Questions for Tea Partiers

You're for default? Or do you want to take away my dying Uncle's medicare so you can cut without raising the debt limit?

 

Also I would like to answer questions of the OP but I don't feel like going through them in one so I'll post the answers individually.

 

Your dying uncle deserves our good wishes. As far as his claim to Medicare is concerned, it needs to be means tested.

 

Not raising the debt ceiling is not an automatic consequence of a default. There are a few ways we can default and one of them is if the President chooses to and acknowledges that he cannot pay back this debt. President is basically saying that if he can't go deeper into debt to pay back his creditors then we will default. That's not an automatic consequence of not raising the debt ceiling.

 

How old is your uncle? If he was over 65, nobody proposed anything that would change medicare.

So are you in favor of spending money that we do not have in order to protect everybody from the cradle to the grave?

 

"The government stealing our money." Which party does that sound like? Except, it's okay for you if the government steals "your money"...as long as they blow it on military budgets instead of poor people and education.

 

Who said "The Government Stealing our money" in the video? At what point in the video was that said?

Who says that the Government steals? We have a problem with Government taking money and spending it in ways that don't benefit anyone. Taking our money and misrepresenting us.

 

Um..at 4:10, where you pointed me to? Did you even watch your own video?

 

Yes I did. The entire video she said "taking" she only said "stealing" that one time and I didn't catch it until the very end.

 

Yup. Whose line does that sound like?

 

Well since the deficits were coming down and spending increases were being managed and revenues were increasing and we had full employment, what was there to be outraged about?

The better question is how much did the Republican Congress, you seem confused to think the President raises the debt ceiling and controls spending and not the Congress, raise the debt ceiling dollar wise in all those raises versus the Democrats after they took control in 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_US_debt_ceiling_increases

Notice how the smaller increases are with Republican Congresses.

 

Because they weren't even at least semi-organized as a political power then, why else did you think? But then Bush wasn't doing the same thing, he cut taxes and got out of the way so business could turn around the down turn in the economy he came into office on. And it worked. Obama has tried to micromanage the economy think he could control it with government spending and he has totally failed.

 

They weren't semi organized because they were okay with deficit spending when a Republican did it. Thanks for proving my point.

The rest of your post is absolutely hilarious. Bush created 2 trillion of the deficit dollars with his tax cuts. Hooray!

 

Based upon my historcal analysis and studies of the "Contract from America", I would consider the Tea Party the following:

1. Literal or original constructionists when interpreting the Constitution
2. A modern version of an anti-federalist
3. Fiscal conservative regressionists

 

It sounds like someone angry at their tax dollars being put to waste.

 

It's difficult to abandon "your guy." That's why the leftist anti-war movement is now silent. It doesn't want to do anything to hurt "its guy."

But Bush started losing people with his deficit spending and desire for amnesty for illegals. By the time Bush left office the conservative movement was almost dead. It took the Leftist Messiah to resurrect the movement.

 

Because they had never been organized. Period. They had no reason to.

Glad you find history so entertaining. I do too. But it is more hilarious to watch people who don't know what they are talking about laugh at them out of ignorance.

So refute what I stated if you think can.

 

I'm pretty sure he created that with his spending. Government revenue was 1.5 trillion dollars during his term.

Always something the tax cutting opponents conveniently leave out.

 

Oh I agree it needs to be means tested. But since his only income is Social Security that wouldn't be a problem. And there will be more people in his situation (I mean that in the sense that they will be very sick and have huge medical bills, at the end of life or maybe in the middle of life) that they have no way to afford simply with insurance. That's the only point I was really making. My great grandma also died while on Medicare in the hospital. And again her only income was Social Security. And towards the end, even though she had both of her legs, she couldn't walk. It's just a viscous world for some people.

 

He is over 65, but what about future retirees who become terribly sick? What about someone who gets cancer that requires years and years of expensive therapy? And they happen to make 30-40,000 a year. I don't see what your plan is for people like that. Heck, even someone who is a millionaire could be drained if the right sickness came along.

 

I'm not quite sure what your first sentence means so I'll tell you how I interpreted it and then you can tell me whether I am right or wrong. It seems like you might mean that if the debt-ceiling is not raised, then it does not necessarily mean immediate default. There would be some wiggle room on that. But the fact would remain that some things could not be paid. And the financial markets would have reacted if this had been forced (by either Democrats or Republicans). And, not raising the debt-ceiling means you cannot borrow anything else. You can only take what is currently coming in each month. And that is why some obligations could not be paid. http://www.politifact.com/georgia/s...a-republican-tom-price-says-paying-debtholde/. So there would have to be a default on certain items, it would just depend on what those would be.

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6uH_hG_7G...00/econ-2009-10-17-federal-revenue-of-gdp.jpg

Why can't you people read a (*)(*)(*)(*) chart?

 

One simple FACT that some refuse to acknowledge: The ONLY way to incur debt is to spend money. You can't increase debt if you don't spend money you don't have. AND, the Congress and the President are spending NONE of their own money so they need to be responsible and stop spending our' and our kid's money.

How can ANYONE argue with that?

 

I was going to respond because the OP seemed to be rational but was I read his questions and comments the facade of rationality slipped away. If it were actually a discussion it might be interesting but a discussion with a true believer is rather pointless.

 

Nice little crayon drawing. That's not the amount of federal revenue taken in by the government by the way. That's the revenues percent of GDP. Not really the same thing, so a poor attempt on your part.

Now time for some real statistics:

CBO Statment:

CBO: Tax Revenue

Pay attention to the revenue by Major Source on the last page. Revenues were much higher during the Bush Years than they were during the Clinton Years in areas such as Individual Income Taxes, Corporate Taxes, Social Security taxes, Estate Taxes, and pretty much everything else. Tax revenue during the Bus Years was much higher than they were in the last 40 years.

So how exactly did "tax cuts" create deficits?