Tea Party Lies

[|||||||||||||||||]

ron paul 2012

[CuteOldGuy]

Longer, it was a simple question. Why should I help you pay your mortgage?

[Seomon]

@ COG I normally love what you've got to say but to proclaim that you get no benefit from government services is taking a very myopic view of what government provides. At the very least, you can thank the government for protecting your a$$ against lunatics like Bin Ladin, and making sure you've got clean air to breathe, and relatively safe food and water to eat and drink. (If you're going to disparage the job that government does doing these things, know that the private sector is just as inept: the auto industry, the banking industry, and the real estate industry are some recent examples for you)

And if you'll allow me LM, you help him pay for his mortgage (if you are talking about the interest tax deduction) because presumably, home ownership is great for the economy (this is not only a democratic idea JD , it actually started with the republicans). And as such, because the benefits we get with it (improved property values, increased economic activity from home building and financing), we give tax break incentives to become a homeowner.

It is easy to talk about how little you receive from government when you take everything government does for granted but think of this for a bit, and I am not saying what we have is a panacea. Bootstrapping built America and made us great. But you know what also is infused in our history? Thievery and greed - some of it was out of desperation; a lot of it was out of greed; none of it was/is excusable. There are people who actually use entitlements to better themselves; they do not become welfare whores. Better still, the welfare whores (if they become so), do not become part of our American history of thieves and criminals. If giving these idiots $800/month keeps them from stealing, infringing upon my property rights, then I am ALL for it. And I think deep down, every conservative Republican feels this way. The statistics bears this out too, that it is far cheaper to put these guys on the shelf than to let these guys loose to commit crimes (should they choose that route).

And if what I've already typed does not put this into perspective for you, think of our discussion with our friend who declared that the US has no interests in the Middle East... His thinking was VERY narrow in that regard as I think your view of your benefits that you are receiving from those "government programs."

Additionally, government can "live within its means" IF we all our patriotic enough to WANT to pay taxes... People (including myself) work very hard to pay as little taxes as we possibly can... But if our revenue base does not grow along with our growing population and our growing US interests, our practice of tax evasion will eventually put us in a very ugly place.

And know this: government spending for programs is presumed to grow at whatever rate because many of these programs are tied to the growth rate of the targeted populations and inflation. The private sector behaves in the same way. I know. I've seen it. And both do so, EVEN IF the programs suck and are ineffective (perhaps you may find more instances in government but I truly doubt it - get a dumb-a$$ CEO who has a pet project and BILLIONS of dollars will be wasted regardless of outcomes).

Don't know why you bring up the Constitution COG where it concerns government revenues and spending unless you are saying straying from the Constitution increases unwarranted and wasteful spending (not sure if I agree but I might be able to imagine something from this angle). I will say that government just like a corporation is a living entity and just like all living entities they will fight to thrive and grow. Some would argue this is reason enough to kill government but I say just as we have beneficial corporations so too could we have a helpful and beneficial government. It just takes more time because in a democracy EVERYONE has their say including the idiots.

[JD Barleycorn]

I think we are talking about two different things from two different times. I am talking about the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. I was not condemning the idea of home ownership, I was pointing out that the democrats and Jimmy Carter inserted the government into the idea of home ownership. Once that was in place then it became a race to see that more people owned homes even if they were not qualified. The banks were leery at first but the Congress and Bill Clinton said that they government would cover any losses. They also said that banks should start making those loans or the would have problems with government regulators. Plain old black mail by any name. During the GW years there were attempts to investigate but it was stopped by the democratic majority in the Senate and footdragging in the house.

As for welfare, (get this) I am thinking about the children. How will a young person realize their own self worth when they grow up in the welfare world. I am unaware of any polling on the subject but I would be willing to bet that someone who grows up in the welfare system is much more likely to stay in the system that someone else who grew up outside of it.

[Seomon]

JD from what I understand of the Community Reinvestment Act - it was designed to mandate that a portion of banking profits gets plowed back into under-served or at risk communities, preferably through small business loans, but through ANY kind of community development. Government mandated this because banks - unlike any other industry - are given a government mandated arbitrage.

The Fed sets interest rates, the banks in turn sell money to us at this rate plus some kind of profit. Banks also borrow at ridiculously low rates from each other. This was part of the reason why activists fought for CRA (which if you want my candid opinion does not work - at least not how it was intended - this doesn't mean it doesn't do ANY good). This is also one of the myriad of reasons our friend Ron Paul hates the Fed. There are NO businesses that get arbitrage opportunities like this (at least not government mandated ones) and setting something up like this distorts bank incentives and bank/government relationships, especially when banks and the government knows the taxpayer will pick up the tab.

I didn't think CRA played a role in helping the indigent get housing. CRA is overseen by the FED, the FDIC and the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of Currency). I think home ownership is an FHA/HUD play.

"As for welfare, (get this) I am thinking about the children. How will a young person realize their own self worth when they grow up in the welfare world. I am unaware of any polling on the subject but I would be willing to bet that someone who grows up in the welfare system is much more likely to stay in the system that someone else who grew up outside of it. "

I was too. Don't think this was anything less than insidious. For the ones who become addicted to the 'government teat' as COG put it, they will become our permanent lower class. Call me paranoid, but I think this was intentional. As for the likelihood, I'd say it's about 50-50. For the ones that get education while in the system, they will realize their earning potential is significantly higher than anything welfare could provide. For the others, their options are welfare (and I'm going to be overly dramatic here) or McDonald's. One I get to sit on my ass and get paid; the other, I have to bust my ass and smell like grease at the end of the day. And get this: sitting on my ass getting paid allows me to think of ways to steal, sell drugs, or other criminal activity that work would just get in the way of... well, unless you work at Dunkin Doughnuts from 10 PM to 5 AM. this story

Which would you pick? Personally, I would choose to smell like grease but that's because I was brainwashed into idiocy. Or maybe it's because I just loves my doughnuts.

[Bartman1963]

Paul Krugman. Nobel prize winning economist, disagrees with the tea party, and most conservatives about the deficit and how it hurts the economy.

I'd like to read more of his stuff. I haven't read his books but he makes very good sense in his television appearances.

He argues that during times like this only the gov't has the resources to step in and make a difference. That if anything, the stimulus was too small by two thirds. That the tax cuts aren't creating jobs right now because the people they helped the most, the so called job creators (just saying it like that because they aren't creating many right now) are sitting on their money waiting for the economy to rebound safely. He argues that in an economy like this, the risk to the wealthy is such that they are doing what they do best, protecting their assets as best they can. They have that right of course. So to depend on them to take risk that could be dangerous to their survival as "rich", is wrongheaded in his view.

Considering the length of this recession, is he correct? Jobs, the most important thing at least in my opinion right now, not the deficit, are not being created in large enough numbers. Was the stimulus too small? Are we wrong to focus on the deficit so much right now?

[ironhorseman2010]

Paul Krugman is also a Statist. The fact that this is the worst recession in 80 years....and the policies BHO signed into law to end it are straight from Krugman's playbook....tells me the problem is clear.

These sorts of solutions didn't work for Carter in the late 70's, nor FDR in the 30's. Statism can't grow an economy. And Statists like BHO & Krugman think Capitalism is evil.

[JD Barleycorn]

Let me say this about the Bailout, if it had actually been used to create jobs then some good would have been done. Just like the CRA, some good would have been done. The Bailout was not used to hire millions of workers to do needed jobs from low tech to high tech. We need a border fence, we need our cities rebuilt, we need our electrical grid strengthened, we need empty, abandoned buildings demolished, etc. Instead the Bailout was used to rescue Goldman-Sachs, Italy, Greece (look where that got us), and many union pension funds. I mean why worry about your union leadership being corrupt if all their mistakes will be fixed at the expense of the stupid taxpayer by the president they bought and paid for.
No, the bailout was a trillion dollars flushed down the rathole of corruption. In reality I would like to see prosecutions (not for the idea but for the misuse).
I saw a movie a long time ago. It was called "Gabriel Over the Whitehouse". It starred Walter Huston as a hard partying, hard drinking politician who gets elected president after the start of the Great Depression. A little side note; the movie was promoted by William Randolph Hearst in 1931. The movie was held until 1933 so it would't blame the Hoover administration.
Anyway, while driving to his inaugeration party the President is mortally injured in a car accident. Yes, he drove himself! On his deathbed (no mention of a VP in the movie and remember he hasn't been inaugerated yet) he is possessed by the spirit of the angel Gabriel. The President-elect lays off liquor, women (his mistress is his personal secretary), and gambling. He becomes a dynamo of government intrusion. He goes out to the thousands of protesters in front of the White House (this is one important point) personally without protection and tells them that he will hire them as the army of the unemployed. If they had a skill, they will continue to use that skill. If they have no job, a necessary job will be found. They will be paid military wages and they will never have to leave home. If they used to be a baker they will continue to bake and the government will pay them until the crisis has passed. Slowly they will be discharged and go back to normal wages as the economy dictates. Sounds like a real bailout. The Congress refused to go along with some of the reforms and the President appeared in front of Congress and asked them to go home. He informed them that if he was not given the dictatorial power to deal with the crisis then he would declare martial law and do it anyway. Enough about the movie except we use it in poli-sci classes.
That is an example of bailout done right and that things were so desperate in 1933 that people like Hearst thought a dictatorship might be in order.

Cutting to the chase, the Bailout was used poorly and criminally.
As for the CRA, some good can come from most government programs but is it worth the cost. I could create a program to give everyone a new home but it would cost about a million dollars person. So is that an effective program if you can show 10,000 people who now own homes?

That also reminds me, we always had liberals comparing how many homes could be purchased for the cost of Vietnam, the Gulf War, the tax cut for the rich, and the war in Iraq. Why do you think we haven't been treated to how many homes that could have been bought for the bailout?

[Kshunter]

Originally Posted by ironhorseman2010

Paul Krugman is also a Statist. The fact that this is the worst recession in 80 years....and the policies BHO signed into law to end it are straight from Krugman's playbook....tells me the problem is clear.

These sorts of solutions didn't work for Carter in the late 70's, nor FDR in the 30's. Statism can't grow an economy. And Statists like BHO & Krugman think Capitalism is evil.

Exactly. Obama is a Nobel Prize winner, too, which says more about the Nobel than either Obama or Krugman. It's a fucking joke, and to use it as a credential is nonsense.

We tried it the Krugman way, and predictably it ended up being nearly a trillion dollars pissed away. Worse, it added to the annual budget baseline and instead of being a one-time spending orgy, it has instead become an institutionalized waste of cash.

[Starry69]

Considering the length of this recession, is he correct? Jobs, the most important thing at least in my opinion right now, not the deficit, are not being created in large enough numbers. Was the stimulus too small? Are we wrong to focus on the deficit so much right now?

The problem with both the stimulus theory and the tax cut theory is too many jobs have been moved out of this country. If the government spends a bunch of money and creates a job for a few people, and those people buys goods that are made in other countries, there is no cascading effect of job creation. The spending does not stimulate the the economy of this country.

That is why corporations are making nice profits now but they are not creating jobs in this country.

[JD Barleycorn]

We used to target our foreign aid by giving 100 million dollars to a foreign country with the requirement that it be spent in the United States. This helped heavy equipment manufacturers like John Deere. With the exception of Israel the US doesn't require this anymore. The result is that the earth moving equipment company that Obama visited with promises of new jobs has shut down. This is a problem by both the GOP, Democrats, the White House and the old Congress. The new Tea Party people have thus far resisted this. We need new people in Congress. People who don't expect, nor want, a career in Congress. Problem solvers, businessmen, military people, farmers, construction executives, oil executives, etc.

The EPA and this White House finally ran the light bulb industry out of this country. No longer are incandescent light bulbs made in the US. General Electric moved it's compact flourescent lamp factory to China. GE was instrumental in "proving" to Congress how much better CFLs were to incandescents with specially made CFLs. Now that quality has been thrown out the window for profits by one of Obama's biggest supporters and a member of his White House advisory group, Jeffrey Immelt. Congress was hornswaggled and the EPA (Obama) put the final nail in the coffin. People I've worked with have received notification that the price of all flourescent lamps are going up 15-20% by the end of August.

You have to seriously consider the possibility that either Obama is the stupidest, more naive president this country has ever had or that he is smart and has different motivations than any other president. There aren't many choices left.

[CuteOldGuy]

Man, I leave for a weekend, and lunacy prevails. First, Paul Krugman is an idiot. Secondly, the Constitution defines the parameters of the Federal Government. If the Feds spend money on something outside of the Constitution, it is unconstitutional.

The home mortgage deduction defines what is wrong with the tax system. The government wants to encourage home ownership. That is a good thing. What is wrong is that it takes money from me, who has no mortgage, to help others buy their houses. Why? If someone wants to buy a house, go ahead, but don't ask me to help pay for it. Space and time do not permit me to go through all the stupidity contained in the tax code, but it is a ridiculous system whose only purpose is to drain money from lobbyists for favors so incumbents can be re-elected.

Government CANNOT generate private sector jobs proactively. In order for government to "create" private sector jobs, it needs to GET OUT OF THE WAY! Allow the market to do its job.

Yes, I want the government to protect me. That is MANDATED by the Constitution.

And I think we would have clean air and water without government intervention. And as far as the government protecting the food supply, let's see, they are arresting people at gunpoint for selling cheese and milk, they are promoting genetically modified foods, and hormone infested livestock. They are assisting the destruction of family farming. We get much more help from the government, and we will all be in huge trouble.

If you want a huge Federal Bureaucracy, go ahead. Your view is prevailing. I don't. I want to be free. Free to succeed, free to fail, free to not give a shit. In one of Gerald Ford's infrequent lucid moments, he said, "A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you've got."

[G.W.McLintock]

It is really not hard to prove.. George Bush, the one the libs are STILL trying to blame for OBAMAS MESS, CUT taxes. Yes, the same ones that we just upheld, That created YEARS of a good economy, MILLIONS of JOBS, and UNEMPLOYMENT UNDER 7%.. These are FACTS, look them up.
There WAS thsi thing called 911, in which we had to spend a lot of money, BUSH did not create that, he was in ofice, thank god
OBAMA has driven our economy off the cliff. GDP is less than 1 1/2 % for this entire year..
OBAMA does not care about ANYONE!!! HE is only interested in his power.
OBAMA AND THE LIBS are POISON for this Country.
The Downgrades say NOTHING about REVENUE, We have enough money comming in to meet our obligations, all of them. What they talk about is our SPENDING!!!
OBAMA and his IDIOTS REID ECT, are already wanting to spend more money, WE DO NOT HAVE!!!!!!!
NO MORE TAXES
TEA PARTY thanks you for this call to action. They are just getting started. WE ARE going to take this country back.
Last November, was just the start, wait untill 2012. Who ever is the Republican nominee will clean the floor with this poor excuse for a president.

[Seomon]

@ McLintock You've never lost your country - otherwise, how would you (Tea Party) have ever gotten into power. Your vote has always counted. You've just now exercised it. Continue to do so and you'll get what you want if it's the people's will.

@ COG you've said some wise and sagacious things... it is true, that you fund my right to have a house, but it is also true that I fund other people's right to have kids, to put them in school, to be married, et al. This does not bother me because should I choose to, I could benefit from those things. People having kids, funds my social security (if it ever survives LMAO), gives me people to manage, provides work fodder to work for public companies where I own stock. Keeping them in school keeps them from being wasted labor, keeps them from being a nuissance...

I don't think we'd have clean air without government. Did companies not sell cancerous tobacco products to people without warning them about the risk? Didn't they put addicitive nicotine in those cigarettes to get them hooked.

I'm all for freedom but even a genius can't protect himself without all the facts and information.. that calls for multiple eyes looking out for his welfare.

Would you prefer huge companies to look out for your welfare? Know this, I am not arguing one is better than the other. I just know I can vote the assholes out of office; I can't vote them out of a company; not without owning enough shares and I aint that rich.

[CuteOldGuy]

Seomon, my naive friend. The giant corporations and government are one and the same. They walk hand in hand toward the same goal, which is the consolidation of wealth and power in ever tightening circle. This drama of "liberal" v. "conservative" is simply a distraction, like a magician's sleight of hand, to distract us from what is really going on. Ask yourself, does anything really change? There is supposed to be a huge contrast between Presidents Bush and Obama, but did things really change? Not really, the differences are cosmetic, and not substantive.

But to the tax code. Why should I help fund your decision to have children, buy a car, buy a house, buy a solar panel or whatever? The current tax code, as I have said, is simply a vehicle to fund members of Congress' re-election campaigns. (And I have a doctoral law degree in taxation).

And boy, government schools are doing a bang up job, aren't they?

All I am saying is, Give Liberty a Chance.