Questions for Tea Partiers

Yes in a way. The fact that we were even talking about default only proves that it is inevitable, the only question is when. If everyone was really concerned about default, what the President would be saying is that there is no way we will stop making payments on our debt. We will cut everything else first. We will prioritize our interests payments and principal payments on a national debt. They only used default as a justification for raising the debt ceiling. The only way we can default is if we choose to do that, because there is plenty of money.

 

No. Democrats get that perfectly well. That's why they're trying to get tax levels to a stable level now and pay our bills. Otherwise we won't be able to raise taxes high enough to pay them.

Low taxes now = extremely high taxes later. That's something most **********s don't have the "forward thinking" to grasp. They'd rather pass the buck for the sake of lower taxes.

 

That brush of yours seems to be too broad. There are a lot of folks in the Tea Party movement that are closer to Libertarian than Republican.

 

And when the numbers came in for 2007 the last year of Republican control that growth had reached 44%.

 

The only thing more preposterous than the math used to determine these figures being thrown around everywhere is the assumptions at its basis.

 

So they just don't care if they spend us over the cliff of financial doom.

The tax rates are stable, so how much higher tax rates do you want to pay?

Low tax rates now = higher revenues later.

That's something most leftist don't have the "forward thinking" to grasp. They'd rather pass the buck for the sake of higher taxes to satisfy their envy of people who earn more than they do.

 

you are correct, MissJonelyn.

Especially when you say, "The Tea Party didn't exist during Bush's tenure so not only is your question a trick question, it's also a dumb one."



We can thank Obama’s inattention to the debt crisis for these latest salvos against our 401 (k) savings plans! If the carnage continues to occur on Wall Street, no one will have any money left to spend and invest and help the economy to grow and put unemployed Americans back to work!

 

Yep. You're right actually.

 

Here's the deal - if I thought that raising taxes would actually help the situation I wouldn't necessarily be against raising them until we got the debt/deficit under control. But that is not how it will go down. Here's why this won't work:

1. Congress has proven time and again that they will not only spend every cent they receive, but they will also borrow shamelessly against any future revenue. This is why we are in the shape we're in - they've proven that they can't be trusted to live within their means. The most striking example of this is the looting of Social Security - if a private company ran their pension plan like the gubment runs SS the CEO, CFO and board of directors would be in prison and demonized by the press as a "greedy corporation. Why is it OK for the gubment to misappropriate funds but it's a crime in private industry? At any rate, to raise taxes would be what I would call throwing good money after bad. It would be the practical equivalent of a teenager who maxed out his credit card and his parents begin making payments while requesting a credit limit increase. How is that a good thing?

2. Any sane economist will tell you that raising taxes in a recession is not the way to stimulate the economy. Even the school of thought that believes government spending is the answer (which I definitely DON'T agree with) to a recession concedes that to do this you run a deficit, you don't try to tax your way out of a recession. I'd be interested to see any example you could give me of a gubment that was able to tax it's way out of a recession.

3. As a staunch subcriber to the trickle down theory, I believe that the lower we can make taxes (and still remain solvent) the better it will be for economic growth - resulting in greater revenue for the government and lower tax rates. As the economy grows you expand the tax base. This growth must be in the private sector otherwise you are just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

This is exactly what Obama should have done. He should have said, "I will cut your taxes, if you let me spend more". That would put the Tea Party/Republican's in a pickle. What do they want more. I think we should cut taxes and spend a heck of a lot more than we are now. People have a fundamental misunderstanding of Govt finances and should not be advocating the Govt cut spending during a recession.

That is a surefire way to cause a depression. Cut taxes, spend a ton... basically Reagan's approach!!

 

This is a ridiculous straw man. The Tea Party would never go for more spending just to get a tax cut. Their entire premise is predicated on the fact that the gubment is spending too much which will in turn cause higher taxes in the future.

In case you haven't noticed, the income tax rates have not changed since Obama has been in office. So why all of a sudden the Tea Party? Because of the out of control spending. BTW - there were already many conservatives who critisized Bush for the exact same thing - myself included. It just happened that the Tea Party got ramped up after the economic crash when Obama's answer to it was that great pork fest called "the stimulus", which has been borne out as an abject failure.

 

Please, the Tea Party is a bunch of hypocrite sellouts. They would sell their own children for a tax cut.

 

Really? So... what you're saying is that the Tea Party will push for a tax cut regardless of the cost? This would imply that their sole platform is to cut taxes and they will do anything to get that done, is that your position?

 

Yes, I believe their sole platform is to cut taxes at all costs.

 

More able bodied college students on food stamps now = higher taxes later. That's something most mooches with an entitled attitude don't have the "forward thinking" to grasp. They'd rather pass the buck for the sake of keeping the government teat from going dry.

 

Great thing about being part of the Tea Party: No one else but you can tell you what your principals are.

 

Well... I can only believe what they talk about and what they do. Here is there entire unedited platform:

1. Illegal Aliens Are Here Illegally.
2. Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
3. Stronger Military Is Essential.
4. Special Interests Eliminated.
5. Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
6. Government Must Be Downsized.
7. National Budget Must Be Balanced.
8. Deficit Spending Will End.
9. Bail-Out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
10. Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
11. Reduce Business Income Taxes Are Mandatory.
12. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
13. Intrusive Government Stopped.
14. English As Core Language Is Required.
15. Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.


Strangely their 15 point platform has only two (13%) points related to taxes and four (26%) points related to fiscal responsbility. What in their words or actions leads you to believe that they would do anything to get a tax cut including acceptance of increased spending since their platform explicitly outnumbers taxcuts vs. fiscal responsibility by a 2:1 margin?

 

Lowering your revenue increases your revenue... riiight...

 

See? This is typical of the liberal mentality. When it's to their advantage they can engage in all sorts of mental acrobatics to justify their position, but when presented with a common sense statement they don't look at the obvious implications beyond the statement. Yeah... that would require work.

Here's the way it works: Lower taxes creates a business friendly environment. When businesses ramp up they begin to hire people (you know, all those folks who have been collecting unemployment for the last year?), when people get hired, rather than taking tax money out of the treasury, they actually pay taxes into the treasury on the income they make and they have more money to spend thus setting the cycle into place.

If you can't get beyond that simple little concept then there's really not much use in going any further.

 

Principles.

 

Thank you. I guess if you've taken the time to point out my typos you have nothing to say about my earlier post then.

 

Ha! Classic lib tactic, Can't argue on the substance, so you start nitpicking at grammar and spelling.

Put your red pen away and contribute to the discussion. You know what she meant.

 

4) Hate people that take handouts.
5) Don't touch my Social Security.

 

What post, particularly are you referring to? I've been in meetings for the last two days.

By the way, confusing homonyms isn't a typo. It's a grammatical error.

 

NPA,
I will do my best to answer your questions with the caveat that I do not personally speak for anyone but myself. Not because I believe that your curiosity is genuine, mind you... but simply because somebody more impartial than yourself might be wondering.

No. We are equally concerned with adherence to the Constitution.

It's probably simpler than you make it out to be. If somebody amends the Constitution, then that amendment means whatever they intended it to mean. They generally wrote extensively enough to figure it out; it ain't rocket science.

No. The TEA Party holds no official position.

Personally, yes. Constitutionally, it should be a State matter. The TEA Party holds no official position.

Personally, yes. The TEA Party holds no official position.

Anything that isn't expressly reserved for the Federal government is reserved for the States or the People. See 10th Amdt.

You can have anything that would be entrusted to an enlisted member. Plenty of writings to back that up. So yes on the grenade launcher and .50 cal, but no on the nuke.

No Federal programs. Anything else (including state level) is fair game.

Not within the purview of the Federal government. Personally pro-gay marriage.

Not within the purview of the Federal government. Personally pro-gays in the military.

Personally anti any income tax. TEA Party holds no official position beyond the measures outlined.

Not entirely. Some of them did and some of them didn't.

Yes, tho' I'm not a fan. The TEA Party does not endorse candidates.

Personally, FOX has an intentional conservative agenda. TEA Party, no official position.

Personally, yes. Officially, no position.

No.

No. equal parts Dems and establishment Republicans.

No. Tax breaks are just another way for the government to pay off their supporters.

No. America is legally secular.

No. Except where it conflicts with freedom of speech, everything should be public.