The Tea Partiers Are Wrong

The Tea Party is bent on less or no government. Ok. Consider the implications of no government for awhile: No social security. No Medicare. No immigration service. No interstate highway system. No pure food and drug laws. No clean air and water laws. No regulatory structure to oversee business, banking or stock trading. And on and on. What will the elderly do without social security? The elderly get sick what happens with no Medicare? Like illegal immigrants? Care to take a trip out of state without an interstate highway? Going to buy some food or drugs that may or may not be pure or out of date? Like to breathe and drink clean water? Business owners are never greedy, bankers are honest, there is never any hanky panky with stocks-Right? Keep on dreaming about doing away wth the federal government and you'll have all this and more. A Utopia? Right? Wrong! A vote for the Tea Party is a vote to go backward.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Where did you ever read that Tea Party supporters are in favor of no government ? ? ? Stop making shit up, because it makes you lose credibility.

I am in favor of less government and less intrusion. I will support anyone who feels similarly.

Big Jim

less govt for sure - and Soc security is going broke ! so much for that

Like too many Americans, Sarge is just an effin' moron who is too scared to live on his own merits. He requires a government to be a nanny for him.

What the TEA party is saying is that we're Taxed Enough Already. Not that the government should be destroyed.

Sarge's position is pure propaganda. The truth is that the federal government's growth is far in excess of the needs of the citizens, and left to continue, it WILL destroy us. It already consumes so much of our common prosperity that we are now suffering heavily under a general economic collapse.

The numbers cannot lie. In 1940, the federal government budget was $9468 million (almost $10 billion), serving a population of 132.2 million people. That resulted in a per-capita expense of $71.62.

Alas, by 2008, the federal budget was $2900000 million (almost $3 trillion), serving a population of 301.1 million. The per-capita was $9631 ... about 134 times larger.

But hey, that's not a bad increase over 68 years, right? Inflation and population growth should have compensated, right? DON'T YOU BET ON THAT.

Considering economic growth (or "inflation") of about 2.5% yearly over those 68 years, the budget inflation factor is 5.36. The budget population factor is 2.28. Multiplied together, then we get a final multiplier of 12.2.

HENCE ... the federal budget from 1940 onward, taking into account economic growth and population growth, should have only increased from about $9.5 billion to about $115 billion.

Note well that the budget in 2008 was $2900 billion, not $115 billion. It's 25 times larger. The per-capita is 11 times larger. THOSE things show the problem. Our government has grown out of control.

Since the federal government alone grows at this clip (8.8% per year) over the combined economic and population growth (3.7% per year), it only stands to reason that eventually, the federal government will require ALL OF YOUR INCOME in order to cover the budget.

This is what morons or propagandists like Sarge don't want you to understand.

If we don't stop it, your children will be taxed into the poorhouse.

Federal tax rates haven't been this low in years and I could take the Tea Baggers alot more seriously about federal spending if they were talking about cutting military spending, which they are not.

FEDERAL INCOME TAXES - may be "low", right NOW.

Federal Spending - at HISTORICALLY HIGH LEVELS. And it ain't the "military spending" that's responsible for that. IT'S THE ENTITLEMENTS, STUPID!

So, how long before TAXES skyrocket to match spending, me boyo?

Military spending has way outpaced inflation and that’s doesn’t include the two wars we’re now fighting and 2-3 wars that neo-cons would like to see us in.

So you propose cutting Medicare and Social Security as they are the two largest ‘entitlements’?

All tea baggers what to do is fight. They have no plans on how to govern.

HAHA...sensor you are so funny! REMINDER---Obama is the guy who is increasing our prescence in Afganistan. Not decreasing. That is Obama's War. Is he a neo-con?
BTW---what are Obama's plan to govern??? I haven't seen them yet. Unless you count his World Bowing Tour. Or reading Teleprompter. He is definately not the smartest guy in the room. Unfortunately for Americans. Whats worse than him being in way over his head is that he's not intelligent enough to know it, or (worse) wouldn't admit it.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.-Ben Franklin

All that 'talking' and you said nothing and didn't answer a single question. Yes, Liberals are pissed about the escalation of troops in Afghanistan. The again if Bush hadn't pulled out all the troops before the job was done then Obama might not have thought it necessary.

I say pull all the troops home from both wars. Empire is too expensive.

Again - what specifically do you propose cutting? SS and Medicare?

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) was created as a Cabinet-level department in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter to make us energy independent!!

"The Department of Energy not only has strayed from its original mission of energy oversight, but also has failed to conduct efficiently the services it now provides. Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review reported that due to inefficiencies as high as 40 percent within DOE's Environmental Management program, more than $70 billion could be lost over the next 30 years.2 Victor Rezendes testified that "DOE suffers from significant management problems, ranging from poor environmental management... to major internal inefficiencies rooted in poor oversight.... "3. These management problems and the inefficiencies that flow from them have been caused largely by DOE's continual efforts to re-align itself and justify its existence."

read more here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1995/11/BG1061nbsp-How-to-Close...

Department of Education and who knows how many more Govt agencies are not only bloated but unnecessary. But because politicians legislate to get reelected, our childrens debt will be so ridiculous their future is fairly dismal.

99 weeks of unemployment is ridiculous. Story out of Michigan about landscapers not working but staying home and collecting unemployment and food stamps...another casualty of no term limits for Congress.

BTW Obama promised to bring the troops home within 9 months of taking office. LOL..yet another broken promise by Prez Zero.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.-Ben Franklin

Wow a Heritage Foundation article from 1995, that's just funny. Remember Bush put the guy in charge of the Department of Energy who wanted to shut it down while he was a Senator...I'm sure he cleaned it all up.

As for Obama not bring the troops home...here's the dirty little secret...Obama, like Clinton before him isn't a progressive liberal. Trust me, as one, he pisses me off with things like that. Obama is what would pass as a Republican in the 1970s.

Yea! 1995...think how much more bloated the DOE is now.
Obama not Liberal enough for you SG? Not to worry...you're right ....he's not a ProgLib, he's more like a Socialist Dictator. Happy now? Thought so. Sleep tight.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.-Ben Franklin

How is Obama a Dictator? Obama's biggest sin of authoritarian power is not giving up the power the executive branch seized during the Bush admnistration. Please adjust your tin foil hat, it's way too tight.

Democracy Denied: Changing how Washington works for the worse:
www.obamacharts.com

The administration, under the direction of White House Climate Czar Carol Browner (who was not subject to Senate confirmation), is now working on implementing its global warming agenda at the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA’s proposed regulations are sweeping in scope. They would regulate just about everything with a motor, in many cases requiring complete redesigns and operational changes. They would regulate large commercial buildings and many smaller facilities that produce carbon dioxide. The agency even recently suggested it could implement cap-and-trade itself without a vote of Congress. Update John Kerry is introducing a bill today..we'll see how that goes.

Another Obama bypass is regulating the Internet under the slogan of “net neutrality.” The president notably said, “I will take a back seat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality.” That apparently includes not taking a back seat to Congress, the American people, or the democratic process, because his effort is proceeding apace despite near-zero support in Congress. The Markey-Eshoo net neutrality bill has only 21 co-sponsors. It has not even been introduced in the Senate, where last Congress it attracted only 11 co-sponsors, including then-Senator Obama.

Facing failure in Congress, Obama turned to the Federal Communication Commission and its chairman Julius Genachowski, a close friend of Obama’s who has visited the White House about 50 times. The FCC is attempting net neutrality rule making based on a shaky legal theory that may be struck down in a pending court decision. At that point, the Commission may, absurdly, declare the Internet a market failure and reclassify it under Title II of the Federal Communications Act, which would reduce Internet Service Providers to old-fashioned government-regulated utilities and give the government total regulatory control of the Internet.

Like health care, the communications system is about one-sixth of the U.S. economy. But unlike health care, this Washington takeover may require just three votes at the Federal Communications Commission, a much easier lift than 216 in the House and 60 in the Senate.
MUCH MORE HERE:
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Phil_Kerpen_65DDD717-5A0E-4D3D-AB38-7...

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.-Ben Franklin

huh

Real conservatives, which is what the Tea Party began as, are against the maintaining of US troops overseas.

We want the military to protect our own borders and spend our money creating wealth here. Instead we are not only wasting lives and money overseas, our government is making enemies around the globe.

Tell that to Ron Paul who is getting Tea Bagged because of his opposition to the wars.

Funny how I don't see any tea parties rallies from bring the troops home.

I am confused as to where the Tea Party stands on the issues. They make a lot of noise and cause men like Bob Bennet, Republican Senator of Utah, to lose his party's nomination. They fuss and complain but where do they stand? What will they cut to bring the federal budget into balance? Ron Paul is right when he stands with the Libertarian Party calling for a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Read the Constitution. We are not supposed to have a standing army in a time of peace, meaning a time when the Congress has not officially declared war. If the Tea Party wants any credibility it would call for the troops to be recalled from the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and all military bases around the world. A Navy to protect our shores from foreign invasion is the only force called for in the Constitution other than a well armed and regulated state militia. Why does the Tea Party ignore the Constitution of the U.S.? What will they eliminate? They talk a good talk but can they walk the walk?

What do they stand for? Wat will they cut?

Welfare - both CORPORATE and INDIVIDUAL.

GRANTS to "community organizing" fronts (ACORN, et al)

RIDICULOUSLY HIGH GOVERNMENT SALRIES AND PENSIONS.

Funding for Nancy's jet, and other such largesse bestowed by Congrees upon itself.

AMTRAK

Just for starters...

According to Sarge, that's not actually a plan. I've called him out on it, but he just ignores me.

That's how we know Sarge has the usual agenda of "me too" spending increases. Each special interest wants to avoiding have its budget cut, so that the aggregate of the special interests results in NOTHING being cut, and also results in increased spending overall.

Well, the mathematical result is the destruction of the American consumer. Eventually, he will revolt, but from here it's fairly obvious that he has to "wake up poor" first, as Thomas Jefferson warned us against.

There is no official Tea "Party."
It is a MOVEMENT, a grass-roots movement, or people of all walks of life who are unhappy with government/politics for a variety of different reasons. There is no charter, constitution, by-laws, leadership, etc...

I've grown tired of the media/others characterizing this as an organization, and of the the term "tea partiers" slapped on anyone who protests any decisions of or criticizes any actions of our current administration.

I've never been to a tea party rally, yet someone taped a tea-bag to my office door. Last week, someone refered to me in conversation as a "tea partier."

I prefer to party with stronger spirits.

In his first sentence: Sarge is just an effin' moron who is too scared to live on his own merits. He requires a government to be a nanny for him.

Folks - consider the source. Sarge (who has also posted under "harley") is a retard. Check his past postings - he's come out in favor of Opal Covey, published libelous misinformation about Dino's restaurant in Maumee that should've resulted in a lawsuit, claimed to be an ordained minister, but has advocated a red light district in down town toledo.

Like GZ says - he's just an effin' moron. Ignore his stuff.

Go back to TT. What you have to say is totally irrelevant to this topic. All you are concerned about is the best burger joints to go to. If you have something constructive to offer then feel free to post your thoughts otherwise shut up.

When are you going to respond to MY posting, Sarge?

Facts are like Kryptonite to you. LOL!

Above IQZero I mean GuestZero. Where does the Tea Party stand? What will they cut? They have no plan as you don't.

Out of a budget of $2900 billion dollars, there isn't a place you can touch that can't stand to be cut.

Tell every federal department to enact a 10% cut per year. EVERY department, every federal agency. It's totally fair, and how hard is that?

But your partisan Presidents won't do that -- only a fiscally conservative President will. Too bad Americans are so brainwashed that they refuse to elect a fiscal conservative.

The math is just too clear. If you won't cut, then the federal government will require more and more of your income. When they and the states capture the next 10% of your income, your discretionary spending will shut OFF, and the consumer economy of the USA will implode. Because you could not be honest about the truth of being Taxed Enough Already, you will be responsible for that ... you, and the 95% of the American voters who insist on voting fiscal liberals into office regardless of party affiliation.

Every word I posted was true. You cannot say the same. You are a liar and not a very smart one at that. It is humorous tho that you continue to monitor a site you've been kicked off of.

There has been a question posted to you out here. Grow some stones and answer it.

Your straw man is burning...

Can call it has been answered: where does the Tea Party stand? Are they going to cut the FAA? Unsafe plane trips. Pure food and drug laws? Unsafe food and medicine. Military? Bring the troops home! Dwight Eisenhower was president in 1956 when the Interstate Highway Act was passed. A Republican. Lyndon Johnson was president in 1965 when Medicare was passed. A Democrat. Richard Nixon was president when the EPA came into existence. A Republican. George W. Bush was president in 2003 when the Medicare presription drug plan went into effect. A Republican. All of these things and more add to the federal debt. Interest on the debt accounts for more than all the entitlement programs combined. What will the Tea Party cut? How will they rein in runaway government spending? They are full of hot air like all other political parties trying to win an election.

Any of the candidates for office. Up to last year I was a faithful voter but no more. What they promise and what they deliver is two different matters. The budget deficit scares me. Politicians are going to pay lip service to this horrendous debt until it is too late. Then what? We will be a third world nation or worse when we finally go bankrupt. Former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, and a Republican controlled congress got it right when they worked together to balance the budget and actually run a surplus. George W. Bush and a Republican congress spent, as John McCain famously said, like "drunken sailors". Barack Obama is doing more of the same with the approval of a Democratic controlled congress. Where does it stop? The two main parties need to stop the finger-pointing and blame game and start to work together to fix this mess. Stop the illegal wars and create good paying jobs in the US so people can pay taxes to pay off this debt. If I thought the Tea Party or Libertarians had the answers I would gladly listen.

Taxes are at their LOWEST level since 1950.

Tired of being taxed, my ass.

Pink Slip

try and comprehend why the taxes were lower...DUH!

Come to think of it, my taxes WERE lower. No capital gains, money market and savings interest (at below 1%) virtually nonexistent, lower income…Do the Dems want to take credit for 9.9% unemployment???

highest debt in history… on top of trillions in new spending mandates over the next 30 years… seriously democrats- how stupid do you really think we are?

The Treasury Department said Wednesday the April deficit soared to $82.7 billion, the largest imbalance for that month on record. That was significantly higher than last year’s April deficit of $20 billion and above the $30 billion deficit private economists had anticipated.

The government normally runs surpluses in April as millions of taxpayers file their income tax returns. However, income tax payments were down this April, reflecting the impact of a severe recession which has pushed millions of people out of work.

82.7 BILLION debt FOR ONE MONTH ONLY!!!!

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20100512federal_budget...

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.-Ben Franklin

Remember George W. Bush? He spent 8 years in the White House and left this economic mess for Obama. How can Obama clean up in less than a year and a half what it took Bush 8 years to create? But the serious problem is the debt. We will become another Greece or worse if this problem is not resolved. It has to be tackled by all Americans regardless of party or political persusasion. Lets stop the blame game and fingerpointing and come up with useful ideas before it is too late. Whatever happened to bipartisan solutions to problems that affect us all?

Bush is no longer the President, and the Republicans no longer control the Congress. Quit deflecting.

As for what Obama is doing (and more the point, isn't doing), if you told me to clean up any sort of mess, and then watched while I made the mess even larger or messier, you'd only sanely question my devotion to following your order.

Part of the current mess is the outrageous size of the federal government and the federal debt. Obama is only increasing those.

If you dare to bring up "Keynesian" economics, be prepared for a fairly severe smackdown on that basis. Running deficits to escape bad times is predicated on the element of having run NO deficits while times were good. The federal government ran massive deficits regardless of what time it was ... hence, during a real emergency, it was left in too deep a fiscal hole to effectively bring deficit spending to bear on the problem.

And finally, what really happened to "bipartisan" solutions is that we can clearly see that they are always aimed at destroying the middle class. Your major parties are only working a plan to transform the USA into a western-hemisphere Russia, where desperately poor and demoralized people are crammed into cities where government paramilitary forces can better control them.

The TEA party movement has already provided your stupid parties with a bipartisan solution, called "fiscal conservatism". It only remains for your corrupt parties to adopt that solution. Note well that THEY WON'T, hence what you're really advocating is either completely stupid or utterly dishonest.

tombrown, you can't say taxes are lower because of the housing bubble bursting in one sentence.....and then completely IGNORE the fact that the current deficit is due to the same housing bubble collapse in the next sentence.

Pink Slip

centralized control is bad, i agree. but maybe sometimes it is the lesser of two evils? if the government can take control away from a corporation, it can do people good. cooperation has an entirely different effect than competition.

Something to consider--

Spending was higher as a pct of gdp in 1950. According to the "deficit chicken-little's", this would mean that that generation was in essence, taxing their grandchildren (us) out of existence. Yet we have the lowest tax levels in decades. We can get spending under control. But cutting spending during a recession is CRAZY.

Pink Slip

Hey, Sarge? Is there something wrong with your keyboard? It seems that you can't type a proper response to my postings with their factual information and sensible conclusions. Why is that? Propaganda got your tongue or something? Did you develop an allergy to my postings? LOL!

The sad fact is that you clearly want us to continue voting for the fiscally liberal Democratic Party and Republican Party in the stupid hope that they will suddenly become fiscal conservatives in some "bipartisan" way. The last 70 years show that's a pipe dream. They will spend us into a catastrophe. The federal government grew 12 times faster than can possibly be accounted for by inflation and population growth. This is a math situation, not an ideology situation -- the federal government is coming for ALL of your discretionary income. It must consume more and more of your income until it either has it all, or your finally have had enough of this THEFT.

The only rational solution is to reject any politician that doesn't have big reductions in spending on his primary goal list.

A case of food poisoning. Today I am back and I have an answer for you. Who exactly will the Tea Partiers turn to? Sarah "drill baby drill" Palin? Her husband has close ties to BP. Remember BP the oil company responsible for the oil rig catastrophe in the Gulf Of Mexico? Her husband also wants Alaska to secede from the US. Abraham Lincoln it seems put an end to that crazy idea of a state seceding from the Union because they don't like the way the government is being run. The Palins are dangerous and unfit to run this country. Who will the Tea Partiers turn to who is not a warmed over version of a Republican or Democrat? The Tea Party is a lot of hot air.

Can you even spell "Ron Paul"? Have you lived in a cave for the last decade or something?

Oh, wait, wait, the mainstream media assassinated Ron Paul early on and frequently ... with the full complicity of the American moron public.

You've confined yourself to the Two-Party Duopoly, and that suits your agenda. Obama or McCain. Palin or Obama. Corporate-owned candidate ONE or corporate-owned candidate TWO. You will never get anywhere.

So what you're complaining about, precisely, is a fucking mystery. Truly.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.