Some people say the tea party is shaped by the following:
[quote name='Glenn Greenwald']Reagan-era domestic policies, blinding American exceptionalism and nativism, fetishizing American wars, total disregard for civil liberties, social and religious conservatism, hatred of the minority-Enemy du Jour (currently: Muslims), allegiance to self-interested demagogic leaders, hidden exploitation by corporatist masters, and divisive cultural tribalism.[/QUOTE]
Seems like you could go with just hidden exploitation by corporatist masters and the rest of the list would just follow from that.
I'm not sure about a total disregard for civil liberties either. They seem to be largely libertarian types. Sure, they dont understand how the world works, but I wouldnt say they disregard it when they care very much about it.
just like any other time you put together a group of people and make them an organization, the lunatic fringe will always have the loudest voice. When it was originally done, didn't it stand for Taxed Enough Already (hence the TEA)? If that's the case, I'd say it's quite clear that the function of the platform is domestic economic policy...
Of course, the lunatics are the one's that get the headlines so instead of reasonable people claiming that we're over taxed for what we get from the government (something I'm sure about 80% of america would agree with) all you hear is the weirdos who fear black helicopters landing on their compound and forcing them to switch to hallogen lightbulbs.
What kills me about the Tea Party is that the Tea Act of 1773 (which spurred the original Tea Party) was a tax cut for the East India Company, of which many of the British government were shareholders. The company had massive backstock of tea and they merely did what corporations do with our government presently. But back then it was cause for open revolt.
What kills me about the Tea Party is that the Tea Act of 1773 (which spurred the original Tea Party) was a tax cut for the East India Company, of which many of the British government were shareholders. The company had massive backstock of tea and they merely did what corporations do with our government presently. But back then it was cause for open revolt.[/QUOTE]
What I find funny about this poll is that somewhere in 40-48% of people that file taxes end up getting what they paid in back with somewhere in the 30-40% actually clearing a profit from filing their taxes. So technically according to this poll only 5-15% of people who actually "pay" taxes think what they pay is fair. Because one would assume that if the person pays 0 in taxes or actually makes a profit they would think that was fair.
[quote name='Wikipedia'] 1) Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.
2) Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide.
3) Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification.
4) Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution.
5) Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities.
6) Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.
7) Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
8) Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation.
9) Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.
10) Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend current temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't sound very malicious. which ones do yall not like?
"Here's my first impression of the tea party movement: It's a rabidly right-wing phenomenon with a shaky grasp of history, a strain of intolerance and xenophobia, a paranoia about Barack Obama, and an unhealthy reverence for Fox News. Any movement that doesn't firmly exclude Birchers, birthers and Islamaphobes is not a movement for me.
Here's my second impression of the tea party movement: We are lucky to have it.
That's because the tea partiers, who may not all agree on gay marriage or birthright citizenship, are united behind a couple of sound goals: curtailing the cost of government and refusing to live at the expense of future generations....."
I remember a lot of you championing the need for more political parties to shake up the current two in Washington and return them to their core principles. we'll here we go...
It's great that the tea party suddenly cares about the constitution. We really could have used their help during the Bush administration. Better late than never I suppose, right?
I'm really skeptical of the tea party and how they formed AFTER a Democrat was elected. I continually hear tea partiers cite 'TARP' as being the reason they got angry at the Bush admin. I think 'really? THAT was the only big government thing you were upset with?' Anger at TARP is bipartisan by the way.
To me the tea party is just a bunch of people who lost an election. They want limited government but that basically means they want only Republicans to control government. The fact that they found this love for the Constitution only after Obama was elected makes me question their altruistic motives for the country.
3)A simple majority should be able to pass tax changes, but I'm in favor of a balanced budget requiring a 2/3 majority to borrow for emergency spending. And a statement of purpose when we have surpluses that we'll pay down debt.
4)Simple would be better. Single rate would not. I want fewer deductions, the same rate regardless of source of income, and creation of a top 90% tax bracket. We need more income equality.
5)Stupid idea. We're going to eliminate waste by creating a additional government agency?
6)Again, stupid. In times of war, or times of recession, the government needs to increase spending. The problem isn't increased spending, it's that it never goes away, it's not temporary.
8)"Energy Exploration" is code for more drilling. You don't help a crack addict by finding more sources of crack. The problem is the fossil fuel dependence, because there is a limited supply. It may last another hundred years, though top scientists think not, but it will eventually run out.
9)Totally in favor. except for the 2/3 majority.
10)The last thing we need is lower taxes right now.
[quote name='Quillion']
2) "Cap and Trade" worked for sulphur emissions and acid rain. Why wouldn't it work for CO2 emissions and climate change? [/QUOTE]
elprincipe, who unfortunately has stopped visiting this forum, made a good point addressing this question. Back when the cap and trade system for sulfur emissions/acid rain came out, the technology for reducing the pollutants already existed, it was just a matter of getting everyone to use them.
[quote name='elprincipe']That is a good argument, but there are differences in the two situations.
1. Just about everything produced results in CO2 being emitted, including agriculture, industry, transportation - EVERYTHING, including breathing. Obviously this is not the same as SO2.
2. When the SO2 cap was put in place, the technology was already available to reduce it; the cap just made it a more logical economic decision for power plants and the like to buy the scrubbers and other equipment needed to reduce emissions. There is no comparable technology available for preventing CO2 emissions. Even the much-lauded carbon sequestration is not yet feasible.[/QUOTE]
We lose elprincipe but we get Knoell. This is why I don't believe in god.
[quote name='IRHari']elprincipe, who unfortunately has stopped visiting this forum, made a good point addressing this question. Back when the cap and trade system for sulfur emissions/acid rain came out, the technology for reducing the pollutants already existed, it was just a matter of getting everyone to use them.
We lose elprincipe but we get Knoell. This is why I don't believe in god.[/QUOTE]
Yep instead we are stuck with these guys.
[quote name='Msut77']Is there a Paladino=Horseer thread yet or did someone post in "Stay Classy"?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Strell']I wonder if Christians built any churches in the countries the Crusades took place in.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='IRHari']We gave American Indians so ing much. The least they can do is pay the federal government cigarette taxes. I'm curious why anyone would be opposed to that, considering how much we gave American Indians.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='IRHari']Do YOUR research, American Indians ARE good old regular american citizens. In fact, you might say they are the original old regular american citizens.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='IRHari']Who the are you to say how many mosques is 'too many?' You've got some nerve brah.[/QUOTE]
Knoell,
I am a bad guy because a Tea Party guy distributes emails about bestiality?
BTW IR ever notice Knoell will avoid any post with substance like the plague but will respond to every single post calling him an idiot?
P.s. I was never all that impressed with elprince, it is just the bar is set so low around here concerning cons that any with the thinnest veneer of sanity and human decency gets lauded.
[quote name='Msut77']I am a bad guy because a Tea Party guy distributes emails about bestiality?
BTW I was never all that impressed with elprince, it is just the bar is set so low around here concerning cons that any with the thinnest veneer of sanity and human decency gets lauded.[/QUOTE]
Nope you aren't a bad guy, but that sure is quality right there .
Unless you want the country to completley fall into economic chaos which likely lead to social chaos, you DON'T try to balance the deficit. You have to SPEND your way out of the recession so it's not ending up a depression. My main problem is that the money is not spent on things that would help the people like jobs programs, but instead on Wall St which is what got us in this mess. Its basic econ, govts can and should spend their way out of a recession. That is unless you don't want to recover the nations and that is a completely different issue. Libertarians need to learn BASIC econ instead of making a religion out of "limited govt".
[quote name='joeboosauce']Unless you want the country to completley fall into economic chaos which likely lead to social chaos, you DON'T try to balance the deficit. You have to SPEND your way out of the recession so it's not ending up a depression. My main problem is that the money is not spent on things that would help the people like jobs programs, but instead on Wall St which is what got us in this mess. Its basic econ, govts can and should spend their way out of a recession. That is unless you don't want to recover the nations and that is a completely different issue. Libertarians need to learn BASIC econ instead of making a religion out of "limited govt".[/QUOTE]
Keynesian economics is crap with ZERO evidence of it working. Ask Christina Romer, (Obama's chairman of the council of Economic Advisors) there has been little evidence that fiscal stimulus have ended recessions. Obama has lied about the following:
"No one doubts that some form of big stimulus is urgently needed"
Leading economics have been in disagreement with the stimulus. Obama dismissed these criticisms as "worn out old ideas" even though his Keynesian ideas are 3/4 of a century old.
And then the stimulus was full of earmarks and pork.
- Pelosi got a special wetlands provision
- Harry Reid got what could be billions for a high-speed rail form LA to Las Vegas
- and included non-economic provisions like the digitalization of medical records without consent by the people for privacy.
All this made the already bad stimulus worse. It was founded on lies and is just plain bad.
Important Note: Tax cuts (as suggested by many Republicans) are practically the same thing as a stimulus except that the tax cut money gets out faster. So in regards to economics, there is one party with two branches. Both are misguided.
-If it was from taxing the rich, expect level of employment and output to be below what it should be.
-If from borrowing from the rich, ask how might the rich have used the money otherwise? probably in a better, more in-tuned way.
-If borrowed from foreign governments, it better be invested in a way that generates a reliable stream of income to eventually repay the debt. Otherwise, we will be reducing future demand and basically shifting a more serious recession forward in time.
- If it is financed by printing money, expect short-term employment gains followed by inflation and economic destruction later.
Are any of these ways a good idea to restore economic growth?
Sorry this is somewhat tangential to the Tea Party (although they may be opposed to the stimulus bills) but this all had to be said. Blame jobosauce.
As Jason Furman (Deputy Director of the White House National Economic Council) said, "The Key to economic growth is higher saving and investment to increase the capital stock and thus the productive capacity of the economy."
basically, the opposite of a stimulus. Stop government spending. - a core tea party message.
Reducing income inequality (i.e., helping improve mean household income in the US) would be a perfect solution to your quote from Furman.
Which could be done a number of ways, many of which have little, if anything, to do with 'stopping government spending.' Stop starting with your conclusion, looking backwards for a plausible after-the-fact explanation, and we here might take you a bit more seriously.
[quote name='tivo']Important Note: Tax cuts (as suggested by many Republicans) are practically the same thing as a stimulus except that the tax cut money gets out faster. So in regards to economics, there is one party with two branches. Both are misguided.[/QUOTE]
So in regards to the economy, the solution is...
EDIT: nm, didn't think someone was classy enough to do a triple post
[quote name='mykevermin']Reducing income inequality (i.e., helping improve mean household income in the US) would be a perfect solution to your quote from Furman.
Which could be done a number of ways, many of which have little, if anything, to do with 'stopping government spending.' Stop starting with your conclusion, looking backwards for a plausible after-the-fact explanation, and we here might take you a bit more seriously.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='tivo']I remember a lot of you championing the need for more political parties to shake up the current two in Washington and return them to their core principles. we'll here we go...[/QUOTE]
It's not another party. It's the Republican Party in costume.
[quote name='tivo']hey myke, are you ever going to expand on this?[/QUOTE]
How to reduce inequality?
- Return marginal tax rates to pre-Reagan levels
- Promote union growth in all sectors
- Public financing of campaigns
- Tie minimum wage to something to keep it floating (e.g., % of GDP?)
- Repeal Affordable Health Care Act, replace it with single-payer system
- Put capital gains tax back in place
- Cap executive compensation (wages, bonuses, stock options, etc.) at a factor of median employee earnings (e.g., compensation can not exceed 40x median earnings, so for example a company whose median employee earnings are $50K/year, total executive compensation can not exceed $2M/year). To be fair, the 40X factor is arbitrary coming from me - hell, make it 100X and you'll still cap CEO earnings at $4.5M. The factor is up for debate, but the idea remains sound.
Not that this proves anything, but according to the poll NBC just showed in their election coverage, 90% of tea party members identify as white, 55% as male, and 74% as 45 or older.
[quote name='mykevermin']NBC is a communist shadow organization. Run by a giant multinational industrial corporation.[/QUOTE]
Except when they report Glenn Beck rally numbers. In that case, they are a credible news organization...at least until they report something "liberal" again, in which case, they turn back into a communist nazi queer-loving pumpkin of propaganda.
[quote name='mykevermin']How to reduce inequality?
- Return marginal tax rates to pre-Reagan levels
- Promote union growth in all sectors
- Public financing of campaigns
- Tie minimum wage to something to keep it floating (e.g., % of GDP?)
- Repeal Affordable Health Care Act, replace it with single-payer system
- Put capital gains tax back in place
- Cap executive compensation (wages, bonuses, stock options, etc.) at a factor of median employee earnings (e.g., compensation can not exceed 40x median earnings, so for example a company whose median employee earnings are $50K/year, total executive compensation can not exceed $2M/year). To be fair, the 40X factor is arbitrary coming from me - hell, make it 100X and you'll still cap CEO earnings at $4.5M. The factor is up for debate, but the idea remains sound.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='mykevermin']How to reduce inequality?
- Return marginal tax rates to pre-Reagan levels
- Promote union growth in all sectors
- Public financing of campaigns
- Tie minimum wage to something to keep it floating (e.g., % of GDP?)
- Repeal Affordable Health Care Act, replace it with single-payer system
- Put capital gains tax back in place
- Cap executive compensation[/QUOTE]
- unions hurt all non-union employees and consumers. they don't help the US economy, nor do they benefit anyone else beside the union members (and even then, unethical allegations exist among members). will not reduce inequality.
- minimum wage laws hurt the young, unskilled, and poor. It also generates unemployment and/or rises production costs passing the burden to the consumer. Doesn't help the economy and will not reduce inequality.
- I do not believe a single-payer system, run by the government, would be cost efficient but this one, unlike the above two, would reduce inequality. Unfortunately it generates equality of sacrifice instead of equality of benefit.
obviously taxes will reduce monetary disparity, but I don't think money spent by the government is effectively/efficiently spent and therefore, does not improve the economy.
I know you'll disagree, so I ask to you to provide any form of supporting evidence (even reason).
So tivo basically admits he doesn't really understand any of this economic flim flam, goes ahead and states what he believes anyway with zero to back it up and then tries to say it is up to everyone else to prove him wrong.
Which, when you do he dutifully ignores and hopes no one notices.
[quote name='Clak']How about you explain to us how the minimum wage laws hurt the young and unskilled?[/QUOTE]
easy. lets say minimum wage is a round $10/hr. Now, say a young kid w/ no experience wants that job. If their work in doesn't amount to $10/hr + any benefits + additional company expenses, then they won't be hired. Additionally, a small company will not be able to offer below min. wage paying jobs even if someone wanted it because the training/experience was invaluable or the task was really easy.
Its a lot like the argument to keep company's offering no-pay internships. Some on the left think that interns are unfairly taken advantage of but college kids are more than happy to receive experience and list something on their resumes.
p.s. smutt, I have a msg for you in the "Keynes" thread, bottom of the 5th page.
[quote name='tivo']easy. lets say minimum wage is a round $10/hr. Now, say a young kid w/ no experience wants that job. If their work in doesn't amount to $10/hr + any benefits + additional company expenses, then they won't be hired. Additionally, a small company will not be able to offer below min. wage paying jobs even if someone wanted it because the training/experience was invaluable or the task was really easy. [/QUOTE]
do you realize that you are arguing that minimum wage is preventing companies from taking advantage of desperate inexperienced, poor people...and that it is a bad thing?
minimum wage is around $7.25, right? I rounded it up to $10/hr. What number are the "fair wage" people asking for?
sporadic, you're right, big companies aren't affected by raising minimum wage that much but small businesses are. Increasing minimum wage hurts the small business who has to really weigh expenses and employees. In that, 5 people could be employed when payed at $8/hr but only 4 people at $10/hr. In that example, does the 5th person (whose not as experienced and therefore probably younger/poorer) benefit from being unemployed or settling for some less favorable job? the answer is no. Minimum wage helps some people, but hurts a lot of others (usually the poor and inexperienced).
and also what does taking "advantage" of someone mean? If that person or individual was not compensated enough for their work (either monetarily, or with health benefits, future prospects, training, etc.) then they wouldn't do it. They'd look elsewhere and go on welfare until they find something. And now someone else, who would be willing to do the job but was too inexperienced to be accepted, has his chance at the employment. You forget about the little guy.
[quote name='tivo']sporadic, you're right, big companies aren't affected by raising minimum wage that much but small businesses are. Increasing minimum wage hurts the small business who has to really weigh expenses and employees. In that, 5 people could be employed when payed at $8/hr but only 4 people at $10/hr. In that example, does the 5th person (whose not as experienced and therefore probably younger/poorer) benefit from being unemployed or settling for some less favorable job? the answer is no. Minimum wage helps some people, but hurts a lot of others (usually the poor and inexperienced).[/QUOTE]
You can apply that logic to any business so let me go on record to say " small businesses". There are so many things in place that actually benefit big corporations under the guise of helping small business. If they are doing so bad that a small raise in wages is going to put them into the red, they weren't going to be around much longer anyways. Also, in your example, that 1 guy who got fired, sucks he lost his job but...there are alot of menial jobs around and wherever he ends up, he's getting a raise compared to his old job.
[quote name='tivo']and also what does taking "advantage" of someone mean? If that person or individual was not compensated enough for their work (either monetarily, or with health benefits, future prospects, training, etc.) then they wouldn't do it. They'd look elsewhere and go on welfare until they find something. And now someone else, who would be willing to do the job but was too inexperienced to be accepted, has his chance at the employment. You forget about the little guy.[/QUOTE]
That's horseshit. You don't get to just go on welfare/unemployment. I believe in Florida, if you quit or get fired for "misconduct", you won't qualify for unemployment. If you don't have any kids, you aren't getting any money from welfare besides food stamps.
And look at how many places are firing part of their staff and forcing the remaining workers (who are making more than minimum wage so they can't just leave) to pick up the slack because "things are getting tight and you are lucky we kept you on". That's taking advantage of somebody.
Hiring somebody but only giving them (what is it?) 30 hours a week so technically they aren't a full time employee, therefore the company doesn't have to give them benefits. That's taking advantage of somebody.
And it's nice you are stick up for the little guy but there are always people trying to move up and businesses looking for labor. Trying to put a system in place of "work harder for less money or we'll find somebody else" doesn't benefit anybody but the businesses hiring. There are a ton of teenagers always looking for a job at the local supermarket but that doesn't mean Winn Dixie should pay them less than minimum wage (since they are living at home and don't need that much money) while letting everybody else go because they won't work for the same rate (because they need that money)
And for some strange reason, I get the feeling I'm getting suckered into an illegal immigration argument.
[quote name='Sporadic']A fair wage is being able to live on it but how about $9.47?
You can apply that logic to any business so let me go on record to say " small businesses". There are so many things in place that actually benefit big corporations under the guise of helping small business. If they are doing so bad that a small raise in wages is going to put them into the red, they weren't going to be around much longer anyways. Also, in your example, that 1 guy who got fired, sucks he lost his job but...there are alot of menial jobs around and wherever he ends up, he's getting a raise compared to his old job.
That's horseshit. You don't get to just go on welfare/unemployment. I believe in Florida, if you quit or get fired for "misconduct", you won't qualify for unemployment. If you don't have any kids, you aren't getting any money from welfare besides food stamps.
And look at how many places are firing part of their staff and forcing the remaining workers (who are making more than minimum wage so they can't just leave) to pick up the slack because "things are getting tight and you are lucky we kept you on". That's taking advantage of somebody.
Hiring somebody but only giving them (what is it?) 30 hours a week so technically they aren't a full time employee, therefore the company doesn't have to give them benefits. That's taking advantage of somebody.
And it's nice you are stick up for the little guy but there are always people trying to move up and businesses looking for labor. Trying to put a system in place of "work harder for less money or we'll find somebody else" doesn't benefit anybody but the businesses hiring. There are a ton of teenagers always looking for a job at the local supermarket but that doesn't mean Winn Dixie should pay them less than minimum wage (since they are living at home and don't need that much money) while letting everybody else go because they won't work for the same rate (because they need that money)
And for some strange reason, I get the feeling I'm getting suckered into an illegal immigration argument.
[/QUOTE]
Easy there cowboy. tivo just solved this country's economic and unemployment problem. Instead of hiring 4 people at $10, someone should hire 40 people at $1 an hour! And since trickle down economics works, the money will obviously trickle back down after the tsunami of money an excess labor hits the owner! All hail the benevolent owners and their just world!
er thread yet or did someone post in "Stay Classy"?[/QUOTE]
"
