Where's the Tea Party?

[rdowns]

Saw this on Twitter. The man has a point, where are the Tea Party folks? They've shown themselves to be full of **** with their silence.

[dscuber9000]

I thought they broke up when they lost almost every election that wasn't in a red state, even some a moderate Republican could have easily won.

[fivepoint]

Perhaps they realize that it wasn't the government's money to begin with so classifying it as a governmental 'revenue loss' is ridiculously absurd and economically illiterate.

Or perhaps they know that the problem with our balance sheet is clearly our massive increases in spending, not lack of taxation.

Or perhaps they realize how idiotic it would be to raise taxes during an economic recession.

It really could be a lot of things now that I think about it...

[Huntn]

Where... floating in Boston Harbor? BTW, I love Bill Mayer even if it does label me.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by fivepoint

Perhaps they realize that it wasn't the government's money to begin with so classifying it as a governmental 'revenue loss' is ridiculously absurd and economically illiterate.

If you don't want to call it 'revenue loss'... perhaps you can think of it as added debt passed on to you children, grandchildren, and great-great-great grandchildren.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by fivepoint

Perhaps they realize that it wasn't the government's money to begin with so classifying it as a governmental 'revenue loss' is ridiculously absurd and economically illiterate.

If I fail to sell my services to customers, I suffer a revenue loss. Their money is not my money to begin with, either. What is "economically illiterate" about that?

Or perhaps they know that the problem with our balance sheet is clearly our massive increases in spending, not lack of taxation.

Quite obviously it is a combination of the two.

[Gelfin]

So they're going to stop claiming the term "fiscal responsibility" then, right? Since it turns out it's just plain old wanting something for nothing?

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by Gelfin

So they're going to stop claiming the term "fiscal responsibility" then, right? Since it turns out it's just plain old wanting something for nothing?

Sounds accurate to me along with being angry.

[KingYaba]

900 billion unpaid for? As if this were the government's money to begin with. I guess I shouldn't have expected better from Mr. Maher. Teabaggers and Benjamin costumes in the wash? What a child.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by KingYaba

900 billion unpaid for? As if this were the government's money to begin with. I guess I shouldn't have expected better from Mr. Maher. Teabaggers and Benjamin costumes in the wash? What a child.

Let's see- that's the budget hole this is creating. You live in this society, I assume that you like roads, bridges, the military, education, etc. Those things have to be paid for.

Again, if you don't want to pay taxes, you are free to buy an island and live there. The rest of us want to live in this country, and we have to pay for what we use. Or do expect something for very little and expect that these things just happen for free?

[kavika411]

Originally Posted by leekohler

Let's see- that's the budget hole this is creating. You live in this society, I assume that you like roads, bridges, the military, education, etc. Those things have to be paid for.

Again, if you don't want to pay taxes, you are free to buy an island and live there. The rest of us want to live in this country, and we have to pay for what we use. Or do expect something for very little and expect that these things just happen for free?

Ok, so I have a question.

I am (to use your words) in favor of paying/using taxes to pay for roads, bridges, and education.

However, I'm not in favor of paying/using taxes to continue immoral wars and to fund a military that supports Don't Ask Don't Tell.

So, my question: to use your only-two-choices, should I "live in this country," or should I "buy an island and live there"?

[Gelfin]

Originally Posted by kavika411

Ok, so I have a question.

I am (to use your words) in favor of paying/using taxes to pay for roads, bridges, and education.

However, I'm not in favor of paying/using taxes to continue immoral wars and to fund a military that supports Don't Ask Don't Tell.

So, my question: to use your only-two-choices, should I "live in this country," or should I "buy an island and live there"?

I likewise do not appreciate being made to financially support wars I cannot morally support, much less discriminatory military policy, but I am not so solipsistic as to believe that in a nation of three hundred million people I can have the luxury of selecting my government a la carte. I must be content with the mechanisms for change available to me, or I must go elsewhere.

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by Gelfin

I likewise do not appreciate being made to financially support wars I cannot morally support, much less discriminatory military policy, but I am not so solipsistic as to believe that in a nation of three hundred million people I can have the luxury of selecting my government a la carte. I must be content with the mechanisms for change available to me, or I must go elsewhere.

Exactly- who likes any of that stuff kavika mentioned? No one. But it's up to us to make those changes with our votes. And if the people we vote in don;t do what we want them to, we vote in someone else. But to advocate that the government take on huge budget holes and run up debt is not going to fix those problems, it just adds to them. If you are not willing to start fixing the problems in our government and think starving it of cash is the answer to fixing them, you're going to be very disappointed with the outcome.

[kavika411]

Originally Posted by Gelfin

I likewise do not appreciate being made to financially support wars I cannot morally support, much less discriminatory military policy, but I am not so solipsistic as to believe that in a nation of three hundred million people I can have the luxury of selecting my government a la carte. I must be content with the mechanisms for change available to me, or I must go elsewhere.

Originally Posted by leekohler

Exactly- who likes any of that stuff kavika mentioned? No one. But it's up to us to make those changes with our votes. And if the people we vote in don;t do what we want them to, we vote in someone else. But to advocate that the government take on huge budget holes and run up debt is not going to fix those problems, it just adds to them. If you are not willing to start fixing the problems in our government and think starving it of cash is the answer to fixing them, you're going to be very disappointed with the outcome.

[confused]

Is your - yes, both Gelfin and leekohler - beef with my comment, or is it with leekohler's these-are-your-only-two-options scenario?

Here is, again, the post to which I was responding to in full. If there was a third option, I missed it.

Originally Posted by leekohler

Let's see- that's the budget hole this is creating. You live in this society, I assume that you like roads, bridges, the military, education, etc. Those things have to be paid for.

Again, if you don't want to pay taxes, you are free to buy an island and live there. The rest of us want to live in this country, and we have to pay for what we use. Or do expect something for very little and expect that these things just happen for free?

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by kavika411

If there was a third option, I missed it.

The third option is to become absurdly wealthy: then you will be able to avoid taxes completely. Get cracking.

[Evangelion]

Originally Posted by fivepoint

Or perhaps they know that the problem with our balance sheet is clearly our massive increases in spending, not lack of taxation.

Since taxation in USA is at an all-time low level, it could be said that the problem is the lack of taxation.

[bruinsrme]

Originally Posted by Evangelion

Since taxation in USA is at an all-time low level, it could be said that the problem is the lack of taxation.

I looked at the totals so far this year, I would hate to see my income tax any higher than 30.45%.

[Queso]

Same old rubbish really. They wail about the mortgaging of their grandchildrens' future when in reality they only care about themselves.

The USA is completely and utterly going down the pan. Future generations will look back and curse you all. Well done.

[bruinsrme]

Originally Posted by Queso

Same old rubbish really. They wail about the mortgaging of their grandchildrens' future when in reality they only care about themselves.

The USA is completely and utterly going down the pan. Future generations will look back and curse you all. Well done.

I can't agree more.

[Evangelion]

Originally Posted by bruinsrme

I looked at the totals so far this year, I would hate to see my income tax any higher than 30.45%.

There are other taxes besides income-tax.

And I stand corrected: it seems that taxes were lower in late fifties:

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/20...action-of-gdp/

[63dot]

The Libertarian and independent leaning Tea Party, the only one that ever existed, has been taken over and is pretty much dead.

The ones who took over the Tea Party are the Republicans and they are doing very well.

Whether it's a good thing or not, any attempt at a serious third party has miserably failed this time around. Anybody who calls themselves a member of the Tea Party today are more likely to be a neo-con, one of the very targets that the original Tea Party went after.

The massive GOP takeover of the Tea Party would be akin to having the Green Party totally taken over by the Democrats. Because the Tea Party offered some alternative conservative points of view, the GOP did not want votes siphoned away so they did what was in their best interest and invaded the Tea Party starting with Gingrich and Palin becoming "so-called Tea Party voices". The Tea Party convention's early favorite, Ron Paul, fell by the wayside and by the time the takeover is complete, Tea Party will mean Republican (whether it's a conservative Republican or a moderate Republican).

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by kavika411

[confused]

Is your - yes, both Gelfin and leekohler - beef with my comment, or is it with leekohler's these-are-your-only-two-options scenario?

Here is, again, the post to which I was responding to in full. If there was a third option, I missed it.

Don't know why you're confused. We were both quite clear.

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by fivepoint

Perhaps they realize that it wasn't the government's money to begin with so classifying it as a governmental 'revenue loss' is ridiculously absurd and economically illiterate.

Or perhaps they know that the problem with our balance sheet is clearly our massive increases in spending, not lack of taxation.

Or perhaps they realize how idiotic it would be to raise taxes during an economic recession.

It really could be a lot of things now that I think about it...

You do realize that the taxpayers have a MASSIVE debt that is owed. In other words, what you are saying is that you don't have to pay your mortgage because the money is not the bank's to begin with. That, my friend, is stupid. You don't get to lower your payments and avoid your responsibilities at the same time you are running up your obligations. That is fiscally irresponsible and makes no sense at all.

If, in the fantasy land you seem to live in, we had ZERO debt and the only question was whether the government should tax people more so that it would have extra money to spend, then YES, your statement might have merit. Until then, you are absolutely, completely, off base.

Speaking of which, what spending has been increased that you want to cut? The health care law is scored by the OMB to reduce spending, so that's out. The Democrats proposed cuts to medicare to the tune of $500B (remember the attack ads by the Republicans?). The bailout? It's not over yet, but Citi just ended up in a multi-billion dollar gain. The auto industry is recovering and the GM IPO resulted in a substantial payback. More to come down the road. Military? Ahhh, two wars that our former president kept off the books certainly didn't help.

Speaking of books, I've shown you several times historical proof that raising taxes during a recession results in economic gains and job creation, while the opposite does not happen. Certainly, keeping tax rates EXACTLY THE SAME does nothing. So, how is keeping tax rates the same going to help? (edit) Do you have any proof (as opposed to typical right-wing bloviating) that raising taxes on the highest earners by a small percentage will hurt the economy?

Originally Posted by skunk

If I fail to sell my services to customers, I suffer a revenue loss. Their money is not my money to begin with, either. What is "economically illiterate" about that?

In this case, it is more like you already sold your services to your customers and they owe you a huge amount of money, but they don't pay you for them. In that case, an argument can be made that it is your money. Even if it isn't, you suffer a revenue loss and the customers are shirking their responsibilities and risking your business (and thus their ability to rely on your services in the future).

[fivepoint]

“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle” -Winston Churchill

"People try to live within their income so they can afford to pay taxes to a government that can't live within its income." -Robert Half

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by fivepoint

“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle” -Winston Churchill

Which of course misses the point.

Nobody here is suggesting we "tax [our]self into prosperity".

We are simply saying that we meet the needs that we are obligated to.