP growth. In doing so, because there's more production and jobs... it can increase tax revenues. These people would argue that raising taxes will do the opposite."

- And I would argue that Clinton raised taxes in 1993 - what followed was an economic boom; conversely, Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 and, well, here we are.

"More importantly: The Debt/GDP ratio is what S&P were looking at when they decided to downgrade. Some non-Keynesian economists believe that raising taxes, even if it's on the top 1% (who pay about 40% of all income taxes), hurts the GDP growth (which means a decline in the Debt/GDP ratio). Moreover, if they are right, that means you could end up with less tax revenues (increasing the debt - numerator) and less GDP (the denominator) despite increasing taxes on the top 1%."

- How well has that worked over the last 10 years?

arthurdent

the whole tea party movement reminds me alot of the Prosperity Gospel that gave us so many televangelists. Jim and Tammy Faye Baker and the lot. Fraudulent hucksters preying on innocent people.

Sludge Factory

Go Beavers wrote:

Parachute wrote:

jnaught wrote:

This article is spot on! The tea party is nothing more than a group of domestic terrorists who lack even the most basic understanding of history, economics or government. They held the nation hostage for months and now, as a result, the markets are free falling ... and taking the rest of us along for the ride.

hahahhahhahha......

The ballz on those terrorists... actually demanding that Congress balance their budget.

Makes Bin Laden look fiscally conservative, those tea party terrorists!!

Fuckin hilarious....

They do whine about the government and demand a balanced budget, but I haven't seen any concrete proposals on how they plan to do this or even a concise vision from their leaders (whoever they are). If anyone can post a link to this info, I'd appreciate it.

Last time you asked for something I tried posting a link but then you didn't say anything so perhaps you missed it? Anyway, here is the thread I posted a link to:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=161390&start=30#p3733050

RW81233

inlet13 wrote:

jnaught wrote:

The tea party is nothing more than a group of domestic terrorists who lack even the most basic understanding of history, economics or government.

I support the Tea Party and I have a PhD in economics (specializing in public economics), work as an economist and teach economics. Do I also "lack even the most basic understanding of history, economics or government"?

When is this charade of insulting people's intelligence because of their economic/political ideology going to end?

as an economist how can you support the tea party? do you choose to just disregard the history of legal economic disparity that minorities and women had to deal with in this country? the tea party makes no logical sense to me...we'll oppress you, make you live in the worst housing areas, go to the worst schools, not allow you to have credit cards, then give a few things back for like 10 years, and then throw our hands up and say "everyone's on an even playing field - go"! that is the most asinine, ahistorical, bullshit economic policy I've ever heard of. so yes I would say you do not have a basic understanding of history. people can get PhDs without having a basic understanding of history (see: Ron Paul).

RW81233

come down to baltimore for one day and ride down Park Heights next to Pimlico and tell me that anyone born there chose to be in the situation they're in