What is the Tea Party?

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution but also wants an $8 trillion tax cut. He rationalizes this contradiction by asserting that his tax cut will not actually lose any revenue. As Pawlenty told Slate reporter Dave Weigel on June 13:

“When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way, revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president. So this idea that significant, big tax cuts necessarily result in lower revenues – history does not [bear] that out.”

In point of fact, this assertion is completely untrue. Federal revenues were $599.3 billion in fiscal year 1981 and were $991.1 billion in fiscal year 1989. That’s an increase of just 65 percent. But of course a lot of that represented inflation. If 1981 revenues had only risen by the rate of inflation, they would have been $798 billion by 1989. Thus the real revenue increase was just 24 percent. However, the population also grew. Looking at real revenues per capita, we see that they rose from $3,470 in 1981 to $4,006 in 1989, an increase of just 15 percent. Finally, it is important to remember that Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times, increasing revenues by $133 billion per year as of 1988 – about a third of the nominal revenue increase during Reagan’s presidency.

For the record, the CBO recently concluded that the Bush tax cuts reduced federal revenues $2.8 trillion between 2002 and 2011.
In short, there is no evidence whatsoever supporting Gov. Pawlenty’s view of the Reagan tax cuts or Sen. McConnell’s view of the Bush tax cuts. They didn’t pay for themselves and there is no reason to think that further tax cuts will, either. Republican economist Alan Greenspan confirmed this fact last year on “Meet the Press.” Asked whether he thought that tax cuts pay for themselves, as Republican leaders had said, Greenspan replied, simply, “They do not.”

So we jack tax rates up to 50%? You think that is going to help improve the economy? Do you think revenue will increase? Or that the deficit or debt will be reduced at all? If you believe any of that I have some land I need to sell you at a reasonable price.
The federal government does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. While the tax code is a joke and needs massive reform, the current tax rate is not the problem, spending is.

So we jack tax rates up to 50%? You think that is going to help improve the economy? Do you think revenue will increase? Or that the deficit or debt will be reduced at all? If you believe any of that I have some land I need to sell you at a reasonable price.
The federal government does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. While the tax code is a joke and needs massive reform, the current tax rate is not the problem, spending is.

:confused: wtf?

Step away from the Grover Norquist mentality and and return to reality. Tax cuts are fine if they will improve the economy just as spending is fine if it will stimulate the economy. Both need to be adjusted for the good of the country (this is not socialism) not a just few special interest groups spending the most on lobbyists.

:confused: wtf?

Step away from the Grover Norquist mentality and and return to reality. Tax cuts are fine if they will improve the economy just as spending is fine if it will stimulate the economy. Both need to be adjusted for the good of the country (this is not socialism) not a just few special interest groups spending the most on lobbyists.

How do you stand on the fairtax or a flat tax? You seem to be under the impression that I am for tax breaks for oil, big-farmers, big business etc etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I am for is a fair, simple system that collects revenue necessary to fully fund the legitimate functions of government. What good is it to have tax rates of 50,60,70% if you are collecting nothing due to a myraid of loopholes, deductions, breaks and exemptions? Would it not be better to give everyone a standard exemption (say indexed to the poverty level for individuals) and tax everything else equally? You could file your taxes on a post card and billions in accounting costs would be saved.
Bottom line is that we should tax at a rate that funds the legitimate functions of government and provides for a plan to begin paying down the debt. Our problem is that Washington is full of entities and programs that are not legitimate functions of the federal government as outlined in the Constitution. This is our big problem.

By the way: if we followed the small government, low taxes, no debt philosophy of Grover Norquist (not to mention the anti-Iraq/Afghani war stance) we would be in much better shape as a country. I am honored that you compare my thoughts to him.

How do you stand on the fairtax or a flat tax? You seem to be under the impression that I am for tax breaks for oil, big-farmers, big business etc etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I am for is a fair, simple system that collects revenue necessary to fully fund the legitimate functions of government. What good is it to have tax rates of 50,60,70% if you are collecting nothing due to a myraid of loopholes, deductions, breaks and exemptions? Would it not be better to give everyone a standard exemption (say indexed to the poverty level for individuals) and tax everything else equally? You could file your taxes on a post card and billions in accounting costs would be saved.
Bottom line is that we should tax at a rate that funds the legitimate functions of government and provides for a plan to begin paying down the debt. Our problem is that Washington is full of entities and programs that are not legitimate functions of the federal government as outlined in the Constitution. This is our big problem.

This is where two sides will disagree strongly, as a liberal I feel many social programs are legitimate.

By the way: if we followed the small government, low taxes, no debt philosophy of Grover Norquist (not to mention the anti-Iraq/Afghani war stance) we would be in much better shape as a country. I am honored that you compare my thoughts to him.

Grover Norquist believes closing a tax loophole is a tax increase, if you feel the same then we disagree. I have heard recently the some Republicans are beginning to regret signing his no tax pledge.

Maybe if we hadn't run a deficit almost every year since Kennedy was elected we could now afford to cut taxes. The 2nd Clinton term is the only one that had a surplus for its entirety.

Thought this was an interesting breakdown, wish it went all the way to 2010.

[SIZE=-1]The math from Kennedy took office to Clinton left it:
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The twenty years of budgets prepared by Republican presidents increased the national debt by $3.8 trillion. The average yearly deficit under Republican budgets was $190 billion.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]The twenty years of budgets prepared by Democratic presidents increased the national debt by $719.5 billion. The average yearly deficit under Democratic budgets was $36 billion.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Under the 20 years of Republican administrations the number of non-defense government employees rose by 310,000.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Under the 20 years of Democratic administrations, the number of non-defense government employees rose by 59,000.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Of the 369,000 employees added between 1962 and 2001, 84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under Democratic administrations.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]For the twenty years of Republican submitted budgets the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 10.08%.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]For the twenty years of Democratic submitted budgets the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 8.34%. Federal non-defense spending was 8.34%.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
For the twenty years of Republican submitted budgets the average percentage growth of total Federal spending was 7.57%[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]For the twenty years of Democratic submitted budgets the average percentage growth of total Federal spending was 6.96%.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
For the twenty years in which Republican Presidents submitted a budget, the unemployment rate averaged 6.75%.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]For the twenty years in which Democratic Presidents submitted a budget, the unemployment rate averaged 5.1%.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Note that for inflation, growth, and unemployment they used a 3,4, and 5 year lag time.
[/SIZE]
http://sideshow.me.uk/annex/JustForTheRecord.htm

Maybe if we hadn't run a deficit almost every year since Kennedy was elected we could now afford to cut taxes. The 2nd Clinton term is the only one that had a surplus for its entirety.

Thought this was an interesting breakdown, wish it went all the way to 2010.

[SIZE=-1]The math from Kennedy took office to Clinton left it:
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The twenty years of budgets prepared by Republican presidents increased the national debt by $3.8 trillion. The average yearly deficit under Republican budgets was $190 billion.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]The twenty years of budgets prepared by Democratic presidents increased the national debt by $719.5 billion. The average yearly deficit under Democratic budgets was $36 billion.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Under the 20 years of Republican administrations the number of non-defense government employees rose by 310,000.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Under the 20 years of Democratic administrations, the number of non-defense government employees rose by 59,000.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Of the 369,000 employees added between 1962 and 2001, 84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under Democratic administrations.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]For the twenty years of Republican submitted budgets the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 10.08%.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]For the twenty years of Democratic submitted budgets the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 8.34%. Federal non-defense spending was 8.34%.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
For the twenty years of Republican submitted budgets the average percentage growth of total Federal spending was 7.57%[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]For the twenty years of Democratic submitted budgets the average percentage growth of total Federal spending was 6.96%.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
For the twenty years in which Republican Presidents submitted a budget, the unemployment rate averaged 6.75%.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]For the twenty years in which Democratic Presidents submitted a budget, the unemployment rate averaged 5.1%.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Note that for inflation, growth, and unemployment they used a 3,4, and 5 year lag time.
[/SIZE]
http://sideshow.me.uk/annex/JustForTheRecord.htm

You make my point for me, too many people who run as Republicans are nothing more than wolves in sheeps clothing. RINOS for short. That record should shame every Republican and spur tham to ask more questions of candidates and vote the bad actors out.
One product of the emphasis on social issues is that conservatives voted for anyone who said they were anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-ACLU regardless of the fact that those candidates were for big government intervention into those issues, pro-big government spending and pro-international intervention. So we have recieved what we asked for. Now we must fix the fiscal problems and leave the other alone.

This is where two sides will disagree strongly, as a liberal I feel many social programs are legitimate.



Grover Norquist believes closing a tax loophole is a tax increase, if you feel the same then we disagree. I have heard recently the some Republicans are beginning to regret signing his no tax pledge.

Nothing but defense ( defense of our soil, not nation building wars) is legitimate if we cannot pay for it without mortgaging our future.
I disagree with Mr. Norquist about loopholes. While he has done much for the cause of small government he is not right about everything. No one is.

You make my point for me, too many people who run as Republicans are nothing more than wolves in sheeps clothing. RINOS for short. That record should shame every Republican and spur tham to ask more questions of candidates and vote the bad actors out.
One product of the emphasis on social issues is that conservatives voted for anyone who said they were anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-ACLU regardless of the fact that those candidates were for big government intervention into those issues, pro-big government spending and pro-international intervention. So we have recieved what we asked for. Now we must fix the fiscal problems and leave the other alone.

You, yourself, are side-stepping into the social issues. I believe Scooter's point was that the Democrats have historically been the more fiscally responsible party, and this fact has nothing to do with social issues. Am I wrong?

I got that if I want a smaller deficit, a healthy economy, less spending, and fewer government employees I should vote Democrat.

I got that if I want a smaller deficit, a healthy economy, less spending, and fewer government employees I should vote Democrat.

Vote for someone who will put people in place that will work to strengthen the dollar rather than weaken it. Coupled with that, someone who will bring the spending deficit under control. The whole reason Obama is pursuing a weakened dollar policy is so he can inflate away our debt.

The economy and wages won't grow and the quality of life won't improve without a strong dollar.

[I should also note that Bush pursued the same weak dollar policy as Obama.]

(BTW - if you do choose to vote for a strong dollar, there's only one option - Ron Paul. 😀)

Vote for someone who will put people in place that will work to strengthen the dollar rather than weaken it. Coupled with that, someone who will bring the spending deficit under control. The whole reason Obama is pursuing a weakened dollar policy is so he can inflate away our debt.

The economy and wages won't grow and the quality of life won't improve without a strong dollar.

[I should also note that Bush pursued the same weak dollar policy as Obama.]

More sidestepping. The fact is that the Democratic Party has been the more fiscally responsible party, and Obama is following in that tradition.

Could you post the same data breakdowns for Bush 2 and Obama that I posted for Kennedy-Clinton so we can continue to compare Granny Smith Apples to Granny Smith Apples?

My point was that despite all the mudslinging, these financial problems/trends did not happen overnight and you cannot blame one President (either Bush or Obama) or just one party - it was a group effort and there is no easy solution - despite what JFK might have said about tax cuts, he also ran up big deficits!

More sidestepping. The fact is that the Democratic Party has been the more fiscally responsible party, and Obama is following in that tradition.

He's following a tradition all right, but it isn't one of fiscal responsibility.

Note the democrats had complete control over congress for two whole years. What did they do over that time? The same thing Bush did - increase spending and lower taxes.

Thanks for the kumquats that show the increases starting long before Obama took office - I want to see Granny Smith apples.

Thanks for the kumquats that show the increases starting long before Obama took office - I want to see Granny Smith apples.

Look again, the lower scale is the date, Obama took office in Jan 2009. If you two can't see the obvious fiscal recklessness in these graphs, if you can't see that Obama has basically perpetuated the fiscal record of George Bush, there's no point in having this discussion.

Look again, the lower scale is the date, Obama took office in Jan 2009. If you two can't see the obvious fiscal recklessness in these graphs, if you can't see that Obama has basically perpetuated the fiscal record of George Bush, there's no point in having this discussion.

Now be fair, you know the budget for the first 9 months of any new president's term belongs to the previous administration.