Tea Party Lies

[CuteOldGuy]

Spending cuts = reductions in future spending increases. WTF?!

Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=190577

[JD Barleycorn]

I hate to tell you that I agree that "future" spending cuts are bullshit but this has not been the position of the Tea Party. Neither Boehner or McConnell are members of the Tea Party. In fact, members of the Tea Party were actively opposing Boehner's installation as Speaker. McConnell can't be trusted.
The Tea Party is uncomplicated and straitforward, we want spending cuts now and caps on further spending. We want government to go back to it's constitutionally mandated responsibilities which is primarily self defense of the country. Social Security should never have been part of the general fund but all that changed under LBJ and the democratically controlled congress in 1964. We always hear that you can't trust the stock market so we should never privatize SS, but the government apparently can't guarantee SS either so won't it make more sense to spread it around in different areas but never to be part of something else's money.

To conclude, your post is incorrect and career politicians can't be trusted.

[CuteOldGuy]

So why are the Tea Partiers in Congress backing Boehner's BS? In the final analysis there is no Democrat, Republican or Tea Partier. There is only Politician.

[JD Barleycorn]

Are they? Conservatives are a contrary bunch. Unlike liberals they don't march in lockstep so it is hard to say that the comments or actions of one equate to the actions and words of all of them. You may find one or two who say they will support Boehner but there are others who say they won't. So which ones really represent the Tea Party or do neither.
The Tea Party wants to restrain an overreaching government and stop out of control spending. That is job one and two. I would like the debt ceiling to stay where it is but it is not practical. So it becomes a tactic as in poker, how far can you push your opponent (Obama) by threatening something you know you will have to do (raise the debt ceiling) but you want the other guy to think you're crazy enough to go all the way in. Some in here will say that is lying but that is what hardball negotiation is all about. Convincing someone that you will do what you say you will do in order to force concessions.
We will all see how this falls out in the next few days.

[Smokes]

Twelve Republican senators and 39 Republican representatives have signed a pledge not to vote for a debt-ceiling increase without the key elements of Cut, Cap and Balance. When a Senate GOP aide was asked whether it will require 60 votes to pass the debt bill, he responded, "I think one of our guys who signed the Cut, Cap and Balance pledge would force it to be 60." In other words, Republicans might end up filibustering themselves.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...#ixzz1TDj8eJ00

[CuteOldGuy]

There is nothing significant happening in Congress. The debt ceiling is irrelevant. The debt has to go down, and soon. We can't keep cutting the increases, that's simply a sleight of hand. A parlor trick. Putting band aids on the current system is simply slowing our destruction. Both sides are trying to appeal their base by looking like they are doing something, when the end result will be the same old BS.

[Kshunter]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Spending cuts = reductions in future spending increases. WTF?!

You have to understand how the budgeting process is done in Washington. It's a process called "baseline budgeting. Essentially, it means that year-to-year spending increases are automatically built into the budgeting process, and if you slow that rate of growth, it's called a 'cut.'

That's different than virtually any business or personal process in the world. If a company says it's going to cut spending on any item or issue from year to year, it spends LESS. Baseline budgeting allows Washington to 'cut spending' and in reality, spend more year-to-year.

Real government reform needs to involve real, dollar to dollar, year to year, CUTS in spending.

[JD Barleycorn]

The number is 7%. Every budget that the democrats propose, and that includes the recent Reid plan, expects to grow their spending by 7% annually. Yes, the GOP is not guilt free in this but there are more members of the GOP trying to stop it than has ever been in the democratic party. What this means to Reid is that Reid says that his plan will reduce spending by 1 trillion dollars in the next ten years or a 10% reduction. What he doesn't say is that they are planning to INCREASE spending by an additional 9 trillion dollars over the same ten years. Parts of the Spending Act of 1974 need to be rescinded which has been a perennial goal of some members of the GOP for years. I would like to ask Harry Reid why he even bothered when he had to know that he would be discovered?

[Longermonger]

What government services THAT YOU PERSONALLY USE would you like the government to stop spending money?

How about you pay your own damn interest on your mortgage?

[CuteOldGuy]

Longer, the government cannot continue spending at this level. It is economically impossible to sustain. After the crash, you will wish you had a house to pay interest on.

I take advantage of very few government programs or tax breaks. I'd trade them all for a government that lived within its means, and within the boundaries of the Constitution. But people like you who worship at the golden teat of government excess are keeping freedom from the rest of us, and laughing with glee as our economy goes straight to hell. Your self righteousness at the expense of others is not funny. Why should I help you pay your mortgage? I don't have a mortgage. Government pays for nothing. It can only take money from some and give it to others.

[Longermonger]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Longer, the government cannot continue spending at this level. Increase revenues and decrease expenditures. Duh. It is economically impossible to sustain. After the crash, you will wish you had a house to pay interest on.

I take advantage of very few government programs or tax breaks.'Very few' means some. 'Some' means more than you want to admit. I'd trade them all for a government that lived within its means, and within the boundaries of the Constitution. Which Constitution? The real one, or the fictional one in Conservatives' heads? You know, the one that has a balanced budget amendment and outlaws abortion, etc. Conservatives like to tout the Constitution but I don't remember them getting upset when Bush started an unpaid war in Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war.But people like you who worship at the golden teat of government excessNo. I worship other teats. At strip clubs. are keeping freedom from the rest of us, and laughing with glee as our economy goes straight to hell.There is no Hell. We are not in a hand basket. The overwhelming majority of blame for the current economic situation falls squarely on the shoulders of the Republican party because of their policy decisions in the past. Naturally, a minority of the blame falls on the Democratic party. Both share blame, unequally. Short version: WHERE WAS YOUR BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT WHEN REPUBLICANS RAN THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT FOR SIX YEARS? Your self righteousness at the expense of others is not funny. Why should I help you pay your mortgage? I don't have a mortgage. Government pays for nothing. It can only take money from some and give it to others.

Your last two sentences are pure conservative ideology. And wrong. Why? Well, because people are people. People aren't numbers. In a conservative utopia we'd all live in a big casino and we'd invest/bet to make our money. That conservative paradise of winners and losers would be great for the winners. Those lucky winners would get to take risks, win, and enjoy their rewards. In that conservative utopia the unlucky losers would have to die. No money equals no food, no water, no shelter, no clothing. In a conservative world of no handouts, that would mean certain death.

Oddly, many conservatives are Christians whose whole religion is built upon redistribution of wealth. Religion pays for nothing. It can only take money from some and give it to others. And before you say that government takes the money at the point of a gun, I'll remind you that religion takes their tax/donation using guilt. Guilt is one of the most powerful weapons in the world. Think I'm wrong? Go to church for five years without putting money in the offering plate and see what happens.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by Longermonger

Your last two sentences are pure conservative ideology. And wrong. Why? Well, because people are people. People aren't numbers. In a conservative utopia we'd all live in a big casino and we'd invest/bet to make our money. That conservative paradise of winners and losers would be great for the winners. Those lucky winners would get to take risks, win, and enjoy their rewards. In that conservative utopia the unlucky losers would have to die. No money equals no food, no water, no shelter, no clothing. In a conservative world of no handouts, that would mean certain death.

Oddly, many conservatives are Christians whose whole religion is built upon redistribution of wealth. Religion pays for nothing. It can only take money from some and give it to others. And before you say that government takes the money at the point of a gun, I'll remind you that religion takes their tax/donation using guilt. Guilt is one of the most powerful weapons in the world. Think I'm wrong? Go to church for five years without putting money in the offering plate and see what happens.

Good job monger, you managed to work in all of the talking points in this post.

[CuteOldGuy]

Who brought up religion? Who brought up a Constitution as it is imagined by the Right? DD is right, you sound like one of those syncophants on MSNBC. Unfortunately, I am none of those things you portray me to be. You set up a whole row of straw men and shot them all down. Good for you!

I am not a Republican. They are idiots. I have been promoting a balanced budget amendment since the Nixon administration. Placing blame for the current debt crisis does nothing to solve it. Both parties are at fault. Someone has to take responsibility for fixing it. If you knew anything about economics, you would see where this is leading. It's not good.

And you still haven't told me why I should help you pay your mortgage.

[Kshunter]

Just curious, Longer. You are obviously a prolific government-program leech. What entitles YOU to the money that I have earned?

[JD Barleycorn]

I think LM's name is really Tom. I know a Tom who works for the government. He also works a seasonal job in the spring where he talks about his tax payer provided car, a rebate on his mileage, and the fact that he was working lots of overtime to get ready for his retirement. He says he doesn't do much but he is clocked in and that is all that counts. Yeah, he is going to retire at 55 with a pension larger than many people's annual paychecks. He likes to tell everyone how he has the system dicked (his words). He also thinks Obama is doing a great job and can't wait to vote for him again. Sound like anyone we know?