Why do you hate the Tea Party?

[NickViar]

[quote]treco wrote:
If this graphic is taken as factual, how long can any country continue to borrow before a reset so extreme as to permanently alter its position or even existence?

To my way of thinking:
A strong military does not have to mean that we spend 40% of the world’s military budget and play both international cop and nation rebuilder for those countries that we militarily destroy;[/quote]
Do suggest that we retire on top? We must expand until we collapse, as all those that came before us.

[quote]
If we are going to have nationalized medicine (we already do thanks to ACA, Medicare, & Medicaid) then the facilities need to be governmental facilities staffed by government caretakers in place of allowing insurance companies, doctors/hospital chains to make profits on top of expenses, and various pikers that are cheating the system through over billing, double billing, fraud; [Hate the thought of this actually, but,][/quote]
I wonder whether anyone ever thought about this before ACA, Medicare, and Medicaid? Regulate desirable things until they become too expensive to compete with the government’s solution…hmmm

[quote]The Federal civilian workforce of 2.1MM workers has a compensation of $120,000
yearly vs private sector average of $67,000 - so are we saying there is no where to lower this?;[/quote]
The Federal civilian workforce is backed by a bully that can beat up the private sector(and state and local governments.

[quote]Why do we have to continue with a negatively unbalanced budget fueled by deficit spending? So we can police the world, pay off governments not to radicalize, ransom the future by borrowing to send charity to corrupt areas that have never in history had neither any affluence nor lack of a dictator?
Or where our deficit issue really is - telling people we are going to give them tens (maybe hundreds) of $TT of Social Security/Medicare payments above what they paid in which is estimated $200-600,000 per family, at the same time that 12 payers per recipient is now 3 per (2 per when any of us retire). Should this really not be addressed or do we renege on $???TT of promissory notes by telling their holders we have 1/2 of the naval tonnage and airplanes to complement our world best land and sub nuclear force & to piss off;[/quote]
This is just the way that it has always been done.

The 2013 Federal and combined state revenues were $4TT (~24% of GDP) - so we need more tax revenue than Total GDP of any other country in the world except China or Japan (just missed their 4.8) and yet still need more? Is it wrong to suggest this is insanity that you and I pay for and needs discussing and acting upon;

If you love China so much, why don’t you marry it?

Lastly Corporations have voted with their feet - the profits are not coming back to be cut down by 1/3 for the pleasure of filing a US return.

We don’t need 'em-look at what you wrote in the paragraph prior to this. We’re making three times what any other country is.

Where and with whom should we look for solutions to this ticking bomb that threatens America’s very existence?

The Federal Go(d)vernment.

[Sloth]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

…you don’t propose cutting taxes on the guy who’s deciding where his off-season/vacation home should be…

[/quote]

Take this advice, my young friend: quit worrying about others with two homes “not paying their fair share” and more about a rising tide lifting all boats.[/quote]

At this point in my life I’ll welcome being called young any way I can get it. I’m more worried about the fact that the only thing this country will be able to afford is to service its debt and pay its entitlement obligations. I’m not worried about the hardship of the Clintons, The Romneys, etc. I’m just not really all that concerned at how hard the fellas down at the local yacht club here have it. In fact, I’m not sold on the idea that they couldn’t chip in a few more dollars if it would mean convincing the rest of the nation we are actually serious about there being some serious financial hurdles coming up. And since we’re serious, we’re serious about the need to restructure/cut entitlements. And I’m don’t mean cut them completely out of the picture, which is pure fantasy. Or phase them out, which is still pure fantasy. But, yes, we will have to deny some benefits, trim some benefits even more based on income, push up ages to collect, yadda, yadda.

What has absolutely no chance of maintaining even a second of an audiences time is “We’re going to ask you folks to sacrifice the entitlements (a loser already, even within the tea party) you’ve come to depend on because we’re just hurting so bad. Yep, we must scrape up and pinch every penny. Oh yeah, but them folks who are doing just fine, they’re just too burdened, so we’ll be mounting operation ‘I’ll be able to afford to buy my 16 year old kid the fully loaded version of the sports car she wanted.’ A tax relief program for the hurting upper-middle/upper income folk who have to settle for lesser luxury goods.” Yeah, cause that’s going to ever sell.

Having told a massive population in this nation that you intend to spend even 1 penny less than what was previously projected for their food, medicine, shelter, and old age funds because we just can’t do it anymore…And then, at the same, turning around and promising that Mr. Buffet will soon be relieved of his burdensome and miserable state! Right. [/quote]

I’m going to tell you again NOT to worry about rich folks being so blankety-blank rich. That’s just emotion that’s taken me over,
tied up in sorrow, lost in my soul…

A rich man spends plenty of money and when he spends that money other people make money.

A rich man also invests plenty of money and when he invests that money more liquidity occurs. With more liquidity the money supply increases and folks like you and I benefit because borrowing is made easier. When borrowing is easier more start-up businesses are created – a good thing.

A rich man employs plenty of people and when he employs plenty of people plenty of people benefit because they have JOBS! The more people with JOBS! the more everybody benefits including the government which you are insistent we be more dependent on.

You’re a sucker if you think the key is socking it to more rich people.

• This is coming from someone who is a long ways from being a rich man, financially, that is.[/quote]

Then if being even MORE RICH is what it takes for them to pay their employees a bit more, and hire a few more of their fellow countrymen to do the work, even though the income gap was grown regardless…They aren’t electing anyone who has a chance at touching entitlements. Well, outside of eventually crafting universal single payer health-care. But that’s probably not what we have in mind.

Oh well, I was hoping we could show people that Limbaugh could sacrifice a few cigars, a few days at the exclusive country club, a couple less flights of his private jet a year…If old lady May is to be asked to foot her own medical bills, her prescriptions, her grocery bill, all the while still keeping her home. Because you know, we’re so serious about the debt.

[Alrightmiami19c]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

What has absolutely no chance of maintaining even a second of an audiences time is “We’re going to ask you folks to sacrifice the entitlements (a loser already, even within the tea party) you’ve come to depend on because we’re just hurting so bad. Yep, we must scrape up and pinch every penny. Oh yeah, but them folks who are doing just fine, they’re just too burdened, so we’ll be mounting operation ‘I’ll be able to afford to buy my 16 year old kid the fully loaded version of the sports car she wanted.’ A tax relief program for the hurting upper-middle/upper income folk who have to settle for lesser luxury goods.” Yeah, cause that’s going to ever sell.

[/quote]

Sacrifice your entitlements? When was the last time there was an actual cut to entitlement spending? Not to the annual increase, and actual cut? How about a cut in any federal spending?

There are people that need help, but why does that help always have to come at the forced expense of someone else? We have exchanged freedom, family and charity for theft and redistribution.

[Alrightmiami19c]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If old lady May is to be asked to foot her own medical bills, her prescriptions, her grocery bill, all the while still keeping her home. Because you know, we’re so serious about the debt.
[/quote]

How about Joe douche-bag faking an injury to be on social security disability?

[Sloth]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Old lady May does NOT improve her condition on the condition that Limbaugh gives to the US Treasury what would’ve been the expense of a couple flights on his private jet. It. Just. Doesn’t. Work. That. Way.[/quote]

Old lady May doesn’t believe you when you say there’s something so wrong with the nation’s financial state that she will have to worry over her own medicine, food, and shelter…While watching you then turn around and give money back to Limbaugh.

And that’s how it works. The tea party won’t even let you touch its entitlements programs, much less anyone else as you fight for the Limbaughs of the world to not be so miserably burdened.

[BlueCollarTr8n]

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
When was the last time there was an actual cut to entitlement spending? Not to the annual increase, and actual cut? How about a cut in any federal spending?

[/quote]

If I understand correctly they have eliminated the ability to collect spousal SS benefits while the collecting spouse has their own benefit frozen. Not much; but it’s a start.

[countingbeans]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

But we can cut to the chase - what do you think we should do with Social Security?

[/quote]

First off:

Raise the contribution limit to 160k on the employee half, and 300k on the employer half.

Dictate a “minimum expected benefit” at various points. Once a wage earner pays in enough to satisfy, say 30% of that benefit, they can opt to have 20%, 30% or 50% of their continued contributions go to a special “IRA” type, and the remained goes to the government.

Means testing. After 65 (or whatever age, doesn’t matter) you can elect on a year to year basis, with the filing of your tax return to collect your SS, defer it so it compounds, or have it go to your surviving spouse in the chance of your death. This will keep all these evil “fat cats” we’re reading about in this thread from taking out so much money.

Look, end of the day, it’s a Ponzi Scheme. To deny this is to show ignorance or deny reality. It will fail under it’s own necessity to survive, more workers than retirees.

[countingbeans]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
while also proposing to cut taxes. Especially of the upper middle/upper income.
[/quote]

The upper middle and upper income people PAY ALL THE TAXES collected. How much of their income going to the government is “fair” to you?

Also, are we cool with Hollywood and sports stars making what they are making, or is it just certain rich people I’m supposed to blame and look down on here?

[anon50325502]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
while also proposing to cut taxes. Especially of the upper middle/upper income.
[/quote]

The upper middle and upper income people PAY ALL THE TAXES collected. How much of their income going to the government is “fair” to you?

Also, are we cool with Hollywood and sports stars making what they are making, or is it just certain rich people I’m supposed to blame and look down on here?[/quote]

It’s just evil CEOs of course.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

…And to be sure, I don’t hate the Tea Party. Far from it, I admire the original expression of it. But that movement got co-opted by incompetent far-right wingers that were not necessarily representative of the original movement.

[/quote]

Please explain. You apparently are far more familiar with the Tea Party than I am.

So, I don’t hate the Tea Party - they just need to be keep away from running anything important.

Yeah, you’re right, the crowd that’s been running things for the past half century or more should continue to run it, right? They’ve done such an outstanding fucking stellar job we should let ‘em keep on keepin’ on? Just get rid of the Export-Import Bank and all is peachy? Your “moderation” and “compromise” is like a dead body, Oppenheimer, – after awhile it really, really starts to stink and no amount of air freshener can make it smell like daffodils and lavender.

Wake up. Your cabal of compromisers is running the country underwater. The Tea Party as far as I can tell is adding some appropriate ying to all the malignant yang goin’ on.
[/quote]

Who said I was for the Status Quo currently operating in D.C.? I surely am not. And just because I favor individuals who know how to govern and compromise isn’t tantamount to liking the current Establishment.

This fantasy you have is based on a false dichotomy and a false choice - you’re either with far-right, libertarian-ish, “constitutional” conservatives or you are with the current status quo players. It’s hogwash, there’s no such dichotomy. You can be against the current political class in Washington and think Tea Party types are a bunch of bozos.

I want throw the bums out in both parties for their dereliction of duty to deal with entitlements, but I don’t think far-right approach is a good or feasible solution to the actual problem.

Politics in real life doesn’t fit the cartoon characters you’ve made up in your mind to represent Good and Evil. Such a view is just another one of your lazy dodges.

[Sloth]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
while also proposing to cut taxes. Especially of the upper middle/upper income.
[/quote]

The upper middle and upper income people PAY ALL THE TAXES collected. How much of their income going to the government is “fair” to you?

Also, are we cool with Hollywood and sports stars making what they are making, or is it just certain rich people I’m supposed to blame and look down on here?[/quote]

This isn’t a discussion of fair. Nor have I blamed anyone for being wealthy. I have merely pointed out that it isn’t much of sacrifice to be a bit less wealthy than they would be if a tax cut for the wealthy suddenly, somehow, materialized. Especially when you consider the kind of sacrifices one wishes to ask of the average elderly person. If you’re going to ask people to sacrifice for the nation, when that sacrifice will literally, in many cases, be a sacrifice to their quality of life (food, shelter, prescriptions, health care, retirement past an age where they’re undesirable for employment)…Well, nobody is going to believe your doom and gloom about the nation’s finances if you turn around to make sure Mr. Trump and Mayweather (there’s your sports star) have a bit more to spend on jet fuel. They’re going to be ok. They’ll continue eating, picking up their meds, etc.

Everybody will have to sacrifice. And I mean feel some actual sacrifice. Or nobody is going to agree to their share of the sacrifice.

And no, I don’t exclude the celebrity. I despise the whole culture and industry that pops up around them. If I have to scroll past one more piece about some Kardashian…

[Sloth]

Well, good luck selling the idea that Mayweather, Gates, the Kerry’s, Limbaugh, and the Kardashians are in desperate need of relief while proposing the phasing out of–or even simple cuts–entitlements that are keeping so many heads above water. You know what? I take it back. That’s like wishing the losing side luck after the war has already been lost. Even 70% of tea party folk are telling you guys to stay the hell away from the big entitlements, the ones that actually are going to need some serious tuning and/or restructuring. But hey, I’m feeling charitable.

So good luck anyways in proposing sacrifice to a massive portion of the population while slipping some more dollars back into the pockets of a group that already reaped the rewards of an increased income gap, and who aren’t worrying about things like choosing between groceries, a medical procedure, the roof over their head, and/or their prescriptions. But the reality is, yours is already a lost war.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Who said I was for the Status Quo currently operating in D.C.?..

[/quote]

You do. Through both implication and what you don’t say.

You’ve been on here for years, Oppy, you have a track record that can be examined.

Now if what you say in the rest of your post is true maybe it’s time you got specific in what you mean by “throwing the bums out.” You’re an articulate, knowledgeable fellow so instead of being just the squaw on the edge of the circle who beats the drum at the Tea Party torture session maybe we’ll someday see you become the warrior who actually takes some scalps every now and then.

Get busy.
[/quote]

So, let’s get this right - in addition to your hobby of using Orwellian powers to make words mean whatever you want them to mean, now you’re telling me that what I’m telling you I think and believe isn’t actually true and that you know better what I actually think and believe from magically-filled “inferences”?

Who knew? All along I’ve accused you of creating straw men on positions I don’t hold, but it turns out I really do hold all these positions I think I don’t and you’re just a gifted psychic. Helpful to know - and let’s all hope you use your newly discovered superpowers for the Forces of Good.

Seriously. Stop talking.

[countingbeans]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I have merely pointed out that it isn’t much of sacrifice to be a bit less wealthy than they would be if a tax cut for the wealthy suddenly, somehow, materialized. Especially when you consider the kind of sacrifices one wishes to ask of the average elderly person. [/quote]

Personally, I’m not necessarily asking anyone to make the kind of sacrifices I believe you are describing. In fact my previous post about SS wasn’t a reduction in any benefits at all, and in fact making “rich” people pay more, for basically nothing in return, taxation without representation.

Anywho, your post was a fair one, but I have one question then I’ll rephrase:

How much should the upper middle & upper wage earners be paying into the system, while the bottom quintiles get more and more back with very little (nothing in comparison) paid in? What is the correct % of their earnings that should be taken by the government?