love this

[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.

[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.

[RIJIMMY]

heres a sample of the participants across the country

Meet the 99%

Key themes (with RIJ filter)
- the man is holding us down
- things in the country are not fair
- whaa, whaa, whaa

One girl says - "we the 99% have nothing" Tell me sweetie, who is buying all the iphones, ipads, and ipods......the 1%? Is corporate america forcing you to buy these? My parents didnt have credit cards, we had one tv, no cable tv, old cars.....somehow the managed. Granted things are more expensive now and competition is stiffer. Looks like the youth of america are afraid to compete.

[RIJIMMY]

exact quote -
I am here because my friends and family all over the world are suffering. Life should be easy and fun."

enough said.

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

exact quote -
I am here because my friends and family all over the world are suffering. Life should be easy and fun."

enough said.

Exactly what the guy on his 2 year paid paternity leave in Germany said in front of the EU Bank

[The Dad Fisherman]

This is what you get when parents don't use their ability to say NO......

[JohnnyD]

Arguing about which group is more screwed up - liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans - is like arguing which caliber gun is better to shoot yourself in the head with.