hey lady on m$nbc...what is a tea party 'value'?

she said this as if we all know what they are....

i, for one, don't have a clue.

she said it would be great if we adopted the tea party 'values'

someone care to enlighten???

Political correctness of the devil, dontcha know?

and yes they are NUTS

Incredibly evident in Tancredo's "speech"

Those kinds of values?

that's what he's been doing...feigning like Teabaggers aren't Republicans. wink, wink.

The other day that idiot announced he would have T. Boone as a guest because he (Ratigan) thought the Picken's plan was teh awesome. After all these years, anyone that falls for Boone's lies has no excuse.

that somehow that made him legit.

They forgot that Lou Dobbs started out appearing quite reasonable too.

anything to get his face on TV.

Didn't he have something to do with the Swift Boat Liars?

You say them and they sound great..."freedom", "no taxes", "no big government"...but ask them to define it and you'll get more soundbites. Don't even try to ask them how they plan to fix roads or fund schools or what their "freedom" means. You'll get crickets...

'no big government' = zero social programs like them thar roads and bridges and stuff.

*palm check

'freedom' = as long as them thar gays don't have freedom.

*rub palm check off on legs ...

'no taxes' - we're all for the military build up and supporting lotsa wars, but we don't want none a them thar 'social' programs like child protection or them thar artsy stuff like liberries.

oh, and "We need a Commander in Chief, not a law professor!"

and as i've pointed out repeatedly, if you ask the 600 what their 'movement' stands for, you'd get 300 different answers...like the Ron Paul or Palin fanboys, or the more prominent "I-just-can't-accept-a-black-president-and-this-is-my-only-outlet-besides-the-klan" crowd; you ask them to explain their position and in 30 seconds they contradict themselves (or grow VERY selective memories like our born-again free-market deficit hawk here)...

Every man, woman, and child in the US has a revolving charge account, with Uncle Sam as the cosigner. The debt is partly held by foreign governments. The new annual budget proposed bumps the balance from $40K to $45K (thats from $160K up to $180K per wage-earner, including min.wage folks) The tea party is not about Caribou Barbie It is about this run-away, variable interest charge account for which we are all responsible (except that parents are responsible for their children's accounts).

Note this does not include the long-term unfunded liabilities in the dispersal programs. This is current, balance-payable hard cash debt. The tea-party crazies are worried about the rate of growth. They are just being silly, I suppose. I guess they don't like owing money to foreign dictatorships. Paranoid. They fear that a disagreement over Taiwan or Tibet may anger the lender into demanding his money now. Now isn't that silly.

If you prefer, we can distribute this liability according to ability-to-pay. Take your last 1040, multiply your pre-tax annual earnings by, say, 3.1 -- that's your share of the credit card debt. (No one can say how the lender will apportion the debt to us when he comes for his money.)

I'm beginning to see the wisdom in Beijing's side of the arguments about Tibet and Taiwan, aren't you.

you DO realize that george didn't put his wars in his budget....that's one reason that Obama's budget is so high....H O N E S T Y...so now Obama's budget has to reflect george's major fuckups

I have a better solution: raise taxes on the rich.


How about that, stinky. You know they can afford it.

Why not increase progressive taxation? Because

a) You and I are after the same things: a chicken in every pot
b) The environment which is most conducive to that is one which encourages our economic engine to lumber forward energetically
c) That environment really has very, very few requirements. One of them is the right to own property and have it not be gutted out by a mob.

QED

Which part gives a problem?

You logic requires that:

increase progressive taxation = property ownership "gutted out by a mob"

But that is a demonstrably false assumption: we spent the 50s and 60s with much higher progressivity in taxation. Did out economic engine not "lumber forward" in those decades? Very much so. Was property ownership "gutted"? hardly.


quod erat demonstrandum?

falsus!
non sequitur

Use debt vs gdp to explain how a more progressive tax structure was an "insult" to the economy and not one of the factors that made it stronger in the first place.

and about 5 or 6 years late also, if you didn't care about the budget then what's making you care now?

FYI yelling gets a big frown around here.

So tell us when was the last time one or both parties was being responsible?

Our debt/gdp projections are worse now than post ww2. we've got to fix that or we won't have anything left to fight about. thanks for tip. I'm overwhelmed by the site. whew. I really stepped in it, huh

It seems to me like you agree with one small piece of the 'tea party'. You are pro fiscal responsibility. And you seem to be 100% anti-tax which I am honestly not sure I understand the reasoning behind.
But you already said one of your opinions was not quite in line with theirs down below.
And I have yet to hear you spout any racist nonsense, or birther crap, or say anything about death pannels, etc. etc.

The thing you should know is that a lot of the people here have gone out and talked to 'tea baggers' at rallies (often as counter rallies) and have spent a lot of time discussing what they have experienced first hand, and watching the rest of the countries 'protests'. They know a LOT about the movement's history, and its 'on the ground' behavior.

In my opinion you would be better off talking bout what YOU think than about a larger group that you don't control. I understand you see something good in their platform. But if you don't want to be tarred with their behavior... don't associate.

Also, take a quick look though the DU rules. My reference to a Pizza was an inside joke. Some of this is people playing with you because they know you will eventually be banned.

Honestly I hope you continue your interest in politics and public policy. I hope you strive to get more than the information handed to you, and engage in lively debate. But be aware that this site may not be the place for you to do it. I am honestly not trying to be rude but the Mods may well ban you, and they would not necessarily be wrong.
That said I don't think you came here just to troll or you would not have engaged as openly as you have. Maybe you will have a longer stay.

I'm sure the moderators know that. Listening to Fox hour-after-hour doesn't help me, or your cause.

This is a really neat site.

explain pizza?

I fear that the younger people in our country are losing site of where our daily meals come from. They don't come from government. etc. etc.

I believe that their lack of understanding is pretty much a result of multiple generations of school teachers imparting an incomplete understanding of our economy.

Those ARE my politics. Government is money.

Thank you for bootstrapping me.

That's pretty much it.

Remember Tombstone Pizza? The ads "What would you like on your Tombstone"?
If you get banned you get a 'tombstone' on your account. So people refer to it as getting a pizza.

Anyway, while the moderators are not trying to create an echo chamber, the site is specifically (and by the rules) a place for progressives/democrats to discuss democratic/progressive ideas. Constructive criticism is welcomed but, while there are thousands of sites for people from all over the political spectrum to debate eachother, this is intentionally NOT one of them.
That may be what people meant when the said 'are you sure you have the right forum'.
Many people here participate in other forums to avoid group think and echo chamber effects, but this board is about progressive ideas. and that rule IS enforced.

I really hope I wasn't too rude. I like to see other viewpoints and ideas. And I think you have been fairly good about trying to reply to all of us at once.

For what it's worth, I agree that we need better schools and civics and the economy are areas that clearly need improvement.
I think if you stick around (or even lurk) you will see that while some people here can be rather reflexive a lot of regular posters are extremely well educated and articulate. They don't hold their views out of ignorance.

Enjoy your pizza.

inadequate for describing people?

You lost me. I'll actually stick with James Joyce who basically thought Ayn was a squirrel (not his word but mine).

I love libraries, beautiful parks, smooth roads, safe bridges, love love public education, emergency services and helping those who are in dire straits. Yep, I love paying taxes, just wished most of my taxes didn't go to the MIC for wars or to war profiteers. I love having government agencies over greedy corporations taking over services and providing inadequate services just so they can make an extra buck. I love having government services, and wish they would get rid of the war profiteering corporations who have made billions on our soldiers while providing them with substandard food, tainted water, and unsafe electrical (that's when * privatized military services). See, when the government provides a service with my tax dollars, I still have representation--I still can rant and rave at my congresscritter. But, when a corporation provides the service, I lose that representation. And, see how some corporations have garnered more and more power within our government, I DO NOT TRUST THEM-for they show minimal responsibility and accountability to the public.

. . . if the tea parties have nothing to do with who is president? If indeed the tea parties are about deficit spending, surely there would have been many such demonstrations by the same folks during the Bush presidency? And surely in today's tea party demos there'd be prominent mentions of Bush on the signs alongside the Obama as Hitler ones.

I daresay you won't find any record pre-Obama tea party demos. And you won't find any anti-Bush signs at any of the present ones.

...while cutting revenues, not a single, future Tea Bagger complained. Not one!

It it means "kicking butt" in a foreign country, they're all for it. But just suggest public-financed health care and they go apeshit...

and are masquerading as something else, because as Republicans, they lost all credibility.
Their aims are those of the Republican party; to drown the government in the bathtub, to
gut all regulations, and to defeat Democrats, especially Barack Obama.
They have no other agenda.....

The fact that they showed up suddently 40 days into Obama's term, and that CNBC,
the biggest corporate Wall Street Whore of them all started the teabagger movement
via that rehearsed and planned Santelli rant!

Ain't nobody stupid except for those who think that this Teabagging fraud can be perpetuated
over the American people, brought to you by Corporations who are the GOP who are Teabaggers.

chicagoteaparty.org. That's what started it all and it was indeed a staged event. Here is Santelli's infamous rant:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

I've been shaking my head over the cluelessness of the teabaggers ever since. They really have no idea how manipulated they are because they were chosen for exploitation exactly because they repeat whatever they are told without any critical analysis. They are, quite frankly, stupid people. As in intelligence deficiency stupid.

We have a winner!

Ask ten different tea partiers what they are protesting against and you will get ten wildly different answers.

It's uncomplicated

That's why my new sort of meme that I spread in various forums is that libertarians and "independents" are people too ashamed to admit their really republicans.

threatening signs? I could not bring my tweener nieces to a meeting on HCR in N.J. because of the gun carrying teabaggers. That bodes so well for the future of politics. Why do you all scream like banshees at anyone who thinks differently that you? Your leaders are Dick Armey and Rush Limbaugh. It's a little late to try and pretend you are sane or that anyone here has anything in common with you.

Where were they when he had running quarterly deficits year after year?

Where were they when he was wasting 30 billion a month on war.



I know.

They were cheering him on.


Why?

Because they were/are fucking insane.

how would you raise income. no platform. no ideas. bullshit

Do you know what it would be for the national budget if you let tax cuts expire vs. not?
Do you know what it would be if health care reform passed vs. didn't?
Do you know what it would be for your state budget if you did not pay or get any federal taxes/money (ie are you a net giver or receiver)?

Honestly I think you are a democrat who just doesn't know it.

Look, I understand you are worried about the national debt. So are we. Let's say I had an idea that would help the situation... would you be open to exploring the potential benefits and potential drawbacks?

How about we start with this:
I think we should re-instate the estate tax. This will help to close the gap you are worried about in funding vs. spending.

Of course I don't want to put anyone out of their family business, or cause them to loose grandpas house... so let's come up with some reasonable limit.
How about no estate tax on the first $2,000,000.
Now if grandpa leaves you 2.2Million... you pay tax on 200k of income... and pay no tax on 2 million. Pretty sweet. I wish my grandpa had that kind of money (heck I wish I had met him).

Now I KNOW the 'tea party' would disagree with my idea. What I want to know is what do YOU think of it?

And it creates a straw man of my position.
I asked what you thought of an idea that would help.
I never claimed we could just tax our way to a balanced budget.

But now you have made a positive claim.
You say we can't tax our way out of it. In fact you appear to be of the opinion that increased revenues should not be ANY PART of the solution.
So two questions:
1. Why can't tax increases or tax cut repeals be *part* of the solution? Be very specific.
2. When are you going to tell your boss you don't need any more raises and in fact you are willing to go down to minimum wage?


The fact is that what you are participating in is a bait and switch.
Group 'R' said we need to temporarily cut taxes to stimulate growth. Group 'D' opposed this but lost.
Group 'R' now says any increase beyond the current (temporarily lowered) rate is an increase (see that switch) and we should balance the budget at the new lower level.
Rinse wash repeat.
Add tea baggers many of whom don't even know what the current tax rate is in comparison to its historical levels.

The campfire that keeps us all from freezing to death is our capitalist economy. Taxing of any kind tends toward depressing the campfire. The problem with the checkbook is that outgo > income. We really can't afford to dump water on the campfire just now, so what we need to do is reduce outgo. This is not rocket science. This is econ 101. new to site got deluged sorry.

"Taxing of any kind tends toward depressing the campfire."
This is actually not true. And I don't think even you would support it if we take it to the logical extreme.
When taxes are 0% you have anarchy because you can not fund a government. Result = bad for the fire.

In addition the capitalist economy didn't keep us from freezing to death (literally) which is why we created many social programs to begin with (for example SS).

Trying to reduce the real world budget of the United States of America to Econ 101 is a recipe for disaster. It turns out there is a reason they invented Econ 102, and 201, etc.

For example are you familiar with Nash equilibrium points?

Now I am not saying you shouldn't cut ANY spending. But you have a very very simplistic model and I think it is leading you down a very dangerous road.
What exactly happens when Chicago, or Boston, or NY cut their fire departments by a massive percentage? What happens when we cut the budget for federal highway maintenance by even more?
How do you stay the nation that every brilliant mind wants to come to.... if you cut funding for scientific research though various government agencies?

As a real world example Israel spent a fairly hefty amount on speculative research that most politicians here would call wasteful... and jump started a massive high tech boom.

The really REALLY isn't econ 101. Some of the principles apply but pretending it is that simple just isn't realistic.

Imagine yourself a small business person, for example. Current political discussion is a major reason to continue to refrain from expanding with, say, a new truck and new employees. These clowns seem totally unaware of the profoundly debilitating effect they are having on jobs and economy just by discussing it. (threatening it) We need to just quietly expand medicaid to cover the urgent problems and move on.

I don't need to imagine. But then I also followed what they were ACTUALLY discussing a lot more than most.

Health care is a great debate with many good and many bad ideas. I don't think it was ever depressing things as much as you think but I could be wrong. If it was I would say it was only because of so many media hyped lies. The plan was never going to decimate small companies. Neither side was for that. An increase in taxes for the super wealthy would barely register on the radar of small companies, their employees having basic health care without it coming out of the companies pocket would be a huge leveler against larger companies that can offer it as an employment incentive.
And the idea of putting minimums on % that goes to care? Or fixing pre-existing condition problems? That doesn't kill small companies. At worst it is neutral.

It sounds like you think we have some problems with our health coverage in this country. And you even think we should fix them. Discussing the details of things like that is what this board IS about. Most here think everyone should have some basic coverage. I agree. You may disagree. IMO the discussion is an important one. Sorry if it spoils things for some people who scare to easily at what is said of Fox news. We MUST have the discussion as a country.

I think my approach would differ quite a bit with yours. It is: make medicaid do what is not being done. Honor and thank and respect the people already in the business. They are producing 3% profits, worse than grocery stores. They are not villains. Help them that's got to be helped and somehow get everyone into screening programs. Politicking about those nasty ole insurance people is silly and much worse than counter productive. And what's wrong with lightening up on the nonsense lawsuits a bit? etc.

I would love to delve into various ideas about health care and court reforms. I bet we would disagree. And I bet we would have at least some common ground (hey we already agree there are problems).
But unfortunately I have some things to do other than surf the web tonight.

Keep coming up with ideas though. I think the country needs more people who are at least acknowledging a problem exists and pondering possible solutions.

That works for me.

It's about protecting America from terrorists.

Seriously, though. I really don't care if we get any oil from them. If the US got serious about alternative energy sources, the problem could be solved. And think about all the jobs that would open up.

research and development so we could cut the military more in the future.

Good idea? Bad idea? Why?

The fact is that I agree we can not simply stop spending money on the military, or even the military on the middle east. But that does not mean we should just settle for the status quo.

Solar will heat lukewarm water. BFD. A gallon of oil has lots and lots and lots of energy in it. It is a very tough problem. Brazil did it (vegetable oil) because they ruined their currency and noone would sell to them. They had no choice. I'm all for alternatives - but as an engineer I can tell you that myths prevail.

But we also know that if we have an oil peak and we aren't ready we are very very screwed.
And I don't think you are being 100% fair to alternatives. Solar isn't ready to meet our needs for example, but it can be a piece of the solution even if it peaks at 1-2% of domestic usage.

Another good idea is looking at ways to just use less. That is part of what CAFE standards and other similar incentives and programs are about. The 'tea party' would likely be irate at the idea of such 'market manipulation' but many of those programs have worked. As an engineer I am sure you can tell us that an F350 certainty isn't an efficient way to go to the super market. Or a particularly safe one (when you consider the entire society).

So yes myths abound. Energy storage as dense as oil/petroleum products is hard to come by. But in the long run we need a societal plan.

One barb: We've had CAFE for years, and what do we get? Suburbans, f350s, etc. etc. Because that's what people want to buy. Frankly, we'd all be well served (and hated) by another buck or so on gas. That would do more, more quickly, than a bunch of bureaucrats trying to outfox a bunch of lawyers. But, like the spending problems, noone has the guts to do it.

CAFE standards don't apply to vehicles classified as light trucks in the same way they do to passenger cars.
Which seems reasonable until you realize the definition of light truck makes, an F150, an Escalade, and a PT Cruser all as light trucks.
Another issue is marketing.
Because of the ban on light trucks from outside the US we had SUVs and other light trucks promoted to high hell. Almost killed the US Auto industry.
Fact is that fleet averages HAVE come up. Some consumer pressure, and some from CAFE.

As for your gas tax idea I (and many if not most here) completely agree that we would be better served by a higher tax on gas. You are far from alone on that one. And you will find the supporters here would be happy to pay it and try in vain to explain to the station attendant why they thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

It is way more efficient than legislating

Try putting your intellect there.

but thinks electric cars are "decades" away

FFS

Oh, I can hear you now. "Those poor, poor rich folk..."

Why not just build a bigger campfire, where everyone has what they need? Fire works automatically, you just have to configure the fuel (capital) properly.

Another analogy: don't eat the seed corn.

rising tide lifts all boats.

economics is so simple -- just get out of the way. Maybe a little regulation, carefully applied -- presto everyone is better off.

No offense, but if you think this is a board by-and-large loaded with economic conservatives, you're sadly, SADLY mistaken.

You're trumping up FAILED IDEAS. Your phraseology is one of theory and not reality. That's not something I'm going to let sit.

"Let Do", DIDN'T.

Rising tides only lift yachts. None of us can afford anything but wood planks.

We "got out of the way" for 28 years. That failed 95% of us miserably. Wages have stagnated. The wealth-to-working income gap has ballooned. There's been zero job growth in ten YEARS. This is all undisputed. Your little sect's "ideas" are a steaming pile of ROT. The only section that has recovered in the past 10 years has been the wealthy and Wall Street.

Randian bullshit belongs on that OTHER site.

"You're not as poor as someone who eats bugs and lives in a mud hut; therefore, you're not poor."

Squalor is squalor, and to pretend it doesn't exist in America is not only delusional but despicable. Getting into a pissing contest over poverty doesn't make one party any better or worse than the other.

Reagan's trickle on economic plan is where we are today. Reagan cuts taxes to 28%-now during FDR, tax on the wealthy was 94%, I believe with Eisenhower it was 88%. It is not until Reagan, that taxes on the wealthy go down to an obscene level. Trickle on does not work. But, if you really wanted to screw the middle class, it's working just fine.

senior citizens are having a hard time as it is--they've paid into SS all of their lives. Maybe we can keep greedheads from tapping into SSA as they've being doing since Reagan.

Wow. I can see you really thought that through.
So all programs are equally over budget? NONE are at the right funding level?
NONE are underfunded?

No consideration of a tax increase?

Tell Colorado Springs to cut ANOTHER 20%. In fact please move there.

So tell us. Is the 'tea party' for or against allowing temporary tax breaks to expire?
What does exercising your second amendment rights have to do with sound fiscal policy?
If it transcends being R or D, or how you voted in the election... what percentage of the 'party' is D or I?

Do you seriously run your own budget this way?
Wow.. we spent 20% too much last month. So we will only spend 20% less on fast food... but that is ok because we will also only pay 80% of our electric bill... and drop the termostat from 68 to 54.

You seem to think it doesn't matter if the money went to failed programs or successfully ones we just cut both the failures and successes by 20%. That isn't how real life works. Some of those programs are vitally important. Others not so much. And some need even more funding.

And if you are routinely over budget on your basic necessities (say baby food) do you cut that? or do you look for a second job, or ask for a cost of living adjustment?

I can guarantee that the 'tea party' would go ape shit if Obama announced a 20% cut in the military budget and boarder patrol.

Of course, not all would agree with how. But the 'tea party' thing began primarily about out-of-control nonsense fiscal policy -- spending

Balancing the budget is important. Nobody here will disagree with that. In fact we are in favor of paying down the national debt.
But we disagree on how to proceed. And yelling racist bullshit in the streets hurts the discourse.
And like it or not THAT is what the 'tea party' is actually out there doing.

You are trying to pretend the 'Tea Party' is something it isn't and get us to attack that straw man.
Unfortunately we are on to you. Get over it. We agree balancing the budget is important. We just don't think it is a good idea to do it with one blunt tool because... once you actually get informed you realize attacking the problem that way is the only way to guarantee a disaster.

BTW you keep lying about how the 'tea party' began. It is NOT about spending. It is about the election. If you honestly think these same people would have been out protesting the Bush tax cuts if they only caught on sooner you are deluding yourself.
WE fought those cuts because they were fiscally irresponsible.
WE made a fuss when he lied about the cost of war.
WE were upset when he didn't include the war spending in the budget.
WE want to cut spending in some areas, increase it in others, increase taxes, and ultimately balance the budget.
THE TEA PARTY wants to carry around signs claiming President Obama is not a citizen
THE TEA PARTY wants to talk about gun rights
THE TEA PARTY shows no intention of correcting any of its erroneous statements or opinions.
THE TEA PARTY is about lying about 'death panels' and making racist remarks.

it used to be in the republican platform too.
The difference is we aren't suicidal about it. You don't cut every part of your budget equally. You still pay the full mortgage payment. You don't drink 20% less fluids, and you DO cut 100% of your fast food budget, and maybe all of your cable bill. But the gas still goes in the car so you can get to work.

You are desperately trying to get us to disagree with a balanced budget. My only disagreement is that it needs to be MORE than balanced to pay down the debt.

I will however take issue with you on a few things... which you are consistently failing to address:
1. This is NOT what the 'tea party' is actually out there talking about. It isn't their rallying point. They are not a viable third party. They are mostly just upset about the election... and many of them on racial grounds.
2. They are damaging the country more than helping. The last thing we need is their hyper-polarized no discussion our way or the highway bullshit.
3. Hacking at every program as if they are all equal without any discussion of raising revenues or the relative merits of programs is retarded.

Nor is it entirely fair.
How much do you know about the legislative process? I don't mean to be insulting but I have found assuming someone knows things sometimes backfires.

All the world is divided into two parts: politicians and their victims. None of the beltway gang are willing to do the simple thing needed: to restrain spending like grownups. How do the sovereign people gain control? I think maybe legislative term limits.

Get real.

Please provide a direct quote or admit you are putting words in my mouth.

I don't need to go to Pailin to see what the 'tea party' is about. Have you looked at the signs at an average 'tea party' 'rally'? Seen what the average attendee is babbling about? And I say babbling on purpose because if you fact check it your head might explode.

He has responded to a number of posts. He got flooded and I think some of his views are being seriously challenged. By all means question his faulty assumptions and call him for evasion but no need to be rude.

He's responded with what? A 20% across the board cut. Pretending that the Teabagges are for both Dem and Repub.

His pizza will be coming soon enough.

The guy isn't a robot. He is willing to think at least a little. And to discuss.
He may not belong on DU but I wouldn't be too quick to label him troll either.
I have seen some serious Trolls, and this is not a worst case offender.

We could post pics all day of 'tea party' posters that are racist, birther crap, anti-death panel bullshit. We could link to dozens upon dozens of interviews with attendees that show they are not focused on BOTH parties.
And we can point out that the top instigators are partisan hacks.

Obviously *you* feel both parties are inadequate. And good for you. Many of us feel that way. Surf around DU and you will see a lot of criticisms of democrats (we try to ke