Should have listened to the TEA Party

Originally posted by repressed

Reagonomics/trickle down just does not work and most are idiots for not seeing that

What!!!???



Bush's tax cuts have given us this,


money falls from the sky these days

Originally posted by spav5
Why is it so hard to see..Tax the wealthiest in the nation..decrease funding to the DoD. Clinton made it work. After Years of trickle down nonsense had us in a similar place in 92. We were so scared we voted for a billionaire coot to the tune of 18%..The Tea party is the current billionaire coot but instead of Clinton's policy we have traitor in chief in office.

And with no regulations added to the bailouts we are headed for more..why would the banks change anything when they know that we have given them carte blanche with our economy.

Peace

Okay, I'll bite. How much do we tax these evil wealthy folks? 50%? 75%? 100%? Cut DoD? How much? I notice you say NOTHING to cutting entitlement programs.

If you DON"T CUT SPENDING, you can tax EVERYONE 100% and it'll never be enough. Heard of the USSR?

Anyfool can advocate spending cuts and many will. How do you generate growth. If you only cutsthat shows the ideology slavery of the right. They never have any idea for growth. If you only cut that will not lead to growth.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by spav5
Why is it so hard to see..Tax the wealthiest in the nation..decrease funding to the DoD. Clinton made it work. After Years of trickle down nonsense had us in a similar place in 92. We were so scared we voted for a billionaire coot to the tune of 18%..The Tea party is the current billionaire coot but instead of Clinton's policy we have traitor in chief in office.

And with no regulations added to the bailouts we are headed for more..why would the banks change anything when they know that we have given them carte blanche with our economy.

Peace

Okay, I'll bite. How much do we tax these evil wealthy folks? 50%? 75%? 100%? Cut DoD? How much? I notice you say NOTHING to cutting entitlement programs.

If you DON"T CUT SPENDING, you can tax EVERYONE 100% and it'll never be enough. Heard of the USSR?

Cut the spending where the spending is most and helps the least..Both point to DoD. Add taxes where those tax cuts help the least amount of people and cost the most..those point to the wealthiest in the nation.

You will cry a different river when you have No Social Security, No Medicare, because these 'entitlement' programs get in the way of waging war. No retirement fund/401k (because wall street lost it) and regulations get in their way of earning profits.. The richest in this country did fine without the Bush tax cuts (for the wealthiest in this country)..just remove those cuts..we had MORE jobs before the cuts.

If they really wanted to create jobs they should have given that bailout money to the poor..The poor would have had to spend it to survive..as they always do..THAT would have created more jobs than giving the money to the rich..who just sit on their wealth and accumulate.

I am not an economist..let them figure out the numbers. It only takes common sense to see where it needs to come from.

Social security cuts will do nothing..it is deficit neutral..it pulls in as much as goes out..I believe similar with Medicare. DoD is the white elephant that gives us very little for our buck. And by all means..the very wealthy need our help.

Peace

Originally posted by Tiger5
Anyfool can advocate spending cuts and many will. How do you generate growth. If you only cutsthat shows the ideology slavery of the right. They never have any idea for growth. If you only cut that will not lead to growth.

Funny. You don't advocate spending cuts. So you wish to be a slave to government entitlements?
Individual liberty.
Individual freedom.
Personal responsibility.

or

You can join the collective. Borg much?

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by spav5
Why is it so hard to see..Tax the wealthiest in the nation..decrease funding to the DoD. Clinton made it work. After Years of trickle down nonsense had us in a similar place in 92. We were so scared we voted for a billionaire coot to the tune of 18%..The Tea party is the current billionaire coot but instead of Clinton's policy we have traitor in chief in office.

And with no regulations added to the bailouts we are headed for more..why would the banks change anything when they know that we have given them carte blanche with our economy.

Peace

Okay, I'll bite. How much do we tax these evil wealthy folks? 50%? 75%? 100%? Cut DoD? How much? I notice you say NOTHING to cutting entitlement programs.

If you DON"T CUT SPENDING, you can tax EVERYONE 100% and it'll never be enough. Heard of the USSR?

If you add regulations you are punishing the banks for being successful

Decrease revenue and then blame the budgetary woes all on spending... That is such a complicated concept
it must be a function of spending, nobody could engineer such and amazing scheme.

I am for both, if you can't make ends meet cut back and get a better income, although that is too common sense I suppose.

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by spav5
Why is it so hard to see..Tax the wealthiest in the nation..decrease funding to the DoD. Clinton made it work. After Years of trickle down nonsense had us in a similar place in 92. We were so scared we voted for a billionaire coot to the tune of 18%..The Tea party is the current billionaire coot but instead of Clinton's policy we have traitor in chief in office.

And with no regulations added to the bailouts we are headed for more..why would the banks change anything when they know that we have given them carte blanche with our economy.

Peace

Okay, I'll bite. How much do we tax these evil wealthy folks? 50%? 75%? 100%? Cut DoD? How much? I notice you say NOTHING to cutting entitlement programs.

If you DON"T CUT SPENDING, you can tax EVERYONE 100% and it'll never be enough. Heard of the USSR?

If you add regulations you are punishing the banks for being successful

Decrease revenue and then blame the budgetary woes all on spending... That is such a complicated concept
it must be a function of spending, nobody could engineer such and amazing scheme.

I am for both, if you can't make ends meet cut back and get a better income, although that is too common sense I suppose.

Being successful..REALLY..We had to bail them out and then we didn't add regulations to prevent it from happening again..it will happen again..but lets hope that we have enough money to bail out the 5 banks when they are 4 times larger than they were in 08.

Peace

Originally posted by spav5

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by spav5
Why is it so hard to see..Tax the wealthiest in the nation..decrease funding to the DoD. Clinton made it work. After Years of trickle down nonsense had us in a similar place in 92. We were so scared we voted for a billionaire coot to the tune of 18%..The Tea party is the current billionaire coot but instead of Clinton's policy we have traitor in chief in office.

And with no regulations added to the bailouts we are headed for more..why would the banks change anything when they know that we have given them carte blanche with our economy.

Peace

Okay, I'll bite. How much do we tax these evil wealthy folks? 50%? 75%? 100%? Cut DoD? How much? I notice you say NOTHING to cutting entitlement programs.

If you DON"T CUT SPENDING, you can tax EVERYONE 100% and it'll never be enough. Heard of the USSR?

If you add regulations you are punishing the banks for being successful

Decrease revenue and then blame the budgetary woes all on spending... That is such a complicated concept
it must be a function of spending, nobody could engineer such and amazing scheme.

I am for both, if you can't make ends meet cut back and get a better income, although that is too common sense I suppose.

Being successful..REALLY..We had to bail them out and then we didn't add regulations to prevent it from happening again..it will happen again..but lets hope that we have enough money to bail out the 5 banks when they are 4 times larger than they were in 08.

Peace

the reason they destroyed the economy is because Obama was regulating them too hard...
IF Obama would have just looked the other way for 8 years and not paid attention, the banks wouldn't
have wanted to do what they did. They were forced to loan 30 times what they had in reserve because
Obama forced them to insure their own investments. Then Obama made them trade Trillions of dollars of
fake risk all because he regulated on them and didn't let them invent their own ways to inside their own investments and sell fake risk.

reply to post by Janky Red




The banks were deregulated starting in the Clinton years and all through the bush years.

What regulations are you talking about that Obama did..He wasn't even in office when the bailouts began.

Peace

reply to post by spav5


Actually deregulationj started with the Regan era. That was when the rot started. However backdoor regulation has started with 2008's banking crash.

reply to post by Tiger5

Anyfool can advocate spending cuts and many will. How do you generate growth. If you only cutsthat shows the ideology slavery of the right. They never have any idea for growth. If you only cut that will not lead to growth.

Well I guess that makes me a centralist. I suggest wiping out the idiotic red tape stifling small business and increasing tax on imports. Get us out of the "Free Trade" agreements, Foreign aid that just buys corruption in other countries and bring out military HOME.

A though house cleaning in government bureaucracy is needed too.

Do we REALLY want Monsanto puppets in charge of the FDA and USDA????

A couple of paragraphs from a whistleblower report on the USDA indicates how bad the problem actually is.

Since the introduction of HACCP regs, regs that turned food inspection over to the corporations, Food Borne Illness has more than doubled. This report details the criminal negligence and cover-up by the USDA's Office of Inspector General and their harrassment of whistleblowers.

SHIELDING THE GIANT:

USDA’s “Don’t Look, Don’t Know” Policy for Beef Inspection

This investigative report, as part of an ongoing series on corporate and government accountability, was
researched and written by GAP Legal Director, Tom Devine.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

......USDA's failure to act on evidence that ConAgra was shipping E. coli contaminated
ground beef. He knew from experience. In January 2002, some six months before the
recall of ConAgra product produced in April-July, ConAgra shipped him E. coli
contaminated coarse ground beef produced the previous August. When he pressed the
government to learn the full extent of and stop ConAgra's commerce in E. coli beef, the
bureaucracy blamed him for receiving the ground beef already vouched for as wholesome
through USDA’s Seal of Approval. FSIS proceeded to make him rewrite his HACCP
plan fourteen times, and for four months suspended his privileges to grind his own beef
products. As a result, he only could grind coarse ground beef supplied by large packers
like ConAgra that had shipped the contaminated product to him in January.

USDA aggressively enforced a “do not look, do not tell” noninterference policy
with the giant firm. This allowed the agency to remain officially ignorant of facts that
could create a conflict with ConAgra, or expose the government’s own Seal of Approval
as wholesome on tainted ConAgra beef. But it meant the government was sealing a cover
up. It left the public ignorant of and vulnerable to ongoing shipments of government-
approved, tainted meat. This occurred while USDA was using HACCP to place Montana
Quality Foods under tighter surveillance than any other plant in the beef industry.

GAP's investigation to date has reviewed thousands of pages of documentary
evidence, and produced affidavits and interviews with whistleblowers from industry, and
throughout USDA's organizational chain of command from the front lines to agency
management.iv The investigation is intensifying and will continue. These preliminary
findings are released, however, because a year after the recall our government has not
told us what happened. We have received disturbing reports that an investigation by
USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has targeted the whistleblowers, rather than
government and corporate officials responsible for the public health hazard. Sources have
further disclosed that FSIS, which should be the institutional target of any investigation,
has editorial input into the report. Agency offices that should be OIG targets instead are
working in partnership with the Inspector General’s staff. GAP is disclosing the
whistleblowers’ evidence now, because they do not have confidence their voices will be
heard through the Inspector General..... www.whistleblower.org...

I am not a member of a TEA party and I don't really care what they stand for but I have to give them credit, they were 100% correct on this Cut Cap and Balance bill. The Democratic party is wrong on this spending/taxing issue.

Originally posted by Carseller4
Should have listened to the TEA Party.

We did and we got downgraded. We have no revenue increases, we have zero loopholes closed and we're cutting $1 trillion from doemstic programs with almost nothing from defense.

Maybe we didn't listen enough because we still have a government. Sorry?

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by Carseller4
Should have listened to the TEA Party.

We did and we got downgraded. We have no revenue increases, we have zero loopholes closed and we're cutting $1 trillion from doemstic programs with almost nothing from defense.

Maybe we didn't listen enough because we still have a government. Sorry?

What part of "We don't have a taxation problem, we have a spending problem, don't you understand?"

Do you understand what "Cut, Cap, and Balance" (the TEA Party proposal) was?

What you are describing is what Democrats wanted......a HUGE debt increase immediately, with so-called cuts coming over 10 YEARS.

I see a large number of posts on here debating who to tax and how much to tax and how to close loopholes... you've already missed the boat. The govt does not need more money. They do not need to sit back and create new ways to tax the citizens. The answer is to SPEND LESS MONEY.

When the number of individuals receiving handouts gets higher and the number of individuals paying income taxes goes lower something has to give. Whatever the Obama administration is doing is clearly not working and appears to be making things worse.

reply to post by Carseller4


If you paid attention to the numbers you'd realize we do have a revenue problem. A huge revenue problem, expecially when we let major multinational companies pay nothing in taxes. Don't you realize that when that happens they're stealing from you and I?

They're the leeches, they're the drag on the economy and the debt...not the single mom with two kids and three jobs. Not the 63 year old who's worked all his life and is still unable to retire. The hedge fund manager who makes 'officially' $40k/year but really pulls in upwards of $200 million from stock trading, paying a paltry 15% when they sells those stocks and 'cash out'.

Own a private jet? Oh...that's tax deductible because...I don't know, you're rich?
Laid off 40,000 American workers because you had a bad year and lost a million dollars domestically but gained 40 million off shore? Here's a tax break, in fact, here's some extra tax payer money!

You can't honestly tell me that this is ok, that every single economic problem we have is a result of spending money on two wars...which no one seems too excited to end anytime soon...or nearly a trillion dollars of lost revenue from not asking people who take home more than a quarter million dollars to pay an extra $10,000 in taxes. Notice I said 'take home'...$250k AFTER taxes and expenditures.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Carseller4

 

If you paid attention to the numbers you'd realize we do have a revenue problem. A huge revenue problem, expecially when we let major multinational companies pay nothing in taxes. Don't you realize that when that happens they're stealing from you and I?

They're not intentionally stealing money from you. They're just as ignorant and unaware as the average person I've found. What they did is ignorantly push 'credit' which means that its money that literally does not exist. They are giving money that does not exist. This is where your revenue problem is, that is the root of it. Credit is the absolute scourge when taken to this level. Taxes, businesses, rich people, its all been done before, even Credit! But at this level you're talking about money being distributed that does not exist so of course the debt would not get paid. It's not to enslave you, its just a system build with a short term goal. Don't you think they would want people working? No one doesn't want their populace working, but if u don't have strong ideals about economics, it becomes a big problem when dealing with nonexistent money.

Originally posted by Carseller4

If CCB would have passed, we would still be sitting on our AAA credit rating.

Should have listened to the TEA Party.

My Ass

Most TEA party members here on ATS were cheering on default, a SURE FIRE way to
eliminate AAA credit rating.

That is a joke

reply to post by newcovenant


Using Huffpo as a source on the Tea Party is soooo clever!!! You must be genius., maybe even Mensa.


All kidding aside, thank goodness we T Partiers have some backing to counter the Soros machine.

I accept that the Tea Party MAY have been infiltrated by corporations. But why? Corporations already control enough people in washington to get everything they want. Why would they need to co-opt organizations like this? To stifle their chances at accomplishing anything? Speculative.