Insurance for Tea Baggers

[Matt J]

For many tea partiers, including me, everything is on the table. Medicare, Social Security, all Federal depts. Everything!!! How many times do we have to tell you that are of a liberal bent, that we are for limited or smaller government, less spending, more private enterprise, more states rights and a freedom to use our "freedoms" by all? We will see what happens, won't we? (Hopefully, this post is not as tacky as some of the ones above, but I doubt that many can accept it without being duly snarky.)

I notice that military was left off your list, is military spending something the Tea Partiers are willing to cut? Yes or No?

 

[Andy A]

I notice that military was left off your list, is military spending something the Tea Partiers are willing to cut? Yes or No?

There are plenty of places the military can cut. My list was not all inclusive. the answer is yes. Now, what do liberals want to cut and where? Or, maybe they don't want to cut, just keep spending.

 

[Lake View Too]

There are plenty of places the military can cut. My list was not all inclusive. the answer is yes. Now, what do liberals want to cut and where? Or, maybe they don't want to cut, just keep spending.

There's a need to cut spending. There's a need to raise revenue. I know this sounds too simple (therefore it will never fly), but here goes: Let the Bush tax cuts end a peaceful quiet death. Then start, across the board spending cuts on absolutely every line in the budget (NO EXCEPTIONS). I'm talking about a blanket cut of 1 to 3 %, every year, on federal wages & benefits, SS payments and medicare, defense spending, everything. And then do it again next year. Perhaps for five years running. Just think of the savings in paperwork of a bill that simply says "-1%"!

 

[CampCreekLou]

Once again the tea party doesn't present an argument, they either go into lala land or insult the person posting the comment or question.

It's clear that the Tea Party is a movement of some kind.

Interesting how you throw up a strawman, get me to bite and offer an idea, then switch from calling the wave from a sexual act to a bowel movement.

Channeling Bob now, are we? ;-)

For those that want to to cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget, start here:

How to Cut the Federal Budget | The Heritage Foundation

 

[Matt J]

There are plenty of places the military can cut. My list was not all inclusive. the answer is yes. Now, what do liberals want to cut and where? Or, maybe they don't want to cut, just keep spending.

No, I'm all for cutting the budget, but the military has to be included. We spend more than the next 27 countries combined on our military and 26 of those countries are our allies.

Interesting how you throw up a strawman, get me to bite and offer an idea, then switch from calling the wave from a sexual act to a bowel movement.

Channeling Bob now, are we? ;-)

For those that want to to cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget, start here:

How to Cut the Federal Budget | The Heritage Foundation

That list doesn't include military spending, unless you count the part about cutting benefits to veterans, which I'm against.

Ultimately your argument still doesn't hold water since you preach the cut spending and cut taxes mantra that is proven to not work. That report simply dumps about half of the programs on that states who will, in turn, have to raise taxes to account for the additional spending.

Perhaps you don't understand what cutting means or finance isn't your thing, but shifting the spending to another form of government doesn't save the tax payers any money nor does it actually stop the spending. What that report also fails to address is the fact that if you shift 1 program to 50 states you have now increased its overall spending since it will be duplicated 50 times. Now that's conservative math.

 

[scooterbug44]

For those that want to to cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget, start here:

How to Cut the Federal Budget | The Heritage Foundation

I took a quick look at this - I think many of the things they want to eliminate are horrible ideas that will weaken our country academically and will remove safety nets and much needed regulatory agencies, or just shift the burden to the states, but some could be easily done w/o hurting anyone.

There is a glaring lack of detail for most of the items and many red flags, but I would definitely like to learn more - especially since one of the biggest items where we could save was Medicare errors.

One WTF item that jumped out at me - we could save $70 million by having federal employees fly coach on domestic flights. I cannot think of any reason why this cannot or should not be done.

 

[CampCreekLou]

No, I'm all for cutting the budget, but the military has to be included. We spend more than the next 27 countries combined on our military and 26 of those countries are our allies.



That list doesn't include military spending, unless you count the part about cutting benefits to veterans, which I'm against.

Ultimately your argument still doesn't hold water since you preach the cut spending and cut taxes mantra that is proven to not work. That report simply dumps about half of the programs on that states who will, in turn, have to raise taxes to account for the additional spending.

Perhaps you don't understand what cutting means or finance isn't your thing, but shifting the spending to another form of government doesn't save the tax payers any money nor does it actually stop the spending. What that report also fails to address is the fact that if you shift 1 program to 50 states you have now increased its overall spending since it will be duplicated 50 times. Now that's conservative math.

Looks like there is a new Party Of No in town!

I'm guessing that if you believe that lower taxes are good and you are talking to someone who believes higher taxes are good, or that, you believe that a larger federal government is bad and are talking to someone who believes that a larger federal government is good, you don't make much progress in your conversation.

The people have spoken. 60% of America agrees. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid version of American has been resoundly rejected.

We need to start cutting the out-of-control federal government.

Can we agree that the federal government growth simply cannot be sustained (even if you tax 100% of the rich)?

 

[scooterbug44]

The people have spoken. 60% of America agrees. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid version of American has been resoundly rejected.

Not to nitpick, but both Pelosi and Reid were reelected, Obama is still President, Democrats were voted in as governors and Senators, and few candidates got 60% of the vote.

 

[Matt J]

Looks like there is a new Party Of No in town!

I'm guessing that if you believe that lower taxes are good and you are talking to someone who believes higher taxes are good, or that, you believe that a larger federal government is bad and are talking to someone who believes that a larger federal government is good, you don't make much progress in your conversation.

The people have spoken. 60% of America agrees. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid version of American has been resoundly rejected.

We need to start cutting the out-of-control federal government.

Can we agree that the federal government growth simply cannot be sustained (even if you tax 100% of the rich)?

If your just going to fall back on partisan rants then the discussion is over.

If, on the other hand, you'd like to actually discuss this then feel free to post something else.