love this

[zimmy]

Can't we just admint that the tea party is on its last legs. It is so far out of whack from the middle of the road that even Pat Robertson is commenting about it. Both occupy and tea bag fall apart when the pendulum isn't on wacko.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Can't we just admint that the tea party is on its last legs. It is so far out of whack from the middle of the road that even Pat Robertson is commenting about it. Both occupy and tea bag fall apart when the pendulum isn't on wacko.

I don't know about that. At least the Tea Party is protesting (peacefully) the government reign inn out of control costs and spending to stop the slide we are one. OWS wants Evil Wall St / Government to foot a lot of other people's bills, pay for the college, and give them a safe placed to spark another fatty.

The truth is - as usual - somewhere in the middle though me thinks that it is more realistic on the side of the Tea Party. I'm sure a lot of people in the Tea Party would rather see Wall St lose some of its greed and foster better conditions for Americans in America while OWS would rather have Wall St take the money from the rich and give to the poor, yet still make sure there is money available in order to redistribute.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I don't know about that. At least the Tea Party is protesting (peacefully) the government reign inn out of control costs and spending to stop the slide we are one. OWS wants Evil Wall St / Government to foot a lot of other people's bills, pay for the college, and give them a safe placed to spark another fatty.

The truth is - as usual - somewhere in the middle though me thinks that it is more realistic on the side of the Tea Party. I'm sure a lot of people in the Tea Party would rather see Wall St lose some of its greed and foster better conditions for Americans in America while OWS would rather have Wall St take the money from the rich and give to the poor, yet still make sure there is money available in order to redistribute.

Good post John. The Tea Party is not waning, not by any stretch. They have re-defined the Republican agenda, no doubt about it, and they elected dozens of Congressmen to the House Of Reps just last November. The Tea Party is a force that isn't going away in the near future.

Funny. Most ardent Tea Partiers would say they were opposed to the Wall St bailouts, which is one of the things that OWS is whining about. SO they have that in common.

You are also correct about this, John...what the occupiers want (free college, debt forgiveness, free wealth) simply isn't feasible. It has been tried a million times (because on its face it sounds great), and it fails dismally every single time. If we could just print enough money to make everyone a billionaire and end poverty, no one would oppose that. It simply cannot be done.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You are also correct about this, John...what the occupiers want (free college, debt forgiveness, free wealth) simply isn't feasible. It has been tried a million times (because on its face it sounds great), and it fails dismally every single time. If we could just print enough money to make everyone a billionaire and end poverty, no one would oppose that. It simply cannot be done.

some of the OWS folks are Ron Paul followers and many are against govt intervention.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Good post John. The Tea Party is not waning, not by any stretch. They have re-defined the Republican agenda, no doubt about it, and they elected dozens of Congressmen to the House Of Reps just last November. The Tea Party is a force that isn't going away in the near future.

If they are responsible for the election of an unelectable republican candidate, they are done. A large majority of people agree more with Obama's ideas than the tea party; with Obama's ratings that may seem counter-intuitive. However, it is true on taxes for the wealthy, medicare, social security, etc. If a Herman Cain or Perry become the candidate, Obama gets re-elected because of Florida, PA, and Ohio. If the non-tea party candidate, Romney, wins it, he could win the general. His election would be in-spite of the tea party, not because of it. The tea party will be a fringe group within 5 years, less if the economy recovers, Obama wins, or Romney gets elected. If Cain or Perry get elected in the general, I will be the first to say I was wrong about the tea party.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

If they are responsible for the election of an unelectable republican candidate, they are done. A large majority of people agree more with Obama's ideas than the tea party; with Obama's ratings that may seem counter-intuitive. However, it is true on taxes for the wealthy, medicare, social security, etc. If a Herman Cain or Perry become the candidate, Obama gets re-elected because of Florida, PA, and Ohio. If the non-tea party candidate, Romney, wins it, he could win the general. His election would be in-spite of the tea party, not because of it. The tea party will be a fringe group within 5 years, less if the economy recovers, Obama wins, or Romney gets elected. If Cain or Perry get elected in the general, I will be the first to say I was wrong about the tea party.

"If they are responsible for the election of an unelectable republican candidate, they are done."

Wrong, because unfortunately, they have already done that in Senate races in Nevada and Deleware last year.

"A large majority of people agree more with Obama's ideas than the tea party; with Obama's ratings that may seem counter-intuitive. However, it is true on taxes for the wealthy"

I don't disagree with you that most don't side with the tea party on these issues. But first, the number who DO side with the Tea Party (1) is not insignificant, and (2) they all vote. Furthermore, if folks took the time to actually do the math, they would see that it's irrefutable fact that the Tea Party is right...taxing the rich cannot EVEN COME CLOSE to getting us out of this. It's mathematical fact that only deep cuts will work.

"Romney, wins it, he could win the general. His election would be in-spite of the tea party, not because of it."

You're making some assumptions. If Romney wins, you can bet that his VP pick will be someone specifically designed to energize the Tea Party (like Marco Rubio).

"The tea party will be a fringe group within 5 years, less if the economy recovers,"

You're assuming that Tea Party relevence is only measured in the presidential election. Did you read any papers after the November 2010 elections? The GOP opened up a major can of whoop-ass on liberals, and it was largely due to Tea Party enthisiasm. There are literally dozens of United States congressmen who got elected thanks to the tea party. If the economy recovers, it will be the ultimate validation of the Tea Party, not the death bell of the tea party.

There is no way that the GOP nominates anyone other than Romney. There's always an outsider who makes a lot of noise early on. If Cain somehow gets nominated, I agree he'd have a tough time beating Obama, but that's extremely unlikely.

Ask the 50+ Democratic congressmen who got clobbered last November if they think the Tea Party is losing influence, or if they're gaining steam.

The Tea Party has not always been a productive thing (they handed senate seats to the Democrats in Deleware and Nevada last year). But if you think they're not one of the dominant forces in politics today, you are as mistaken as a person can be.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The truth is - as usual - somewhere in the middle though me thinks that it is more realistic on the side of the Tea Party.

I am not sure I disagree with that. I haven't paid much attention to occupy, but I think there is a good part of the tea party that isn't that crazy, even if I understand the sentiment, I disagree with them on the economics of recovery from the recession. However, when I see the whack jobs that the tea party has put up as candidates, I think it is loses any credibility as a viable party over the long haul.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

However, when I see the whack jobs that the tea party has put up as candidates, I think it is loses any credibility as a viable party over the long haul.

ummmmmmmmm.....Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are still the democrat LEADERS in Congress..Obama has now effectively passed Carter as the worst president in modern history and has apparently learned nothing and Biden is his VP...these are but the tip of the iceberg of questonable characters who become "progressively" unstable and venomous as you move down the democrat food chain.....the bile being spewed by elected democrats has reached epic proportions in the "age of civility" and a large majority show support...no, true love .....for the leftist radicals that are creating mayhem in our streets ...and they somehow hope that they can ride this counter American revolt together with federally funded union muscle and Obama Money Give Aways sprinkled with charges of racism to an election year victory.....

whose party's candidates are whackjobs and which party has lost credability?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I am not sure I disagree with that. I haven't paid much attention to occupy, but I think there is a good part of the tea party that isn't that crazy, even if I understand the sentiment, I disagree with them on the economics of recovery from the recession. However, when I see the whack jobs that the tea party has put up as candidates, I think it is loses any credibility as a viable party over the long haul.

" disagree with them on the economics of recovery from the recession. "

OK, so I assume you mean that you think we need taxes on the wealthy.

Zimmy, PLEASE share numbers with me that support the notion that taxes on the wealthy will even put a small dent in our fiscal mess.

If we eliminate the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, the HIGHEST estimate I've ever seen, is that it would generate $90 billion a year in additional revenue. Our current debt is $14 trillion, and that EXCLUDES the shortfalls in social security and medicare. If you include those programs, our debt is at least $60 trillion. So, if we get $90 billion a year from the tax hikes on the wealthy, it would take a mere 667 years to pay down the debt, and that's ignoring interest.

Zimmy, that math is the exact reason why people like me say it's a waste of time to talk about tax hikes. While it may seem fair to tax the wealthy more, THE IRREFUTABLE FACT is that it's meaningless compared to our debt.

The answer is that massive cuts are needed. I do not like that answer. I really wish that all we needed to do was tweak tax rates on the rich. But the math clearly shows that tax hikes alone cannot even begin to solve this.

Go ahead, Zimmy, tell me where I'm wrong please. You tell me how tax hikes on a small % of our population will generate tens of trillions of dollars. If you can do that, I swear to God I'll campaign for Obama.

You're in a tough spot here, Zimmy. Because I think long, hard, and rationally before I form my opinions. And in this case, my opinion is based on hard, irrefutable facts. All liberals have is ideology.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

" disagree with them on the economics of recovery from the recession. "

OK, so I assume you mean that you think we need taxes on the wealthy.

Zimmy, PLEASE share numbers with me that support the notion that taxes on the wealthy will even put a small dent in our fiscal mess.

You're in a tough spot here, Zimmy. Because I think long, hard, and rationally before I form my opinions. And in this case, my opinion is based on hard, irrefutable facts. All liberals have is ideology.

Apparently you have thought long and hard so this might be hard for you to understand; most economists say the last thing that should be done in a recession is cuts. The economy needs an influx of money and people need jobs. Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money. Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit, which would increase consumer confidence. Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree. Go back to what I started with: many, many economists say that the last thing you should do during a recession is cut. The tea party types mix anger and frustration about taxes with the current economic situation. They are two different things. A recession does not end by cutting. Long term deficit reduction could be done with cuts and increases in taxes.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Apparently you have thought long and hard so this might be hard for you to understand; most economists say the last thing that should be done in a recession is cuts. The economy needs an influx of money and people need jobs. Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money. Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit, which would increase consumer confidence. Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree. Go back to what I started with: many, many economists say that the last thing you should do during a recession is cut. The tea party types mix anger and frustration about taxes with the current economic situation. They are two different things. A recession does not end by cutting. Long term deficit reduction could be done with cuts and increases in taxes.

Z- good response, but here is the kicker. Politics aside, we know for a fact the O administration gave millions to these green energy cos that went defunct. That was millions of OUR money. Why would I want to give MORE? We could have saved millions by the govt doing nothing, right? I dont see one example of govt spending doing any good. I see plenty examples of my spending do others good. I do agree that taxes should be changed. I dont agree with the rate increase constantly being proposed. I think we should change the capital gains tax and close loopholes and remove the AMT. There are gives and takes in there that will benefit the economy as a whole.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Z- good response, but here is the kicker. Politics aside, we know for a fact the O administration gave millions to these green energy cos that went defunct. That was millions of OUR money. Why would I want to give MORE? We could have saved millions by the govt doing nothing, right? I dont see one example of govt spending doing any good. I see plenty examples of my spending do others good. I do agree that taxes should be changed. I dont agree with the rate increase constantly being proposed. I think we should change the capital gains tax and close loopholes and remove the AMT. There are gives and takes in there that will benefit the economy as a whole.

I don't think we are far apart either on this. The solar issues is ridiculous. Why the heck huge loans are given out that aren't backed by insurance is beyond me. The fdup thing is the writing was on the wall. On the other hand, how much money was lost in no-bid jobs to Haliburton over the previous administration. Both sides are bad at that crap.
The problem now is there is an overt policy that Republicans in congress will not do anything that helps Obama. That does no one any good.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Apparently you have thought long and hard so this might be hard for you to understand; most economists say the last thing that should be done in a recession is cuts. The economy needs an influx of money and people need jobs. Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money. Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit, which would increase consumer confidence. Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree. Go back to what I started with: many, many economists say that the last thing you should do during a recession is cut. The tea party types mix anger and frustration about taxes with the current economic situation. They are two different things. A recession does not end by cutting. Long term deficit reduction could be done with cuts and increases in taxes.

"Your major cuts idea would intially lead to the loss of 100,000's of jobs at a time when the economy needs people to spend money"

You're saying that as government spends money, unemployment goes down, as jobs get created. Then perhaps you could explain tp us why, despite Obama dumping hundreds of billions of government spending into the economy, unemployment is much higher than when he took office?Those same economists you support, said Obamaa's "stimulus" would keep unemployment below 8%.

Anyway, I reject your premise that "most economists" say that spending cuts are counterproductive in a recession. I can quote just as many economists who say the last thingf you want to do in a recession is raise taxes.

So Zimmy, since you are opposed to cuts, please tell us how we generate another $60 trillion or so before the baby boomers die off? Because we need at least that much.

"Taxes on the wealthy would not fix the problem, but returning to the tax policies considered reasonable under Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton would do a huge amount toward rudicing the yearly deficit"

Where on Earth do you get your facts? Our deficit this year will be about $1.5 trillion. Please post some numbers to show that tax hikes can generate anywhere near that number.

And Zimmy? You're saying that tax rate increases will lead to more tax revenue? So why, then, did tax revenue reach it's highest levels ever, AFTER THE BUSH TAX CUTS? Answer...tax cuts can be stimulative.

You spouted lots of theory, with no facts to back it up. In fact, your theory is directly contradicted by actual events of the last 5 years. But hey, don't let historical fact get in the way of a liberal rant.

[zimmy]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;896650
You spouted lots of theory, with no facts to back it up. In fact, your theory is directly contradicted by actual events of the last 5 years. But hey, don't let historical fact get in the way of a liberal rant.[/QUOTE]

I knew you wouldn't get it. Liberal rant

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Long term deficit reduction requires cuts and a reduction in tax loopholes. There is no plan that gets us out of the deficit without tax increases. WHen I bring that up here, the response from many is that we have to cut first. I disagree.

while he rarely offeres any evidence to back up his many assertions, he did say that a combination of cuts and tax increases(reduced loopholes) are needed, I don't think anyone would argue with that...

btw..many of these "loopholes" are merely government established incentives to get businesses and individuals to act in a certain way through the tax code, we blame the businesses and individuals for taking the carrots?

this disagreement is ...which comes first...

unfortunately, the track record and tendency from those in government on both sides of the aisle shows little concern for a reduction in the size and scope of government...any increase in taxes will simply be an affirmation to continue current programs at their current growth rates and a return to searching for new and faster ways to expand government...

like giving a fat guy a candybar after telling him he needs to go on a diet...

the fat guys tells you to give him the candy bar first because he's really hungry and that he'll start the diet at the end of the month...promise

apologies to any fat guys that I've offended....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

while he rarely offeres any evidence to back up his many assertions, he did say that a combination of cuts and tax increases(reduced loopholes) are needed, I don't think anyone would argue with that...

btw..many of these "loopholes" are merely government established incentives to get businesses and individuals to act in a certain way through the tax code, we blame the businesses and individuals for taking the carrots?

this disagreement is ...which comes first...

unfortunately, the track record and tendency from those in government on both sides of the aisle shows little concern for a reduction in the size and scope of government...any increase in taxes will simply be an affirmation to continue current programs at their current growth rates and a return to searching for new and faster ways to expand government...

like giving a fat guy a candybar after telling him he needs to go on a diet...

the fat guys tells you to give him the candy bar first because he's really hungry and that he'll start the diet at the end of the month...promise

apologies to any fat guys that I've offended....

"a combination of cuts and tax increases(reduced loopholes) are needed, I don't think anyone would argue with that..."

We need more tax revenue, meaning, we need more tax dollars. Raising tax rates does not always increase revenue, just like when a store raises prices, that does not mean revenue will increase (not if you price yourself out of the market). If the economy grows, then even at the same tax rates, we have more tax revenue collected. We need to grow the stagnant economy (a raising tide does indeed lift all boats), not reduce anyone's after-tax pay.

Finally, every analysis I've ever seen, suggests that the effect of tax hikes is almost completely meaningless in the face of the debt. We simply cannot generate another $60 trillion in the next 30 years, even if we adopt North Korea's tax rates, we cannot begin to tax our way out of this. The effect of tax hikes is so insignificant, it's barely worth talking about, yet liberals are fanatically fixated on taxing the wealthy.

I do not like the situation we are in. If there was any reasonable analysis out there that said we could put a meaningful dent in the debt by tweaking taxes on the rich, that would make me very happy. I wish that were the case. But it's not.

Tax hikes might get us 10% of what we need. That means that the other 90% must come from spending cuts. I don't like that any more than liberals do. Unlike liberals, however, I am able to accept it.

If Obama is correct, taxing the wealthy more will bring in $90 billion a year. Our ANNUAL deficit is $1.5 trillion, our current debt is $14 trillion, and we need at least another $50 trillion for social security and Medicare (some actuaries say we need $100 trillion).

What is $90 billion a year? Nothing. If we collected $90 billion more in taxes from the rich, and if we used every cent of that to pay off curent debt, all that means is our debt increases $1.41 trillion this year, instead of $1.5 trillion. Whoop-dee-doo. Our debt is still increasing by more than a trillion dollars.

Scott, where am I wrong? I just don't get it.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"
Zimmy, PLEASE share numbers with me that support the notion that taxes on the wealthy will even put a small dent in our fiscal mess.

.

The fact that it is impossible to reduce the deficit by cutting taxes (ie Herman Cain) or cut taxes and spend (ie GWB and the republican congress) is very evident in where we are compared to 2000. Bush didn't start with the massive recession. Obama comes in with a massive recession and you beleive the way to fix it is to try to solve 100 years of social economics. Bad timing.

[JohnR]

Bush came in at the Dot Com bubble so wasn't exactly handed a booming economy. The reason things were not so bad is that a Republican Congress and a Democratic President got together and put together budgets that required being balanced (or close too). Then between wars and increased domestic spending we got out of control, only accelerated with the housing bubble.

WE SPEND TOO MUCH. That is the problem. We take in enough. We spend too much.

I am not opposed of increasing taxes on the uberwealthy, or even paying some more myself. But I REFUSE to see it pi$$ed away the way the Dems will do.


There is a balance and we are so far from that balance it is crazy. Sorry for the drive-by post but working

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I am not opposed of increasing taxes on the uberwealthy, or even paying some more myself. But I REFUSE to see it pi$$ed away the way the Dems will do.


There is a balance and we are so far from that balance it is crazy. Sorry for the drive-by post but working

See, you and I could run the country I agree we spend too much in general, but I also see the facts that show we cannot cut our way out of the deficit. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets. Also, a recession or the beginning of a recovery is economically the wrong time to make drastic cuts. If the current Republicans would have budged even a little bit on taxes for the very highest earners, congress and the president could at least work some things out. The influence of the tea party and election politics prevented that from happening.