If The Tea Party Was Actually Serious

[emacknight]

Besides all the racism, bigotry, and otherwise nonsensical ramblings, the way I know the Tea Party isn’t in any way serious is this: taxes need to be raised, and they need to be raised a lot. They should have been raised before the recession, and they definitely need to be raised soon after things stabilize.

Neither the deficit nor the national debt are new. As of 2001 the US had a very small budget surplus, which evaporated in 2002, continued until 2007, then shot up in 2008 (cite)

That was 6 years of deficit spending, in which either government spending needed to be slashed, or taxes needed to be raised, neither happened. And you know what, regardless of which party is in power now, I think it’s fine to eventually wake up from your coma and demand action.

Now, unless the Tea Party is able to present actual budget cuts that would offset the $400 billion deficit that predates Obama, the only other option is to increase taxes. But instead, I hear calls to both decrease taxes and eliminate the deficit; two things that don’t go together.

To make things worse, TARP and the Stimulus have already been spent, and will now need to be paid for. It’s fine to be critical of the government for such massive deficit spending, but it happened, and now taxes need to be raised to cover that shortfall, not lowered.

I’m all for massive reforms to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (39% of the budget) but unless they can propose a specific way to cut 60% of one or 30% of both, taxes still need to be raised since income tax makes up 43% of federal revenue, or 85% if you include social security.

I’d happily support the first political party that proposed fiscal responsibility, the Tea Party hasn’t done that. They are just another populist movement, enjoying the bread and circus approach to politics that is simply more the same. Tax cuts without a corresponding spending cut is just another government handout. And given that the government is already handing out $1.5trillion, taxes have a long way to go up before things are made right.

[Wesley_Clark]

The tea party isn’t a serious fiscal movement. They don’t want to cut the military. They aren’t going to eliminate medicare & SS anytime soon. I seriously doubt they’d cut education, etc. They want tax cuts, but no meaningful spending cuts.

I haven’t seen them propose meaningful solutions to the budget. And they aren’t opposed to welfare, just welfare that doesn’t benefit them. How many tea partiers have given up their SS and medicare, or opposed to public funding of education for their kids?

When they had their protest in DC they complained that the publicly financed DC metro system didn’t bring in extra trains so they could hold a protest calling for tax cuts and smaller government.

[msmith537]

Do you think raising taxes while we are at 10% unemployment is a good idea?

[Swords_to_Plowshares]

Nitpick: What do you mean, TARP needs to be paid for? It’s being repaid now and we will recover all of it except about 50 billion (mostly because of the mortgage bailout). I can get cites now (on my phone), but there were some lengthy articles in the NYT about it.

[emacknight]

@Wesley_Clark

The tea party isn’t a serious fiscal movement. They don’t want to cut the military. They aren’t going to eliminate medicare & SS anytime soon. I seriously doubt they’d cut education, etc. They want tax cuts, but no meaningful spending cuts.

I haven’t seen them propose meaningful solutions to the budget.

This is the relevant point.

@Wesley_Clark

How many tea partiers have given up their SS and medicare, or opposed to public funding of education for their kids?

When they had their protest in DC they complained that the publicly financed DC metro system didn’t bring in extra trains so they could hold a protest calling for tax cuts and smaller government.

These two points are nonsense and don’t actually add to the dialog. Both members of the Tea Party and Libertarians have paid into the system, and have every right to benefit from it. They are as entitled to the DC Metro system as any other group. I don’t actually know anything about the DC Metro system, but I would wager a guess that like other transit systems they adapt the system to suit specific needs like sporting events and large gatherings.

[DrDeth]

@emacknight

Besides all the racism, bigotry, and otherwise nonsensical ramblings, the way I know the Tea Party isn’t in any way serious is this: taxes need to be raised, and they need to be raised a lot. They should have been raised before the recession, and they definitely need to be raised soon after things stabilize. .

Actually, not so much. What needs to be done is not raise taxes so much as allow the tax cuts to expire as originally agreed.

Note, I think this needs to be made clear- if Obama allows the tax cuts to expire, he is NOT “raising taxes”. If anyone is, it’s GWB, the same dude who cut them.

Well, and we need some tinkering with SocSec, like raising the cut off and the age a tad. But neither is painful and both should be done. (I would go for no specific cut off at all on wages- raising it $10K a year every year until it’s clear Soc Sec is safe for 50 years- and maximum benefits at age 70 for those now around 30).

[Simplicio]

Yea, I’m really hoping that deadlock in the Senate keeps any of the Bush taxcuts from being renewed. Combined with an ending of the Great Recession, that takes care of basically the entire deficit problem, at least in the short-term. The long-term deficit is almost completely due to rising healthcare spending, which the current and future Healthcare legislation will hopefully solve one way or another.

But as to the Tea-Party deficit concerns, such concerns amongst voters historically correlate very strongly to the general economic situation and very weekly to the actual level of deficit spending. In otherwords, its a proxy, most people don’t really care about the actual deficit.

@Swords to Plowshares

Nitpick: What do you mean, TARP needs to be paid for? It’s being repaid now and we will recover all of it except about 50 billion (mostly because of the mortgage bailout). I can get cites now (on my phone), but there were some lengthy articles in the NYT about it.

The 50 billion will actually also be recovered via a tax on the banks. So for all the gripping about the cost, the actual program was deficit neutral.

[Kearsen]

We often forget that because someone is recognized as wanting a particular thing that a group is offering that the entire philosophy of the group also adds to the label.

For example, me. I want lower taxes but I also want government spending cut way way way down. This can/could/should happen.

Where the cuts happen in the crux of the argument. Liberals are seen as just wanting more taxes and offering more government spending as a result. Conservatives are seen as wanting less taxation but also less government spending.

I am NOT saying that this is the actual case because as history points out, both parties spend entirely too frivolously for my taste.

[Simplicio]

@msmith537

Do you think raising taxes while we are at 10% unemployment is a good idea?

No, I think the middle class tax-cuts should be extended, but only for a very short period, say two years or so.

Alternatively, if they are expired, the money for the next two years should go out as aid to the States to reduce spending cuts in Medicaid, education and the like.

[emacknight]

@msmith537

Do you think raising taxes while we are at 10% unemployment is a good idea?

Nope, definitely not. Out of curiosity, would you agree? And the corollary to that, do you think government spending should be cut with 10% unemployment?

Taxes should have been raised when unemployment was under 6% between 2003 and 2008, but when deficit spending was upwards of $400billion. And likewise, taxes should be raised when unemployment starts to fall. Then, with the budget balanced, started making budget cuts until there is an established surplus. As things stabilize, start cutting taxes in proportion to budget cuts.

In any other scenario the point needs to be driven home that tax cuts are just another means of government spending. It’s social welfare disguised as ‘giving people their money back.’ As long as there is a budget deficit, it’s not their money.

@Swords_to_Plowshares

Nitpick: What do you mean, TARP needs to be paid for? It’s being repaid now and we will recover all of it except about 50 billion (mostly because of the mortgage bailout). I can get cites now (on my phone), but there were some lengthy articles in the NYT about it.

I read the same articles, and I agree that TARP will mostly pay for itself. The two points to be made are that it was one of the driving forces for the Tea Party, and it will still require that $50billion to be paid for. That money has been spent, thus it would be irresponsible to cut taxes until it’s been paid for.

[Simplicio]

@emacknight

@Swords_to_Plowshares

Nitpick: What do you mean, TARP needs to be paid for? It’s being repaid now and we will recover all of it except about 50 billion (mostly because of the mortgage bailout). I can get cites now (on my phone), but there were some lengthy articles in the NYT about it.

I read the same articles, and I agree that TARP will mostly pay for itself. The two points to be made are that it was one of the driving forces for the Tea Party, and it will still require that $50billion to be paid for. That money has been spent, thus it would be irresponsible to cut taxes until it’s been paid for.

Again, though, a tax has already been passed on large banks to cover the 50 billion. The whole thing will have been budget neutral.

[emacknight]

@Simplicio

@emacknight

I read the same articles, and I agree that TARP will mostly pay for itself. The two points to be made are that it was one of the driving forces for the Tea Party, and it will still require that $50billion to be paid for. That money has been spent, thus it would be irresponsible to cut taxes until it’s been paid for.

Again, though, a tax has already been passed on large banks to cover the 50 billion. The whole thing will have been budget neutral.

I know, now convince them of that.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@emacknight

@Simplicio

Again, though, a tax has already been passed on large banks to cover the 50 billion. The whole thing will have been budget neutral.

I know, now convince them of that.

They can’t even be convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii, or that Sadam was not responsible for 911. They believe what they are told, and what they are told is a pack of lies.

[Ludovic]

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again here. I’ll go beyond the OP’s generic rhetoric and ask a point blank question.

Everyone reading this, who supports the Tea Party candidates, answer me these questions: Which of the following programs do you wish to cut: Social Security, Medicare, and/or the Military? Do you realistically expect the teabaggers, if elected, to follow through with your debt reduction program?

I didn’t receive an answer the last time I posted this. Yet somehow people still defend the teabaggers on this message board.

[emacknight]

@Ludovic

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again here. I’ll go beyond the OP’s generic rhetoric and ask a point blank question.

Everyone reading this, who supports the Tea Party candidates, answer me these questions: Which of the following programs do you wish to cut: Social Security, Medicare, and/or the Military? Do you realistically expect the teabaggers, if elected, to follow through with your debt reduction program?

I didn’t receive an answer the last time I posted this. Yet somehow people still defend the teabaggers on this message board.

Well, calling them teabaggers certainly doensn’t help your case.

And besides, there are dozens of dopers that want cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and/or the Military. The real problem is that it’s rhetoric until there is something more said, ie “cut that base, end that program, raise the age to…, eliminate…”

Which all goes back to the main point, it’s nothing more than a populist movement offering money to the rubes.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Ludovic

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again here. I’ll go beyond the OP’s generic rhetoric and ask a point blank question.

Everyone reading this, who supports the Tea Party candidates, answer me these questions: Which of the following programs do you wish to cut: Social Security, Medicare, and/or the Military? Do you realistically expect the teabaggers, if elected, to follow through with your debt reduction program?

I didn’t receive an answer the last time I posted this. Yet somehow people still defend the teabaggers on this message board.

The Tea Party folks want to cut “Government Waste”.* They don’t have a terrific grasp of large numbers, but are pretty sure that this will lead to Big Savings.

• A term of art to be defined at a later time. Generally, “Government Waste” means “programs that do not directly benefit me at this time.”

[msmith537]

@emacknight

@msmith537

Do you think raising taxes while we are at 10% unemployment is a good idea?

Nope, definitely not. Out of curiosity, would you agree? And the corollary to that, do you think government spending should be cut with 10% unemployment?

I would refer to the expertise of John Maynard Keynes and say “no”.

[Wesley_Clark]

@emacknight

These two points are nonsense and don’t actually add to the dialog. Both members of the Tea Party and Libertarians have paid into the system, and have every right to benefit from it. They are as entitled to the DC Metro system as any other group. I don’t actually know anything about the DC Metro system, but I would wager a guess that like other transit systems they adapt the system to suit specific needs like sporting events and large gatherings.

me doth believe they do. The tea party seems to want the benefits of a public system w/o paying taxes to fund it.

[BrainGlutton]

@msmith537

Do you think raising taxes while we are at 10% unemployment is a good idea?

It is almost as bad an idea as cutting spending under such circumstances. Which the Tea Party does want to do.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Kearsen

Liberals are seen as just wanting more taxes and offering more government spending as a result. Conservatives are seen as wanting less taxation but also less government spending.

I am NOT saying that this is the actual case because as history points out, both parties spend entirely too frivolously for my taste.

How conservatives keep this meme alive is beyond me. The only party that has been remotely fiscally responsible the last few decades have been democrats.

Here is a graph of the budget surplus/deficit over the last several decades. Up through Nixon the deficit was pretty well in hand. Starting with Ford it started going downhill and each successive republican president since has overseen larger and larger deficits (Carter slid at the end of his term).

Heck, Obama has decreased the deficit from $1.4 trillion to $1.29 trillion for 2010. Not great but pointing in the right direction at least.

We have tried trickle down economics and heard the cries that increasing taxes will hurt everyone. Clearly the reverse has been true. Taxes are at their second lowest rate since WWII (and not much above the lowest). The rich (top 5%) are getting richer faster than since just prior to the Great Depression. Heck, the number of millionaires in the US increased by 16% in 2009 (how do you think most everyone else was doing?).

With all these newly minted rich people the US should be rolling in cash right?

What is shocking with the Tea Partiers is how thoroughly they have been co-opted to fight for the rich guys while they lose jobs, houses, pensions and so on to fill the pockets of the wealthy.