There is another group out there that does not want to reduce government, in fact they want to expand government. They are not concerned in the least about deficits or runaway spending because they have never met a government program or expenditure they did not like, excepting defense which they would reduce to nothing. These people do not want to argue these points on their merits because they cannot explain how you can spend money you do not have indefinitely. They would rather hide behind snide/snarky remarks and mindless slurs.
The Inconsistency in the Tea Party
- Thread starter GoodWitch58
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
In the Ft. Walton newspaer Saturday, Henry Kelly, president of the FWB Tea Party said, "Politicians must consider cutting Medicare, Social Security, and defense spending...if we don't, we are just playing with the light switches.Geoff Ross, presient of the Emerald Coast Teas Party Patriots said he "would like the government to abolish Medicare, Medicaid, the Dept. of Education, and the National Endowments for the HUmanities, among other programs. However, he feels defense spending should be increased."
This is a fairly good representation of the Tea Party, is it not? Abolish Medicare, and increase defense spending? Seriously?
This is a fairly good representation of the Tea Party, is it not? Abolish Medicare, and increase defense spending? Seriously?
It goes without saying that the teabaggers are no good for society. Their message all along has been open your mouth, close your eyes, and you'll be in for a big surprise. Not all of us were surprised and we knew enough not to bite.
.
I watched Meet the Press this morning w/David Gregory - interview was with SC Senator Jim DeMint, a major leader for the Tea Party and he indicated that Social Security was not on the table for cuts. hmmm? guess we'll see how this shakes out.
Gregory: ... do you think the American people have to be prepared for sacrifice? Which part of the budget, knowing that there's only 15 percent that's nondiscretionary, or that's real--nondefense discretionary part of the budget, what are you going to target for cuts?
DeMint: ... we just need to return to pre-Obama levels of spending in 2008. We need to cut earmarks so people will quit focusing on taking home the bacon. We need to defund Obamacare, and then we need to look at the entitlement programs, ... to fix our tax code, to fix Social Security and Medicare, and to cut the cost over time.
Gregory: So you're saying that everything has to be on the table--cuts in defense, cuts in Medicare, cuts in Social Security. Is that right?
SEN. DeMINT: Well, no, we're not talking about cuts in Social Security. If we can just cut the administrative waste, we can cut hundreds of billions of dollars a year at the federal level. So before we start cutting--I mean, we need to keep our promises to seniors, David, and cutting benefits to seniors is not on the table.
.
.
Rand Paul does get more specific than DeMint in his interview with Christine Amanpour on This Week - it is in the second part of video clip.
Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.) struggled on Sunday to actually name any specific cuts they plan on making.
On ABC's "This Week," Christiane Amanpour repeatedly pressed Paul to move beyond "slogans and platitudes" to "direct information" on how the Republican Party will balance the budget and cut the deficit.
Paul immediately reiterated that he was going to push for a balanced budget amendment and said that cuts needed to come from across the board -- including defense spending. Whenever Amanpour asked whether a specific program -- such as Medicare, Social Security and health care -- would be cut, Paul simply kept reiterating that he was going to be looking "across the board." He was unable, however, to actually name anything significant that would be on the chopping block:
Tea Party Favorites Rand Paul & Jim DeMint Struggle To Name Specific Budget Cuts (VIDEO)
.
Rand Paul does get more specific than DeMint in his interview with Christine Amanpour on This Week - it is in the second part of video clip.
Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-Ky.) struggled on Sunday to actually name any specific cuts they plan on making.
On ABC's "This Week," Christiane Amanpour repeatedly pressed Paul to move beyond "slogans and platitudes" to "direct information" on how the Republican Party will balance the budget and cut the deficit.
Paul immediately reiterated that he was going to push for a balanced budget amendment and said that cuts needed to come from across the board -- including defense spending. Whenever Amanpour asked whether a specific program -- such as Medicare, Social Security and health care -- would be cut, Paul simply kept reiterating that he was going to be looking "across the board." He was unable, however, to actually name anything significant that would be on the chopping block:
Tea Party Favorites Rand Paul & Jim DeMint Struggle To Name Specific Budget Cuts (VIDEO)
.
All this tap-dancing is hurting my head. What is so hard about budgeting every single item on the budget about 2% less than they got last year? I don't see why spreading the pain evenly is such a strange concept? Of course, slashing defense a significant amount is an impossibility, but surely just not increasing the budget every year is possible.
Gregory: ... do you think the American people have to be prepared for sacrifice? Which part of the budget, knowing that there's only 15 percent that's nondiscretionary, or that's real--nondefense discretionary part of the budget, what are you going to target for cuts?
DeMint: ... we just need to return to pre-Obama levels of spending in 2008. We need to cut earmarks so people will quit focusing on taking home the bacon. We need to defund Obamacare, and then we need to look at the entitlement programs, ... to fix our tax code, to fix Social Security and Medicare, and to cut the cost over time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Security does not add one penny to the current deficit.
Social Security can be remedied with relatively minor tweaks.
Medicare (aka Obamacare for old folks) is more troublesome.
DeMint: ... we just need to return to pre-Obama levels of spending in 2008. We need to cut earmarks so people will quit focusing on taking home the bacon. We need to defund Obamacare, and then we need to look at the entitlement programs, ... to fix our tax code, to fix Social Security and Medicare, and to cut the cost over time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Security does not add one penny to the current deficit.
Social Security can be remedied with relatively minor tweaks.
Medicare (aka Obamacare for old folks) is more troublesome.
Hi Andy:
You wrote, " The top 5% already pay 95% of them, or close to it. When are we going to get an income tax system where everyone pays something on what they earn?"
A. The Tax Foundation The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data cites the tax burden of the top 5% at 60%. Close is when your football team loses by three points in overtime.
B. Your much repeated talking point ignores Social Security, Medicare, excise, sales, property, use, and transfer taxes. If you don't figure those...
For the record. Peter Peterson - a hero of mine, vilified by liberal critics-labels Social Security as a transfer from lower middle class workers to upper middle class workers.
The current tax code is an abomination but we need to deal with facts and get away from bumper sticker talking points.
You wrote, " The top 5% already pay 95% of them, or close to it. When are we going to get an income tax system where everyone pays something on what they earn?"
A. The Tax Foundation The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data cites the tax burden of the top 5% at 60%. Close is when your football team loses by three points in overtime.
B. Your much repeated talking point ignores Social Security, Medicare, excise, sales, property, use, and transfer taxes. If you don't figure those...
For the record. Peter Peterson - a hero of mine, vilified by liberal critics-labels Social Security as a transfer from lower middle class workers to upper middle class workers.
The current tax code is an abomination but we need to deal with facts and get away from bumper sticker talking points.
Last edited by a moderator:
In the future though it will unless it's tweaked.
The important distinction on cuts everybody needs to remember is that nobody is talking about cutting benefits to seniors currently receiving social security.
SS doesn't have a short term funding problem, it's a long term issue. So means testing, raising the retirement age, and something progressive that phases the general revenue aspects out for younger workers is the best bet.