Tea Party - Extreme?

If they don't add trillions to the debt they can not vote themselves a large pay raise.

>>It seems to me that if you want to reduce government, that's a good thing..

>>I personally think the tea party..are unrelalistic in their budget proposals.

I'm confused.  I take away that you're saying cutting the budget is a good thing, but then you imply (via contrast) that democrats adding trillions is responsible and realistic.  

I believe the stimulus was necessary, and without it we would be talking about a prolonged depression rather than the end of the recession.

So yes, it was responsible, realistic, and necessary at the time.
I also firmly believe that If McCain had won he would have had no choice but to do the exact same thing.

""People who lose jobs/money/mansions/etc from any sort of budget cut will no longer vote for their democrat"" - I don't understand what that is supposed to mean, since the majority of cuts to items like education, police, fire, and other government jobs,... are not coming from democrats.

""So what the priority is to keep going into debt? """
Well now you are putting words in my mouth to make your argument convenient.  That's not what I said.  That's called deflecting.


""Let capitalism run it's course.""
It should be understood that If you are complaining about the US economy then, you are complaining about the affects of Capitalism.

""You have no proof of that"""
"""The only thing we do know is the stimulus didn't do what they claimed it would.""" =  you have no proof of that...    

I would assert that the stimulus did exactly what it was intended to do -  www.recovery.gov  (fyi - the numbers on that site are reported by the states themselves.)

The irony is that while the GOP congressman and Governors were complaining about the stimulus, nearly every single one of them was simultaneously lauding their own efforts to create jobs and programs using those funds.

""You have no proof of that"""
"""The only thing we do know is the stimulus didn't do what they claimed it would.""" =  you have no proof of that...  

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html

Not to mention the waste in the stimulus:

$2 million per job created in Los Angeles:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/17/local/la-me-stimulus-audit-20100917

I don't understand what that is supposed to mean, since the majority of cuts to items like education, police, fire, and other government jobs,... are not coming from democrats.

That is the point.  That's why the democrats wont' vote for it.  They do not want to lsoe the votes from these people.

Well now you are putting words in my mouth to make your argument convenient.  That's not what I said.  That's called deflecting.
No I never put words into your mouth.  There are no quotes around it.  It's a question.  You said they have their priorities wrong.  Their priority is to stop going in to debt.  Balance the budget at all costs.  So I was asking if that is the priority now then, since it's the opposite of what the Republicans are trying to do that you say is the wrong priority.

It should be understood that If you are complaining about the US economy then, you are complaining about the affects of Capitalism.
I never complained about the economy.  Economies rise and fall.  what I'm complaining about is the government getting involved trying to "save" the economy.  The government can't save an economy.  Have you seen the inflation rates throughout history?  Since government has gotten more involved in the whole let's spend money we don't have, it's been ridiculous.  Inflation hurts an economy far worse than losing a few jobs.  There is much more to it including minimum wage, minority preference, effects on salary/cost of living, etc, but I'm not about to get into it here.  Giving taxpayer money to keep a company that didn't run itself correctly afloat is an abomination.  Should never happen.

you have no proof of that...    
I would assert that the stimulus did exactly what it was intended to do -  www.recovery.gov  (fyi - the numbers on that site are reported by the states themselves.)
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/03/27/statistics-show-stimulus-package-results-have-gone-from-bad-to-worse
I can post links as well.  the funny thing about statistics is they can be manipulated any way you want.  The FACT is unemployment is not better.  What they are basing their statistics off of are people who are applying for it.  Many people just plain gave up.  You can't force jobs where they are not needed.  They are just trying to throw money at something to fix it.  You can't.  Supply and demand with even itself out.  Just as an example:  how are you going to sit there and force 100k people to make license plates if there is only demand for 10k people to make license plates?  IT doesn't add up.  As an economy goes up and down jobs are gained and lost.  People take pay cuts and pay raises.  Learn to live within your means.  If you bit off more than you can chew, boo-hoo, deal with it, you did it.  Tax payers shouldn't be bailing you out.

The irony is that while the GOP congressman and Governors were complaining about the stimulus, nearly every single one of them was simultaneously lauding their own efforts to create jobs and programs using those funds.
What's your point?  Or was that just a typical, childish, needless, pointless attack on GOP?

Thanks for the links CarsRST.

"" The FACT is unemployment is not better."""


....well there you are flat wrong.  Unemployment dropped to 8.8% in March, and is expected to go down again in April.

I'm afraid your arguments have gone off a cliff of obscurity, i'm sensing some hostility, and I don't have time to debate all of those nonsensical assertions with you.

Again,
Is the tea party extreme ?... in my opinion....absolutely.

Unemployment dropped to 8.8% in March, and is expected to go down again in April.
obviously you didn't read all I posted, so yes, I agree, don't continue the debate.

Is the tea party extreme ?... in my opinion....absolutely.
As I already posted, I agree as well, but extreme is what is needed.  It's the only option to balance the budget.

well there you are flat wrong
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rates

Obama came into office Jan 2009.  Please show me how the employment rate is better.

C'mon... .

If you were being honest, you would admit that unemployment and the entire health of the economy went straight down about 30 days into Obama's presidency.   It hit rock bottom 3 months into his presidency.

Are you trying to convince me that budgets operate ...retroactively, rather than a full year behind ?

Everyone with more than one functional brain cell knows that the "mental recession"...was in fact a REAL recession... long before Obama was inagurated.

If you want to play games with timelines then you get nowhere.  I have a very detailed memory on these matters because I was directly in the middle of the mortgage metldown...and I watched company after company fold up and fire their entire work force long before it was time to go the polls and choose between Obama or McCain.

You can't blame the economy on Obama, because it's simply contrary to reality.

You can't blame the economy on Obama, because it's simply contrary to reality.


OMG, seriously?  Why is this all about Bush vs Obama?  Where did I blame Obama?  The stimulus, bailouts and all the other crap started going into effect when Obama came into office.  I'm very well aware that Bush started some stuff.  A president should never be blamed for the economy, Congress is way more responsible for it than a President.  There's a thread that talked about similar stuff if you're interested a couple months ago.

The unemployment peaked a year after he got into office.  Well after their promises of the stimulus bill preventing unemployment from getting that high.  I'm simply showing the unemployment rate kept going up even after the trillions of dollars the current administration spent.  There is no evidence whatsoever that the trillions of dollars helped unemployment or even the economy for that matter in any way.

As far as the mortgage meltdown, you mean the mortgage normalization?  As I Recall there is yet another thread on this, but mortgage rates only went back to normal in most places.  They were on an all time peak before the supposed "crash".  People were spending (not just on houses) money they didn't have and couldn't pay off.  Of course there was a housing boom.  This is the problem with flooding any economic system with money that doesn't exist.  Everything that goes up comes down if it can't be sustained.  The housing market was in no way going to be sustainable.  Places like Phoenix, AZ got hit really hard; they tried to grow too big and too fast for their britches.  There are other places that weren't hit much at all, because there wasn't an influx of new houses.  As I said it is all supply and demand.  If you have too many houses that people don't want, the prices are gonna go down.  It's a fact of life.

A budget SHOULD be what you have, not what you wish you had in the future.  Everyone including the government have been spending money they didn't have.  This is the ultimate reason for the economic melt down.  People spent like crazy using credit cards and what not thus the demand went up for just about everything.  This created jobs.  Now that people have gotten sense slapped into them and they've realized they can't afford all this crap, there is a sudden reduction in demand.  This means less supply, thus less jobs.  As I said, it's how capitalism works.  We wouldn't be in this mess if people and the government didn't spent money they didn't have.  IMO, we should go back to just straight cash on hand.  If you can't afford it, too bad, learn to live within your means.  The worst part about this whole problem is a lot of people are simply filing bankruptcy which means this "money" just floats away.  There is nothing to show for all the money spent now because of this and it will never get recouped.  This damages businesses.  

>>You can't blame the economy on Obama, because it's simply contrary to reality.

I don't blame Obama for causing the crisis, per se.  But I do blame (mostly) the democrats for causing the housing crisis by pushing loans to people that could not afford them and by preventing any change to Fannie and Freddie.  

Now, where I do blame Obama is in the spending of trillions of dollars and adding burdensome restrictions on companies.  Dollars spent by the government is never as efficient and put to use as well as in the private sector.  And government regulation simply stifles job growth.

Unemployment is still high, much higher than the 8.8% you list.  You have people that simply gave up looking for work and a large group that is underemployed - these folks aren't included in the government unemployment stats.

""pushing loans to people that could not afford them """
Banks push loans...not congressmen.
Sub prime loans are a product that would not even exist, if we had good stewardshp of our middle class interests from congress.  Deregulation allows them to exist...and to be sold as securities.

There was  a time that the sub prime debacle was so far upstream, that you could not get a fixed rate loan no matter what your credit score.  The banks simply stopped giving fixed rate loans.

""spending of trillions of dollars and adding burdensome restrictions on companies.""
Restriction such as ???...
Every president for the past 30+ years had deficit spending.  The amount of which has increased with each administration.  Again... I believe the stimulus was necessary given the circumstances.

""Unemployment is still high, much higher than the 8.8%"" - says who ?..Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.....that's who.  You seem to be parroting the same party line rehtoric that prompts me to change the station.  Those are talking points that arrive in junkmail folders all accross America, daily, and they are meaningless rehtoric meant to stir emotion, not logical discussion.

""government regulation simply stifles job growth"""
Without regulations, life would be hell in America for the average person.  Banks do not police themselves..wallstreet doesn't police itself... speed limit signs are not "optional" for a reason.

The banks simply stopped giving fixed rate loans.
And that's bad?  They are providing a service, if the consumers don't like it then don't use their service, imo.

Every president for the past 30+ years had deficit spending.
Agreed, but doesn't make it right or give future ones to continue the trend.  Especially to the extent this administration has.  Bottom line is the budget needs to get balanced.

Without regulations, life would be hell in America for the average person.  Banks do not police themselves..wallstreet doesn't police itself... speed limit signs are not "optional" for a reason.
I disagree.  If an employer is so bad that no one is willing to work for them, they'll go out of business.  If banks don't do as promised, their cash providing customers will leave if they do not feel their money is safe in that bank.  Wallstreet is just a whole thing I think should go away, but I won't go into that.  Did you know less than 1% of accidents in the US are caused by speeding when alcohol is not involved, where as alcohol related accidents is typically around 70%?  So is speeding really an issue?  Sounds like drinking should be the issue, not speeding.

People tend to create their own regulations and expectations of services.  The government forcing regulations on companies does increase costs most of the time.  For example this bill that was passed a while ago about the incandescent light bulb having to be more efficient.  Why?  People like how cheap they are.  Having to increase efficiency will only increase costs, which will get passed on to the customer.  This is a stupid regulation that was forced on companies for no other reason than control and money.  It's all politics.  Isn't it supposed to be about the people?  People still buy incandescents more than the other "green" options.  So obviously that's what the people want.  Who is the government to say otherwise?

""Everyone including the government have been spending money they didn't have.  This is the ultimate reason for the economic melt down.""


...there...we finally agree on something.

This is however, a "credit based" economy.
Yet another reason the credit market and entire banking industry... needs to be more regulated to make sure consumers are not taken advantage of ...AGAIN.

The economy is driven by consumerism.  You can have a million businesses created tommorow.....but if they don't have any customers, or they fleece their customers into poverty, then they won't have a business for very long.

CCSOFlag,

Are you not familiar with words like.. Collusion ?  Monopoly ?

How many electric companies do you get to choose from ?
How many telephone companeis do you get to choose from ?
How many banks control 95% of the nations ' wealth ? (3)
How many credit rating systems are there ?
How many car insurance companies do business in your state ?
Who controls the price of oil ?? (speculators mostly)


Face it....most regulations are necessary.  Nobody is pushing a regulation for the sake of doing so... I mean if the housing crisis isn't a case for regulation then what is ?

Yet another reason the credit market and entire banking industry... needs to be more regulated to make sure consumers are not taken advantage of ...AGAIN.

While that's true, I believe it shouldn't even exist.  How we ever even got to the point where we can spend money we don't have will always elude me.

The economy is driven by consumerism.  You can have a million businesses created tommorow.....but if they don't have any customers, or they fleece their customers into poverty, then they won't have a business for very long.
Exactly.  You ahve to earn customers.  They don't grow on trees. :)

Are you not familiar with words like.. Collusion ?  Monopoly ?
Oh I'm familiar with it, but I disagree that someone can't have a monopoly.  My opinion is if one company makes a product better than everyone else, and everyone else goes out of business, then what's wrong with that?  They can't make their product any more because everyone else couldn't keep up?  That's bunk.  

How many electric companies do you get to choose from ?  ONE.  APS is the only one.  Along with my water and gas.  All one company.

How many telephone companeis do you get to choose from ?  Hardline?  One.  Cell phone?  Several service our area.

How many banks control 95% of the nations ' wealth ? (3)  couldn't care less.  My money is not controlled by one of them.

How many credit rating systems are there ?  Too many, and they're all trash imo.  whoever came up with a credit rating should be shot.  It does not look at how responsible a person is with money.  Getting penalized for closing a credit card account?  Getting penalized for a high % of revolving debt instead of the amount?  It's all crap and makes no sense.  So some people may not like a certain credit card company and close it, why should they be penalized for it?  So someone only wants one credit card to use that has a limit of 2k and they always pay it off.  So what?  They should get penalized for it?  Again that's crap.  Should be done away with.

How many car insurance companies do business in your state ? Too many to count, and it's not because of the government, it's because they all compete in prices and service levels.  I stick with USAA even though I could get cheaper (although not many can beat their prices), because their service is stellar.  No company I have ever dealt with has the customer service as USAA.  I'm willing to pay a little extra for that.  Which is an example of customers choosing who to deal with according to their preferences.

Who controls the price of oil ?? (speculators mostly)  He he, this is a whole new ball of wax.  It's regulations that make the price the way it is.  It's so hard and expensive to drill in the US because of regulations, it makes people not do it.  Even though there is plenty of oil to use here in the US, politics send us else where to purchase it.  Not to mention we still have some of the cheapest gas in the world.

Face it....most regulations are necessary.  
I just disagree.  IMO, very few at most are necessary.

Nobody is pushing a regulation for the sake of doing so...
Debatable, but not gonna go there.

I mean if the housing crisis isn't a case for regulation then what is ?
Again I disagree.  If the banks would have been left for dead, then the banks that did survive would have changed their business practices and start lending smarter to those who could afford it.  Thus no more housing crisis.  But again I disagree that we are in a real housing crisis anyways.  Just a normalization.

I think we got off topic , lol....
But oh well,

""Just a normalization."""

Is that code speak for painful economic distress that only poor and middle class people feel ?

Is that code speak for painful economic distress that only poor and middle class people feel ?

LOL, Since they are mainly the ones who purchased homes they couldn't really afford, yes.  It's because the country has turned into a country of "me".   Everyone wants what their parents had after their parents worked all their life for it.  Everyone thinks they deserve a 3k+ square foot house no matter how much they make.  Sorry you only get what you can afford, not what everyone thinks they deserve.

btw here is a decent graph to depict what I'm saying about the housing crisis.  This doesn't show the drop, but it shows the boom before hand.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.html

I get what you are saying...and no, I do not feel entitled.

However....
What does it say about our economic formula when the IT Manager who works for one of the nations largest single family homebuilders...cannot get an affordable, FAIR loan..and by fair I mean specifically FIXED RATE...to buy one of those average homes built by the company they work for...for 10 years !?

Banks only want to give you a "sub prime" ...or ARM mortgage..
The banker's wisdom being.... "home values always go up, not down", therefore when X borrower get's foreclosed after his teaser rate expires, we (the bank) get to take back the property (now worth more) and sell it for more to another unsuspecting borrower.  What they didn't count on was the property values going down...but still the burden is only on the borrower.

All the while, the banks are "lending" money they don't technically have in the first place.

What does it say about our economic formula when the IT Manager...

I say save your money to pay cash.  Want food?  Pay cash.  Want a car?  pay cash.  Want a house?  pay cash.  If you don't have the cash, save up.  Spend what you have.  Otherwise don't complain about what the banks are giving you for a loan.  They are not obliged to do anything for people wanting to take out a loan.  Again if someone is providing a service, you either accept their services on their terms or you figure out something yourself.

All the while, the banks are "lending" money they don't technically have in the first place.
Which they shouldn't be allowed to do.  goes back to my previous post of how did we ever get to the point where we can spend money that we don't have?  IT makes no sense.  It's a concept that should never have even come about.

So you paid cash for your home, your car, and all your other "toys" ???

....I don't believe that.

By the time you save enough CASH to buy a house, you might as well continue living in an apartment and use the money to retire.

You're missing what i'm saying.  The system is RIGGED against you.

I find it ironic that conservatives are constantly complaining about the FED..while simultaneously they defend the banks.... and yet the FED is the banks.  It is THE mechanism that allows them to siphon your "future earnings" (spend money they don't have yet), in the form of tax payments and interest expenses.

I find it ironic that conservatives are constantly complaining about the FED

I find it ironic that liberals are constantly complaining about the Banks making risky loans ... while simultaneously wondering why banks will not loan money to none credit worthy induviduals?

I have an idea...

Let's take all your debts...credit card, car loans, house loans, home depot card... and i'll take all my debts...and we'll combine it with the questioner's debts.... and we'll roll that up into an exotic "security"...and sell it to unsuspecting investors.  Then when the bottom falls out, we'll be long gone, cash in hand, leaving everyone bewildered, confused, homeless, broke, jobless, and pointing fingers at each other.

...that's what they did...and they're still doing it, because they have the support of people like yourself.

>>Banks push loans...not congressmen.
See community reinvestment act.  Also see Janet Reno threatening banks to make loans.



>>""spending of trillions of dollars and adding burdensome restrictions on companies.""
>>Restriction such as ???...

Funny you should ask.  This just out today.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/04/05/congress-repeals-unpopular-tax-reporting-requirement-businesses

The words..."Predatory Lending" mean nothing to you I suppose.

So you paid cash for your home, your car, and all your other "toys" ???
No, I'm saying if you don't like what the banks have to offer then pay cash.  Otherwise don't complain.  My home is my only loan.  I accepted the terms the bank had to offer.  If loans were not available I wouldn't complain about not being able to get one.  I would suck it up and rent until I can save money to buy  a house.  My next vehicle will be paid in cash.  At least a home has worth.

The system is RIGGED against you.
I agree, but we brought it on ourselves.  If we are so unhappy about it why do we keep playing the game?

I find it ironic...
yea for sure.  It's frightening how much you pay in interest on loans.  It's just a personal choice as to how much you really want to end up paying for something vs how soon you want it.  This is why I'm paying off the house in half the time.  I'll still pay an arm and leg in insurance, but at least it's not both arms and both legs.  :P

I'll still pay an arm and leg in insurance, but at least it's not both arms and both legs.

oops, should be interest, not insurance.  :(

""" If we are so unhappy about it why do we keep playing the game?"""


haha....we must enjoy the abuse.

I was always told there are two people you can count on to work against you...
1) politicians
2) bankers


....it's no wonder you find them in the same circles of friends.

Let's take all your debts...credit card, car loans, house loans, home depot card... and i'll take all my debts...and we'll combine it with the questioner's debts.... and we'll roll that up into an exotic "security"...and sell it to unsuspecting investors.  Then when the bottom falls out, we'll be long gone, cash in hand, leaving everyone bewildered, confused, homeless, broke, jobless, and pointing fingers at each other.

I have a better idea. Lets mandate that banks make these risky loans and then form an unregulated agency (we'll call it Freddy and Fanny), and mandate that these agencies purchase those risky loans, and when people start defaulting we will make sure the taxpayers (that 40% that actually pays taxes) kick in more money. This way we can all get elected by the 60% that are living off our dole.

haha....we must enjoy the abuse.

LOL, somehow I think you're right.  Bunch of masochists.

xuserx2000:
>>All the while, the banks are "lending" money they don't technically have in the first place.
CCSOFlag:
>>Which they shouldn't be allowed to do.  goes back to my previous post of how did we ever get to the point where we can spend money that we don't have?

Sounds like CSOFlag favors increased bank regulation.

""mandate that banks make these risky loans"""


...can you show me this supposed mandate ?

...can you show me this supposed mandate ?

Ok, how about the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

The CRA contains no such mandate.

Sure does:

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods. The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive FDIC insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit in all communities in which they are chartered to do business.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/

>>The CRA contains no such mandate.

Sorry - can't let the misinformation go on.

Banks make loans to people they know can't afford it.  Fannie and Freddie buy up the bad loans.  Banks get the money up front from these two institutions, leaving the loan default risk on the backs of tax payers.  That's why Fannie and Freddie have to constantly be bailed out by tax payers.

My advice would be to investigate and get the facts.

Here's a news video explainingl:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63siCHvuGFg

"The Community Reinvestment Act lets politicians pressure lenders to lend to people they might not lend to otherwise"
         -Economist Thomas Sowell

Leon is absolutely right.

That doesn't constitute a mandate to make a risky loan.
WHERE you live shouldn't have anything to do with the merits of your "credit worthiness".
That would mean anyone who comes from a low income neighborhood would never be allowed to buy a home and move out of it.  I grew up in a bad neighborhood and I have excellent credit.

...Since you are copying and pasting from Wikipedia....
"""Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA."""


The CRA had nothing to do with the housing/forclosure crisis.

Also, ...being "creditworthy"... can change in an instant, along with your employment status.

Descriminatory lending.... that is not based on CREDIT...IS NOT, and SHOULD NOT be allowed.

The CRA was to address descrimination based on geography, ..not force lending to poor people.  The bank is not forced to lend 400k to someone who works at McDonald's and the right wing assertions on this matter are completely false.

xuserx2000,

Suppose, then, you tell us what caused the housing crisis.  Then tell us why any bank in its right mind would lend money to someone that wouldn't repay.

Then explain why fannie and freddie have to constantly be bailed out by tax payers.

"Suppose, then, you tell us what caused the housing crisis.  Then tell us why any bank in its right mind would lend money to someone that wouldn't repay."

Should say "...couldn't repay..."

Sounds like CSOFlag favors increased bank regulation.

Not really, I'm simply confused as to how anyone (government, banks, businesses, individuals) can spend money they don't have.  This concept blows my mind.  Has nothing to do with regulation imo.  It has to do with common sense.  I don't understand how we got to this point and who accepted this practice.  To me the money should exist for it to be spent.  If a bank gives a loan, they should have the cash asset to cover it.  If an individual uses a credit card, the bank that owns that credit card should have the cash asset to cover the customer's expenses.

The housing crisis was caused by several things.

1) speculators

These people were ordering 5 houses a week, buying 10, and flipping just as many for a quick buck.  The market was oversupplied with investor properties, and these investors ("flippers") had no intention of ever living in these homes.  Many of them sit empty to this day, I have 3 of them on my block alone with grass overgrowing the mailboxes.

2) Banks and their affiliates created predatory loan products known as sub-prime loans, that were touted as meeting criteria of the CRA to be made available to middle income to lower income people.., however, they were designed to encourage borrower default.   The banks at the time, were of the understanding that home values do not go down,...ever.   The idea was to sell as many homes as possible using 80/20  ARM loans... and when those teaser rates expired and the borrower inevitabely defaulted, the bank would then take back the property (now worth more money), and resell it again.   On top of that, they created securities out of these risky debts, and sold them to investors.  Again..all of these practices that created the housing bubble, were based on the assumption that the properties could not lose a substantial amount of value.  That was obviously wrong, and by the time that was realized by the average investors now pot committed to these properties or securities.... the insiders had already withdrawn from the market sending the fallout downstream as usual and revealing just how much of our funny-money economy was based on overvalued assets and debts.

3)  Yes, some people bought homes beyond their means.  This represents the minority of loans in default.

Back to the topic at hand...

Do you think ending public schools as a means to save money is an extreme idea ?

...I do.

Tea party = extreme, and even moreso ...naive.

I agree with ending public schools.  I know I'm a minority, but I believe education should be sought after, not forced.  There are too many people in school that don't want to be there, and they don't learn anything.  It's a waste of time, money, and man power.  Not to mention it's a distraction to those who want to learn.  First and foremost it should be a competitive program like in Japan, Poland, etc.  You shouldn't be able to just buy a degree.  The education system in this country is horrid.  Ya, I know all the arguments for educating our public, I just disagree.

And once again, yes it's extreme, because it goes against the norm.  Doesn't make it bad.  The idea that the earth was round was extreme at one time.  We all know what's happened since.

Your statement is ironic, since education is the main reason people come to the US.  It's one of our few remaining exports.

""There are too many people in school that don't want to be there"""
Kids are not "people"...they are not adults and what they want or don't want... often is not what they need.

"" The idea that the earth was round was extreme at one time.  We all know what's happened since. """   -    most of us know because most of us learned about it in public school.

Likely the only reason you can even argue with me right now, is becaused you learned how to read and write...in a public school.

Education is key to our economic success and global competitiveness, and there was a time in this country's history when education was reserved only for people who could pay for it.   That is the principle reason the stigma still exists to this day that country folks are "dumb".   Farmer John from the South, in the early 1900's couldn't afford to send his kids to a fancy city slicker school and education was not a right nor was it compulsory.

As I said, I know the arguments for education, nothing you ahve to say would convince me of thinking public education is a necessity.  We just think differently.  

People come to the US for education because it's so easy to get here.  You have some money or you get some grants and voila you have a college degree.  College degrees are meaning less and less as time goes on.  There are many people who come out with a degree and are dumb as a rock.

Have you ever watched Jay Leno when he goes out on the street and asks people simple questions and they get them way wrong?  As I said, only the people who want to learn are going to learn.  Shouldn't be required.

CCSOFlag:
>>Not really, I'm simply confused as to how anyone (government, banks, businesses, individuals) can spend money they don't have.

Simple human nature, some people like to gamble.  When their job allows them to gamble with other people's money, regulations need to be in place to insure that they don't squander other people's money.

I'm not seeing the correlation.  When you go gamble in a casino you pay for the chips ahead of time; those chips represent that money you have fronted to gamble with.  Same with the stock market.  IF I go invest I have to buy the stocks or whatever I'm investing in to gamble with.

I do agree that it's human nature to gamble, but I'm still at a loss as to how we got to the point where having the money (or some sort of asset) for something isn't required.  Maybe we should go back to the barter system...

That doesn't constitute a mandate to make a risky loan.
WHERE you live shouldn't have anything to do with the merits of your "credit worthiness".
That would mean anyone who comes from a low income neighborhood would never be allowed to buy a home and move out of it.  I grew up in a bad neighborhood and I have excellent credit.

And if you have a good credit rating then banks would be more than happy to lend to you, but the issue of discrimination was brought up as a result of a lower percentage of people being able to qualify for loans (which is natural since they are POOR!)

1) speculators
People fliping houses were truely a minority even at the hight of the bubble.

2) Banks and their affiliates created predatory loan products known as sub-prime loans
These products were created as a direct result of Government meddling. It was the government that setup Freddy and Fanny to purchase these sub prime loans, which allowed banks to continue loaning to people who should have never been givin a loan in the first place. (I know a case where a guy with a paper route was given a 150K loan for 110% of the house value!)

3)  Yes, some people bought homes beyond their means.  This represents the minority of loans in default.
Prove it. I say the majority of defaulters started out as sub prime with the only way they were able to get the loan was due to low initial payments and a ballon which burst on them when the economy when bad. These loans had RISK written all over them.

Tea party = extreme, and even moreso ...naive.

Naive in some respects, yes. Extreme, only in the sense that they are going against the convensional wisdom.

which allowed banks to continue loaning to people who should have never been givin a loan in the first place.

I totally agree.  When I purchased my current house they approved me for 325k for a home loan.  There was no chance in hell I'd be able to afford a 325k home payment.  Fortunately I'm smart enough to do the math myself and didn't look for houses that expensive.  The entire system is jacked up.  I have no problem with the fact that banks decide to give loans to certain people, but the banks should be held responsible for failing.  They should not be given bailouts.  They need to be on their own and suffer their own consequences.

You know, we have one party trying to reduce the current budget deficit and we have another party not willing to cut any meaningful amount.

For the life of me, I just can't understand why the democrats have no sense of urgency, seeing that the national debt is $14 TRILLION.  

Are democrats trying to financially collapse this country?

sadly, all that's going on is the blame game and name calling.  Instead of taking the deficit seriously, it's just a game to all of them.  Maybe we should cut their President's and Congress' funding as well and see how serious they get?

Seems like if they just let go of the Planned Parenthood thing, the budget battle would be settled for now and the government could move ahead on more serious issues like winding down our military exercises abroad, and reducing military spending which far and away exceeds discretionary spending.

The Tea Party wants to defund Planned Parenthood because they provide abortions - regardless of all the other work they do such as providing contraception which likely reduces abortion in the first place.  Further, the Hyde amendment ALREADY bans federal tax dollars from funding abortion.

If the government shuts down, it will likely cost more in the long run than the funding for PP over which they're arguing.  A gov't shutdown will affect working families directly.

If this is truly the last issue holding things up, it's clearly an ideological  and not  fiscal.   For that I would say "Yes, the Tea Party is extreme".

planned parenthood should find its own funding, as should NPR and all these elective programs.  We simply DO NOT have the money.  I repeat - WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY.  

Had the Republicans not taken the house, there would be no funding cuts.  Democrats would just add more to the national debt and put the US one step closer to a financial collapse...all so Obama can fund deadbeats, unions, and anyone else he thinks he can pay to support him in the next election.

beetos,
I think you are oversimplifying it.  I have a hard time believing the ONLY reason they are trying to cut Planned parenthood is because they don't want abortions funded, nor for just plain political reasons.  The Republicans are trying to find places to cut.  I DO agree that since they do not find Planned Parenthood as being important and also because they don't believe it should be funded, they are choosing PP as one of the cuts.  This is the same for everything else they are trying to cut.  It's not like PP is the only program getting picked on.  In the grand scheme of things, PP is not important compared to the other programs that are being funded.  There is too much fallout involved in lets say cutting SS.  Women not getting abortions or contraception for that matter is minute in comparison to retired people no longer getting money they were promised.  Wouldn't you say?  Sacrifices have to be made.  There's no getting around it.

As far as the legitimacy of PP, that's debatable.  IMO, tax dollars shouldn't be funding someone else's bad decisions.  I shouldn't be supplying people with abortions or contraception.  Stop having sex if you can't afford the consequences.  

Cars,  it's interesting and telling how you only want to cut programs that you perceive are somehow favorable to Democrats.

So let me ask you this:

Were you at all concerned about extending tax cuts on the wealthy last year  because we "DID NOT HAVE THE MONEY?"

Were you at all concerned about extending tax cuts on the wealthy last year  because we "DID NOT HAVE THE MONEY?"

There's a bit more to that.  I'm not saying the decision was right or wrong, but the idea is the rich are the ones supplying the jobs, and if they have more money to use, they hopefully will create more jobs.  Again not saying I support it, just saying it's more than just let's give them a tax cut.  

>>Further, the Hyde amendment ALREADY bans federal tax dollars from funding abortion

FALSE

The Hyde Amendment ONLY applies to funds from Health and Human Services.  Obamacare would provide a new source of funding, which is NOT covered by the Hyde amendment.

Nice try.

>>Were you at all concerned about extending tax cuts on the wealthy last year  because we "DID NOT HAVE THE MONEY?"

Absolutely.  Tax cuts put money in the hands of people, not the government.  People invest this money in companies that create jobs.  Creating jobs increases wealth for individuals and creates a steady stream of tax revenue to the government.

Apparently Obama agreed.

CC- you've hit the nail on the head.  It IS very minute, so why the delay?  

It seems they're saying they can agree on a number (38B in cuts) and it's just the Planned Parenthood rider that's the issue.  Everyone expected Bhoener to announce the deal, and what happened?  Seems like he went back to his party with the compromise and they said "No".   Reid accused the Republicans of backing out because of the Planned Parenthood rider.   Kyle then followed and derided Planned Parenthood because they provide abortions ( which is legal btw).  

If that's the case,  if the Tea Party representatives absolutely would not agree simply because of that rider not being attached and would bring the gov't to a halt because of their views on abortion, would that not be extreme?

beetos,

Under normal circumstances, I'd agree, but the problem is, the Republicans want 100B in cuts.  While it's getting there, 38B is hardly a compromise.  I'd say 50B is a even compromise.  I think the Democracts need to suck it up and give the PP thing.  The Democrats are already winning the cut game in the sense that they are not at middle ground yet.  PP is not worth shutting down the govt.  IT goes both ways.  The Dems can let it get cut and the Repubs can not cut it, but since the Repubs are giving more on this whole deal, I think it only fair the Dems give in.  Know what I mean?  Not to mention the whole deficit issue and needing to get these cuts anyways.

The thing is both sides have their views and think the other side is the devil for going against them.  These views aren't right or wrong.  They're just different.  While I do not agree with funding abortions and contraceptives, it has nothing to do with my belief that the deficit needs to be tackled.  The budget needs to get balanced.  it has been out of control for far too long, even under Republican controlled congresses.  I blame both sides for the mess we are in.  they are both equally to blame.  But right now, I honestly feel the Republicans are trying to cut the deficit, but the Dems are being unreasonable.  Cuts have to be made.  Anyone who denies that is living in a fantasy world.  We can't sustain this spending.  It needs to be done and sacrifices need to be made.  I am even willing to give up my SS to make these cuts possible.  Even though I have paid into the system my entire working life, I am willing to say take it.  Get rid of Social Security if that's what it takes to balance the budget and pay off our national debt.  Call it extreme, but that's ok.  The extreme is what it's gonna take to balance the budget.  

The tax cuts have been in place for 10 years and were never paid for.  During that time wealth has been disproportionally transferring to the top 2%.   Where are the f'ing jobs!!!!?  Obama didn't agree so much as he COMPROMISED, which is what happens ( or should happen) during negotiations.

 Abortion funding was clearly debated during the health care debate, and shown not to be included, but it's such a lightning rod for the Republican base that they make it into an issue every chance they get.  The party thanks you for responding in kind.  

Where are the f'ing jobs!!!!?

That's the other problem.  You can't force them to use the money for creating jobs.  Although There are many factors in why jobs aren't being created, I do think this is one of them.  People are leaning toward saving money instead of using it lately.  It's because they are unsure of what is going on with the budget crisis, health care reform, housing drop, etc..  There is a lot up in the air, and businesses are hesitant to take risks.  It's the same with giving tax refund to the public.  You can't force them to spend it.  A lot of people paid off debts instead of spending it to boost the economy.

Abortion funding was clearly debated...

Of course, it always is and always will be.  To be fair though, both sides do the same thing about many many topics.  It's not like just the Repubs bring topics up every chance they get.

CC I must agree that both sides are to blame, but it seems they're making cuts based on political posturing and not what's best for the country.  

$100B was an arbitrary number thrown out on the campaign trail with no bearing on reality.  When Republicans put forth their budget, it came to $31B in cuts.  Democrats $16B.    The total now is $38B so it's clear that the Republicans got what they wanted and then some.  It's the Tea Party that's demanding the $100B number.

Cutting PP affects the most vulnerable directly, and will end up having an adverse effect on the economy.


I don't agree with giving up on Social Security - I don't believe it's in arrears but I do think the government treats it as a piggy bank which needs to be stopped.  When bailed out Wall St. execs got bonuses, they justified it by saying "These are contracts, we're obligated"  I've been under the SS contract my whole life, so how can they break that now?  No, if we want to tackle the budget and debt for real, we NEED to address military spending and waste.  Remember, the military is part of the gov't too.

>>Where are the f'ing jobs!!!!?

I thought that's what the "stimulus" was supposed to fix?  (Eyes rolling - what a freakin' waste of money)

Do some research and see what the average unemployment rate under Bush's 8 years was.  Wasn't until the democrat caused housing bubble burst that we saw the excrement hit the cooling device in the way of the economy.  

We don't have a funding problem.  We have a spending problem.  

but it seems they're making cuts based on political posturing and not what's best for the country.  
I agree.  It's all part of politics unfortunately.  Also everyone disagrees on what is best for the country.  I think that's the biggest issue.  Everyone will never agree on it.

The total now is $38B so it's clear that the Republicans got what they wanted and then some.
Not precisely.  The Republicans want to cut enough to balance the budget and that's going to take even more than 100B.  100B was supposed to be a starting point.  See, to me if there wasn't a deficit issue, I couldn't care less what they cut or don't cut or even if they do.  I just want the budget balanced and then some so we can pay off the debt.

I don't agree with giving up on Social Security
Don't get me wrong.  I wouldn't be happy that all my money got blown away, I'm just saying I'm willing to sacrifice it as an example.  I agree the problem with it is they've used it as a piggy bank.  There is far too much mis-management of money all over the place.  It's sad.

No, if we want to tackle the budget and debt for real, we NEED to address military spending and waste.
I agree as well.  There is quite a bit that could be cut from the military, but I think cuts need to go all across the board, not just one place.  Being from the military I saw first hand how much wasteful spending goes on and how many irresponsible financial decisions are made.  It's sad really.  But again it's not just the military doing it.  

We don't have a funding problem.  We have a spending problem.

Keep in mind this is a difference in views.  Personally, I agree with you, but from a liberal standpoint, it's a funding issue.  Liberals prefer govt funding of stuff for the greater good of the community.  Again not necessarily wrong, just not what I believe.  It's a fact that liberals prefer higher taxes and more programs, where as conservatives prefer lower taxes and less programs.  Granted they don't always follow it since most are middle of the road, but theoretically that's what the two sides are supposed to support.

>>Liberals prefer govt funding of stuff for the greater good of the community.

It's not the role of government.   That belongs to private charities.  Government spending is full of waste and fraud.  

I personally give more to charity than our own vice president.  And I don't mean percentage.  I mean actual dollars.

Liberals are generous with others' money, not their own.  

LOL, Cars, believe me, I agree, but like I said, it's a difference in views.  

Personally, I don't believe the founding fathers wanted the Federal govt to have as much power as they do now.  This is where I believe the power should be:  The people.  Next the states, last the Fed Govt.  The people should have the right to choose.  No govt should require things like medical care, retirement, etc.  I believe in a pay for it as you use it society.  Healthcare, roads, libraries, school, public safety, etc.  I believe in choosing what services you can use, not being forced to pay for services you don't use.  But I digress.

We don't have a funding problem.  We have a spending problem.

We have both.  We need to address both.  Keep the ideology out of it and make real decisions, instead of taking a political position and then making arguments to justify it.

The stimulus was supposed to address the financial crisis, and by all unbiased economists accounts, it did.  It was also supposed to keep unemployment lower than it did.  The issue was not the stimulus, the issue was that the banks had virtually free money, but stopped lending.  Corporations laid people off, and despite record profits, still haven't started hiring.   The stimulus was a reaction to a financial crisis, not the cause of it.  

Gov't spending bailed out GM, and now they're profitable.   We could have let them sink and disappear, but that would have had devastating consequences to our nation.  

Spending isn't always bad or wrong.  

We have plenty of waste, fraud, and corruption to address without cutting programs that benefit society.

There are multiple factions within the Tea party and no real leadership so to talk about the tea party like it is one thing when it is, in fact, many things is incorrect.  The Ron Paul wing of the Tea Party are fiscal conservatives who have been fiscal conservatives for a long time, by and large they are rather educated about politics.  I do not always agree with them but believe that Ron Paul is incredibly knowledgeable and that they, by and large listen to him.  I disagree with them on several issues and agree with them on several others, but I think that they value intelligent discourse.

There is another wing of the Tea party that is composed primarily of Palin supporters and Fox News Junkies.  They seem to me to be far less interested in whether or not the positions that they take are either factual or constructive.  They are not, as the Paul faction is, either educated about politics, nor do they seem to want to be.  They get ripped off buying worthless gold coins from Glenn Beck's show and they would very much like to see the United States not raise it's debt ceiling and default on it's loans to the international community although they have absolutely no idea what that would mean.  They can be lead and can be pandered to and are nothing like the original tea party members are.

The problem is that both the conservative and the Liberal media feeds the Palin wing by showering it with attention and starves the longer term, more educated, Ron Paul wing by acting as though it does not exist.

Prior to the Ron Paul wing of the party getting involved and kicking butt the Republicans had not reduced spending in any meaningful way in roughly 50 years.  The tea party has absolutely changed the nature of the Republican party, and they are getting almost no credit for it.  If the tea party does not keep up the good work the Republican party will go right back to being a bunch of deficit spenders.

The Tea Party as they are misrepresented to be by the media are inflexible and probably do not know what not raising the debt ceiling actually means in terms of it's impact and it is widely believed that they could be lead in the wrong direction by know nothings like Palin rather than the more intellectual people who used to form the face of that movement.

I do not think that is true.  If you look at how significant the change to the Republican party from Bush to now has been you have to admit that the Tea Party is not just a bunch of idiots.  The Republican party has been broken for a long time and they have fixed it.  There are lots of very intelligent people in the Tea party and they have done great things to the Republican party.

But post the Ron Paul leadership era there is no single spokesman for the Tea Party.  The people who are stepping forward and acting as though they speak for the Tea party are people who speak for some special interest or other and they give lip service to the actual Tea party members so that they are not called out for being the phonies that they are.  The danger lies in the politicians acting on the behalf of the media caricature of what they think a tea party person wants, and not, on the more intelligent wishes of the real people who make up that movement.

They want the deficit decreased, they want spending decreased, most of them would most likely not want the United States to incur the negative fallout from defaulting on it's loans from other countries, but they would want a balanced budget amendment to be fought for, and would want their leaders to push hard to get it.  I do not think any Republican will lose an election because they voted to raise the debt ceiling because they had to but spent every single other day fighting spending.


They are portrayed as extreme, they are not portrayed as effective, but they have been very effective.  

They do have the profound disadvantage of not being all that organized and it is very easy for people who have never been elected to speak for the tea party to feel free to speak for them as though they have the authority to do so and because of that there is a danger that they will be co-opted by others,.

>>Gov't spending bailed out GM, and now they're profitable.   We could have let them sink and disappear, but that would have had devastating consequences to our nation

Would it?

At the time when GM was wanting to be bailed out, the city of Detroit had some 800,000 inhabitants. In the Motown times the city's population was some 1.6 million. In fact in Detroit there is a famous building from a collapsed car marker (during the fifties I think, unfortunately I have forgotten the name) which has been standing empty for at least 40 years. I saw this in an ARTE documentary on how wild-life regains it's space, how the building, slowly decaying gives room for insects, small animals and many plants. All very fascinating, but indicative of one thing : namely the attitude in America of just leaving things. The floods in Germany, the Kyobe earthquake in Japan have left NO trace behind them, but sill New Orleans have derilict areas when the destroyed houses just stand there.

Another report I saw recently was about the avenues of empty houses, quite modern with gardens front and back and fully detatches, in Milwaukee all owned by the Deutsche Bank, who was currently putting them all into junk bonds and hoping to get ten cents on the dollar. Of couse these houses are slowly falling apart - for there is nothing worse than getting damp and destruction into a house as leaving it empty - so whoever buys these bonds (which will not give him entitlement to the house, nor will the buyer even be allowed to reside there) will probably only do so as to set against tax. In fact I suspect that the empty houses, factories and business buildings in Detroit have already been set against tax, so that in the end the tax payer pays for all this mess anyway.

It is Joe public who eventually suffers due to lack to regulation, greed, management incompetence and I don't think that governments should help. An example, the town of Remsheid held some 20 million Euros in the WestLB Bank, who suggested to the town to invest in American property, although the money was only on short term loan. Of couse the Bank went to the wall and the town is currently trying to sue to get some of the money back. They are also cutting the public library, closing the swiming baths, recreational facilities, subsidies to sports clubs, and all those other small things which municiple councils do to make life just that bit better for Joe the public.

When a car company comes to get a government loan, this is money which the government could have spent differently - irrespective of whether it gets paid back with interest. I would have let GM go to the wall, for somebody would have picked out the bits, because it must still be profitable to amke cars in America. Why should the fat cat executives and the GM shareholders (who ought know the risks) get TAX PAYERS money to make them RICH AGAIN? And anyway, you can't make Detroit any more of a waste land than it already is.

>>What fiscally responsible people do

What fiscally responsible people do is pay their credit card balance off every few months.  If they have huge balances they either spend less or figure out a way to make more money.  What responsible is does not change to suit your Liberal desires, nor does it change to suit Republicans who only give lip service to fiscal responsibility but who are the primary creators of the vast majority of our national debt.

Writing a 10 page response does not impact what the words fiscally responsible mean.  The meaning is very simple, there are just multiple different ways of reaching the goal of fiscal responsibility within a Government.

A stereotypical explanation of what makes a fiscally conservative Republican or Democrat goes something like this:

A responsible Democrat would like to balance the books by increasing the amount that government receives from the taxpayer, preferably rich taxpayers.  A responsible Republican would like to balance the books by decreasing the amount that the government spends.  One only has to look at the spending patterns of Clinton and Bush to know that this is not universally true.

Irresponsible Republicans and Democrats increase the deficit by spending more and taxing less.  Responsible people wanting to reduce the deficit would like to do just the opposite.  It is very very very simple.  Not rocket science, and certainly possible no matter what your political viewpoints are.

The Tea Party, which it seems you know almost nothing about, is in favor of reducing the deficit and of reducing spending.  But for the first time in a very very long time spending is being reduced, and with a deficit as large as the United States has, it needs to be reduced.  When in debt, either increasing the amount of money you take in or reducing the amount of money you spend is fiscally responsible, because that is what being fiscally responsible means.  Fiscal responsibility is not some convoluted mess of rambling thoughts as you seem to be proposing.  

If you had even the slimmest knowledge of American politics and who the actual tea party members are and what their actual positions are, it is possible that you would still not like them.  You are content in your ignorance of who they actually are and what they actually believe so that thought is somewhat academic.  Your bias against them, however, does not effectively change the meaning of what fiscally responsible means.  Fiscal responsibility has absolutely nothing to do with whether you do or do not have universal health care.  Whether or not you have a government program and also pay for that program without increasing debt does involve fiscal responsibility.  Kind of simple really, responsible people pay their bills and irresponsible people don't.

- '''' I say the majority of defaulters started out as sub prime with the only way they were able to get the loan was due to low initial payments and a ballon'''''


...exactly my point.

Fannie and Freddie didnt' create these sub prime loan products, nor did they "force" any bank to make them....nor did they create securities out of them to leverage value that doesn't exist, before the loan ever came close to maturity !

Sub Prime...is a SCAM !!!!!, and for a time it was a scam so prevelant that a traditional fixed rate loan couldn't be obtained even by some of the most credit worthy borrowers.  I have first hand knowlege of this.

Sub prime:  It's a predatory loan product that should not exist  !!!  It was designed for the borrower to fail !!!

Sub Prime...is a SCAM !!!!!

People have the choice of not getting them...  So who cares if they exist.  People may not like their choices, but you always have a choice.  I'd rather have choice than not, no matter the choices.

...so if all your choices are bad then what ?

Most of the sub-prime sell was...  Loan consultant: "you can go with a sub prime loan, then refi later !".... knowing full well that refinancing wouldn't be an option.


This is where we will have to agree to disgree, because I don't think sub prime loans should ever have been allowed to exist.   Banks took advantage of people, I don't think that should be allowed.


"""I'd rather have choice than not, no matter the choices. """"
I would rather have fair choices than bad choices.

This is where we will have to agree to disgree...
I would rather have fair choices than bad choices.

Fair enough. Nothing wrong with disagreeing.

to give a view from the other side, I don't think the tax system in it's current form should have ever existed, because it takes advantage of the people who work hard and make the money.  As you mentioned I have no fair choices.  Only bad choices:  pay the taxes and let others get a free ride, or not pay the taxes and go to jail.

If I were the president of a bank and I knew that I could easily make more in 1 year than in 15 by playing fast and loose with the depositors money and there were no one to stop me, I would be very likely to take a risk and hope for the best.  If I lost it all it would be a very short term bump in the road for me with all kinds of money tucked away and a bit of trouble getting another job but that's not the end fo the world.  If we were in a completely unregulated economy with no FDIC federal treasury or any other regulatory body.  The problem with that is that you are very likely to end up with a revolution on your hands.  That is what happens when economies colapse.  An unregulated economy with no safeguards to stop the massive loss suffered by completey bankrupted depositors is unstable, and with that system the United States would not survive as the United States.

>>A responsible Democrat would like to balance the books by increasing the amount that government receives from the taxpayer, preferably rich taxpayers.  A responsible Republican would like to balance the books by decreasing the amount that the government spending.

Well, in the first place each according to his means (not preferably just the rich) and in the second when and where appropiate. Why can't you do that? We can in Luxembourg.

>>The Tea Party, which it seems you know almost nothing about, is in favor of reducing the deficit and of reducing spending.

You are quite correct. I know nothing about HOW the Tea Party will reduce spending and thereby reduce the deficit. That was not forthcoming in the glossy and when one googles around one gets wishful thinking like this :-

http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/da_kings_men/2010/02/20/tea-party-policy-proposals/

or this :-

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/26/news/economy/tea_party_budget/index.htm

which, with 500 billion sounds fantastic, but does not cut at the heart of the problem (which other G7 nations are also confronting) namely  the funding for defense, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

If you look at the Cameron budget in the UK you'll see that, other than national health, exactly these areas are affected.

Of course there are also those insidious little things hidden in the agenda meaning to create a smaller government, like the proposals from Nan Hayworth regarding accountability, all in the name of simpler government.

But from where I sit, the Tea Party wants to cut mostly in the non-defense discressonary spending which makes some 20 odd percent of the budget. Not that that in itself is basically wrong. But it can't be the whole picture and that is why I don't take them seriously. And a lot of other people don't as well :-

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/26/news/economy/tea_party_budget/index.htm

However there are a few things in this area which can be looked at as this shows :-

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/20/news/economy/republican_spending_cuts/index.htm?iid=EL

I have made my position clear on this issue before. One has to raise taxation, in particular one must look to see whether the tax base is FAIRLY distributed. One must cut programs which are expensive and consume MOST of the budget, since looking at those stops them from growing out of hand, and one must be fair and also cut out the minor waste and tighten the smaller belts. One must also repeal old out-of-date laws which hinder business and commerce but one must ensure that a level playing field is maintained - that is there must be government controls not ineffective self-regulation.

The Tea-Party seems to think that by cutting things which really don't matter, like federal travel budget, beach replenishment and congressional printing, that they'll achieve something. Well, it is not the case that these should not be looked at, but they're not significant, nor do they effect any large corporations, nor do they much effect Joe the public. They are NOT the hard choices which have to be made, like, who is to get Medicaid and Medicare (as well as the new insurance top ups), what kind of defense systems do we actually need for the next 20 years, and whether the social secuirty spend is really effective and ought it to be spend otherwise?

The tea party, and conservatives in general have been pushing their tax breaks for the rich and austerity plans for everyone else...for decades.  The tea party however, is the extreme version of mainstream conservatism in my opinion.  Most conservatives I know do not wish to end public schools...the idea is absurd to most people regardless of political affiliation, unless you are talking to a Tea partier.

I think their ideas are extreme and generally unworkable.
If we want a country with ZERO socialism,....they could just leave America alone and move to Somalia.

>>Most conservatives I know do not wish to end public schools...the idea is absurd to most people regardless of political affiliation, unless you are talking to a Tea partier.

Most conservatives, including those that associate with the Tea Party, want school choice.  That is, they would rather take the money given per student and have the OPTION to use at a private school.

The public school model, with teachers' unions and tenure, is an utter failure.  Teachers are not held accountable and it's the students that end up suffering.

>>The Tea-Party seems to think that by cutting things which really don't matter, like federal travel budget, beach replenishment and congressional printing, that they'll achieve something

I believe everything is on the table, including medicare and social security.

It's not a matter of if we should reduce spending.   The US simply can't sustain the $14 trillion and rising debt.  

Adding additional taxes, as we've seen numerous times throughout history, simply backfires.  Bottom line is ALL non-essential spending must be reduced.

Public schools didn't come about until the 19th Century here.  The country was quite successful before then.  We also didn't' have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Health Care Reform, and the list goes on.  How are the views of wanting to go back to our roots so bad?  

I believe everything is on the table, including medicare and social security.

That's my understanding as well, it's just cutting those things are going to take a long time to figure out, thus it was not part of the quick week deal they were trying to get done.

""'Public schools didn't come about until the 19th Century here.  The country was quite successful before then."""
...depends on how you define success.  I don't think using a wooden box as a toilet is success.


"" How are the views of wanting to go back to our roots so bad? """
...because I don't want to live in the 1800's... and there is plenty wrong with the "roots" of that era.

depends on how you define success.  I don't think using a wooden box as a toilet is success.
I agree to an extent, but a wooden toilet vs a sewer system has nothing to do with our education system.  The Romans did it long before the US was a thought in anyone's mind.  During the time it had more to do with money and need vs education.  There are still a lot of porta-potties around and they always will be.  It's the same thing.  It has it's uses.  I have a septic system, which isn't much different, except I waste a lot of water flushing the waste down all the pipes, instead of walking out to an outhouse.  I prefer it that way, because I don't want to walk out to an outhouse when there is a foot of snow on the ground.

I have never seen a correlation between public education and technological advancement.  Inventions typically come from very few creative and determined individuals.  

because I don't want to live in the 1800's...
Which is where we are different.  I'd love to live in the 1800s.  Less government, open land, you reap what you sow (literally).  We all have our idea of utopia, and mine is the govt letting me survive on my own.  Let me grow my own food, make my own money, and stop taxing my land that I paid for.  That's all I Want.  Oh, and I want the right to protect my land without getting sued by the perpetrator.  

and there is plenty wrong with the "roots" of that era.
Which is just a matter of opinion.  Every era has it's good and bad.  Personally I do not see now as any sort of better time than 1800s.  Different for sure, but the advantage and disadvantages have just changed.  Sure we have electricity everywhere now, but at what cost?  how much pollution?  What damage have we done to the environment in way of mining coal, oil, etc?  Sure we have endless books, but how long will our tree supply last?  It's definitely dwindling down.  Oh that's right now we are going electronic.  Again at what expense?  How much pollution again is caused by the making of computers and the power for them?  How much land is destroyed by the mining of resources?

My point is everyone has their own priorities.  My priorities include privacy, clean air, freedom of choice, self-reliance, etc.  I'd give up every technology I  have if it meant having all of those.  I would rather live out in the mountains surrounded by forest left to myself to procure my own food, water, money, etc if it meant I didn't have to pay land tax, pay for others' pensions, etc.

>>But from where I sit, the Tea Party wants to cut mostly in the non-defense discressonary spending which makes some 20 odd percent of the budget. Not that that in itself is basically wrong. But it can't be the whole picture and that is why I don't take them seriously. And a lot of other people don't as well

What you are describing is what is wrong with the Republican party.  The Republican party has, for years, preached the mantra that they are going to reduce "Spending" without describing what that "Spending" is.  The actual Republican track record is one of spending increases and not spending decreases.

But that is where you are mistaken in your understanding of the Tea Party, you are, in no way shape or form differentiating them from Republicans.  Newt Gingrich, Fox News and the RNC have tried very hard to Co-opt the tea party and change it's mission to be in lock step with business as usual Republicans.  No matter how hard they have tried, they have not, so far Co-opted the Tea party.  Lip service on real spending cuts is no longer going to cut it.

The most important issue being discussed is a balanced budget amendment.  The Tea party groups are all excited about a balanced budget amendment..  But if you look at the reality of history Republicans have a horrible track record of balancing the budget, the word "Conservative" is horribly inappropriate.

If you confine both sides to having to live in reality and not the lala gaga land of campaigning on empty promises and governing on the public credit card, then you will have politicians who are forced to recognize that their rhetoric is crap and no matter how much they dislike it they have no choice but to adopt some of the measures suggested by members on the other side of the aisle.

The good thing about the Tea party is that they are not satisfied with empty rhetoric and have not, as yet, been co-opted and are demanding real change..

I don't support Republicans, nor do I support Democrats, I support a party that does not exist that will not destroy the prospects of the next generation by bankrupting the nation.  The Republicans are horrible and the Democrats are awful.  But if a balanced budget amendment were put into place it would force an end to governing by BS, smoke and mirrors and empty rhetoric., that would force both sides to become more fiscally moderate, because moderate is based in reality, not sound bites.

For those that think the US has an income problem vs a spending problem, do think if we taxed the so-called "rich" 100% we could balance the budget?

Right now the top 1% pay 40% of all tax revenue and we're not even close to balancing the budget.

>>I believe everything is on the table, including medicare and social security.

Well I wish it were, but I've googled around for Tea-Party proposals and have found nothing new since the glossy I read some time last year.

>>But that is where you are mistaken in your understanding of the Tea Party.....

I'm waiting for the Tea-Party to come up with something other than rhetoric or minor things. At end end of the day taxes are going to HAVE to be raised and defense, health and social security cut. Yes add in all the other things as well, but a MAJOR reform is necessary.

>>The most important issue being discussed is a balanced budget amendment

Well I'm not quite sure what this is, whether it forces the government to balance the budget or whether it limits the amount of debt it can raise,.If I remember rightly an attempt was made in 1995 to introduce such. I see from http://lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=cb4930db-6988-411b-a39f-05851b5bca44 that it goes much further requiring two-thirds majority for things like raising taxes, raise the debt limit or run a specific deficit.

Here in Europe each EEC country can do what it likes regarding taxation, but the debt each year is limited to 3% of GDP. If you exceed that then fines are imposed by the Commission. Of course there are exceptions and we have a great deal of flexibility on that. Here in Germany the federal states are limited in exactly the way Mike Lee suggests, which has made things very difficult, because each state has one or more banks (called Landesbanken) who all have got into difficulty and needed to be bailed out. The state of North-Rhine Westphalia, for example, has not been able to get a deficit budget through because of bail outs and has had to cut things like children's educational facilities etc.., since they are part of the "discressionary" spending. The problems of one state do not interest the Federal government, who is the only instance who can change the constitution, so things remain so.

Therefore I'm not really convinced of the idea of legal measures to control accounting problems. Clearly some sort of absolute limit might be a good idea, but the real problem is the non-discressionary spending, which continually increases due to bail outs, defense committments and the general poor state of the economy causes increased health and social security costs [60% of all Americans are now overweight - that is going to cause an avalanche of costs in the next ten years).

I have moaned over the last ten to twenty years about the poor state of the Republican party (or in general the conservative stance) because it fails to accommodate the simple fact that we live in a modern society where the government actually does HAVE TO spend on social security and health. The usual conservative cry is that all of this has been introduced by lefty-long haired communists and if ionly we are in power we would sweep it all away. And every time we are in power we just carry on as if we were lefty-long haired communists. It was Sir Keith Joseph of Thatcher's Think Tank in Britain in the seventies who first  mentioned this problem. The Thatcher reforms caused more administrative costs in the health Service (by introducing "professional" management, who had no idea of how hospitals actually work, and time and motion studies as well as money saving schemes - like discressional spending cuts). Social Services underwent another review by Frank Field in the nineties (and some good things came out of that), but he left and the system wandered on until recently Cameron was FORCED to make major cuts just to "balance the budget".

What we need is a new Conservative approach to Social Secuity (and these other lefty things) which stops throwing good money after bad. For example, it was recently calculated that a young girl being brought up by a single parent mother living on social security would cost the state some 500,000 Euros over her lifetime. If we ensure that the girl gets some education, gets sometraining for a job and gets some job, even if it is simply something like a hairdresser's assistant, she will contribute 21,000 Euros to the state over her lifetime. That means we stop giving people money to survive and start giving money to live. Why not cancel unemployment contributions (which is nothing more than I pay in for some one to get paid out), thereby allowing a worker to keep more of his money, and loan the support when he is out of work. The loan must be paid back so an unemployed person will not borrow more than he needs, and there is one huge incentive to get a job.

Recently someone said that one in three children in Jena was below the poverty line. Why, because there are no jobs available in the area. But the unemployment rate in Bavaria is for example lower. We have a shocking record of worker migration. A sort of complacency sets in. And I'm sure that this happens in America (athough you spend far less on social security than we Europeans - but listen to the squeels of overweight Americans wanting affordable health insurance) and that's the problem.  It means that hard political choice will have to be made and I just don't see the Tea Party doing it.

>>For those that think the US has an income problem vs a spending problem, do think if we taxed the so-called "rich" 100% we could balance the budget?

No. But if you look closer you'll see that the balamce is not right. Furthermore you'll also find that corporations don't pay their fair share, nor will you find the sales tax and inheritance tax correct.

>>Right now the top 1% pay 40% of all tax revenue

And why not then 45% or 50% or 60%? I know many well off people who would be very willing to pay more IF they thought that they were contributing FAIRLY to solving their countries problems. I know people on benefit who would take a cut for the same reasons. And the combination will get the country out of the mess.

>> Furthermore you'll also find that corporations don't pay their fair share, nor will you find the sales tax and inheritance tax correct.

This has been a liberal talking point for a while.  Yet I don't hear liberals complain about Obama's close connection with GE and the fact GE pays NO federal income tax.

>>And why not then 45% or 50% or 60%?

Why should these job creators pay more for the irresponsible spending in Washington?  Taxing them more will only hurt small businesses and create further unemployment - which results in LESS tax revenue.

>>I know many well off people who would be very willing to pay more IF they thought that they were contributing FAIRLY to solving their countries problems

They are free to contribute more of their money.  Yet as we know, liberals are only charitable with other's money, not their own.

>>Yet I don't hear liberals complain about Obama's close connection with GE and the fact GE pays NO federal income tax.

Because you are firmly opposed to campaign finance reform and both the Republicans and Democrats are unable to balance the budget or write good law primarily because their hands are tied by corporate interests.  I certainly have heard a lot of Republicans blame Barney Frank for running the country somehow when Republicans were in charge of the House the Senate and the Oval office.  Most of them got big campaign checks from the same place he did.  They were in charge and he was not, he was an imoral idiot and so were the Republicans in charge, just as much if not more.

"""I'd love to live in the 1800s."""
"""  I'd give up every technology """


NO INTERNET !!!!!!?????????
No experts-exchange.com  ?!?

Now that's just plain crazy, lol.

""""Less government, open land, you reap what you sow (literally).  We all have our idea of utopia, and mine is the govt letting me survive on my own.""""

You could do that without messing up America.  You could move to a deserted island in the Pacific and live off the land and sea and just not have government at all.

No experts-exchange.com  ?!?

HA!  Yea for real!

You could do that without messing up America.  You could move to a deserted island in the Pacific and live off the land and sea and just not have government at all.

Please if you find an island that I can live on for free, let me know.  I'll move there in a heartbeat.

>>Please if you find an island that I can live on for free, let me know.  I'll move there in a heartbeat

I'd rather send all Obama voters.  That way they can tax each other to death, spend money they don't have, and see the consequences of a weak military.

""""I'd rather send all Obama voters"""""


...well you can't do that because it's our country too.

If the red states became their own country, it would be a third world country

Both the Democrats and Republicans would create bad countries if left to govern by themselves.

>>Both the Democrats and Republicans would create bad countries if left to govern by themselves.

I think liberals need conservatives to protect them and pay their bills.

If the red states became their own country, it would be a third world country

Considering the majority of lower income individuals are Democrats, I'd say that is an incorrect assertion.

That is an incorrect assertion. the governments in those states have been Republican governments for some time now, and they would be third world countries if they had not been getting money from other states for decades.  

>>That is an incorrect assertion. the governments in those states have been Republican governments for some time now, and they would be third world countries if they had not been getting money from other states for decades.  

Most bankrupt states are democrat heavy states - see California, Illinois, and New York.  Democrats have run those states in to bankruptcy with their massive spending and entitlements.  Tax increases in these states just lead to wealthy individuals and corporations leaving.

the governments in those states have been Republican governments for some time now, and they would be third world countries if they had not been getting money from other states for decades.  

What money from other states?  You mean like how AZ charges CA for power they provide CA since CA can't afford to build new power plants?  You mean federal funding for projects like Interstates?  As Cars stated, Red states are not the only ones having any sort of issues.  And did you also know the Feds have taken money from the states?  So this whole thing is a bit more complicated than just the states not being in good shape.

I'd be more than happy to have all Democrats move out East and all Republicans to move out West and split the country.  Would be wonderful to see who is more successful.  Not that it'd ever happen, but would be great to see.

Well you can tell you are a Republican by you habit of being intentionally obtuse and pretending not to understand things.  

The Red states have been on the Federal dole for decades, but then this is a waste of space because you already knew that.

"""Considering the majority of lower income individuals are Democrats"""
"""I think liberals need conservatives to protect them and pay their bills.""""


pfffffft !....ok.

I make almost 6 figures, and i'm a Democrat.
And I have plenty of guns in my closet I don't need anyone's protection.


There is no seperate tax rate for Republicans versus democrats.
The only difference I see is that Democrats don't constantly complain about paying their taxes.
We understand that we live in what is called a S-O-C-I-E-T-Y.

Somalia fits the mold of what the Tea Party is reaching for in their policies.

The Red states have been on the Federal dole for decades

Like what?  I asked in my previous post.  Please educate me.  All states get federal funding for many things.  Then there are countless grants that states apply for.  I sincetrely want to know.

Well you can tell you are a Republican

And that is where you are wrong and/or misguided.  I am a neo/social libertarian.  There isn't a single republican out there that I have found that believes in the same things I do.  I have a completely different set of beliefs and values.

I make almost 6 figures, and i'm a Democrat.

I never said anything about middle class.  I simply stated the fact that the majority of the low income are democrats.  Middle class is in fact split.  And yes you classify as middle class.

As I understand it... the majority of low income people don't even vote let alone register to a party.

I would like to see where you are getting your information from though.

the majority of low income people don't even vote let alone register to a party.

Voting fluctuates with what's at stake.  According to various sources, this past congressional election brought out a lot of the elderly.  If I was lower class, I probably wouldn't vote either, because I Already don't pay taxes, and reap plenty of benefits from the government.  I also already know people most likely will never get rid of these programs or make me pay taxes.  Why vote if nothing is really at stake?  The other reason is because most don't even care.  They are not even interested in making a better life for themselves much less getting people in office who would represent them.


I would like to see where you are getting your information from though.
Just do a google search, you'll find many sites, including the all famous wikipedia claiming it.

sorry also meant to add,

you don't have to be registered to believe what a party believes...

>> I simply stated the fact that the majority of the low income are democrats.

Problem is these low income voters that support democrats don't realize that democrat policies are what keep them in poverty - and I believe that is by design, since democrats need "victims" to stay in power.

I mean, really, if people would step up to the plate, would we really need a democrat party to take money away from producers and give it to the bottom feeders?

Cars,

I agree that some are held down by politics, but I believe the majority of the lower class choose to be there.  Whether it by sheer laziness or personal choices (drugs, gangs, etc), it's usually their choice.  there are even those who don't feel they want anything more.  They love their house, neighborhood, job, etc.  More power to them.

>> I simply stated the fact that the majority of the low income are democrats.

I'm not buying it, and I can't find any study or poll to back up that assertion.

I think values drive party affiliation more than anything else.
Most people in the midwest are in fact low income, and they are solid red Rep. voters.

I'm not buying it, and I can't find any study or poll to back up that assertion.

I would agree with you xuserx2000 on this. There are plenty of lower income Republicans, as well as upper income Democrats.

>>I think values drive party affiliation more than anything else.

Could be right.  If you're lazy, want handouts, think the "rich" should be punished for their success, or think there's a magic pot of endless money, then you probably tend to be lean democrat.

I'm not buying it, and I can't find any study or poll to back up that assertion.
OK, I will do a little walking for you to get you started:

wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)
"Even though most in the working class are able to afford an adequate standard of living, high economic insecurity and possible personal benefit from an extended social safety net, make the majority of working class person left-of-center on economic issues."

Again from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
scroll down to the demographics for who voted for who according to household income.  Obama got the clear majority on everyone less than 50k.  The lower the income the higher the difference.

I think values drive party affiliation more than anything else.
what do you think drives values?  Income is one of them.  We aren't talking about jsut morals here.  Politics involve income more than morals.  Taxes and govt programs ar ea huge part of politics and people change their values based on their income because of it.  You really think people on welfare are going to vote for someone who wants to get rid of welfare?  You think people on Social Security are going to vote for someone who wants to get rid of it?

Most people in the midwest are in fact low income, and they are solid red Rep. voters.
Where do you get this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
Go there and click on the median household income picture and you'll see it's the south, not the mid-west.

If you're lazy, want handouts, think the "rich" should be punished for their success, or think there's a magic pot of endless money, then you probably tend to be lean democrat.

To be fair, the divide between GOP and Dem are based on the differences in philosophy.

GOP's is mostly based on individual - What is good for the individual, is good for society.
Dem's is mostly based on collective - What is good for society, is good for the individual.

Neither party is pure in its adherence to their principles, which allows for compromise (politics)

oops, sorry didn't mean to click submit yet.

Even so with the median salary being in the south it doesn't mean much considering the majority of poor live in big cities, such as NYC, LA, etc.  The problem is, these big cities is where the big cats live as well.  Big cats typically don't live in the areas that show low median income.  Thus this type of demographic map doesn't really help in what we are discussing.

I think values drive party affiliation more than anything else.
Also, You're telling me the 95% of black voters who voted for Obama really believed in the values of Obama over the fact that he was black?  Come on now.  There's a lot more to voting than just values.

You're telling me the 95% of black voters who voted for Obama really believed in the values of Obama over the fact that he was black?

I believe that in this case race overwrote values. But, I believe that it was an exception rather than a rule.

I believe that in this case race overwrote values. But, I believe that it was an exception rather than a rule.

I'd agree with that.  Although I think overrides happen more often than some give credit for.  Unfortuantely there are quite a few ignorant people voting.  They don't even know what the person they vote for stands for.  They simply vote because either they belong to that party for some reason, or something else stupid, like "he has something growing out of his face".  I couldn't believe people actually said they wouldn't vote for McCain because of his face.  Again I agree that these are exceptions, but I would say still the majority follow the rule of values/beliefs.

Since when is being black, or any minority for that matter,.. an advantage for any candidate in any race ?  That's a very insulting, and mildly racist assertion to make.

If you are basing your arguments on hyperbole and stereotypes, then you simply don't have an argument.

None of what you are saying is true, and your wiki links aren't convincing nor specifically validating any of your claims because it's all based on ONE presidential race.  What about Bush ?  What about Bush Sr. ??  Reagan ?

If what you say is true, then you wouldn't have any Republican presidents, at all, because the have-not's outnumber the have-s by about 50 to 1 in this country....

Not to mention, almost every study or poll you find anywhere is based on about 1000 people if you are lucky.

""Unfortuantely there are quite a few ignorant people voting. """   =  Tea party base.

Since when is being black, or any minority for that matter,.. an advantage for any candidate in any race ?  That's a very insulting, and mildly racist assertion to make.

LOL. Its almost always an advantage. Hispanics candidates do better in Hispanic communities. Jewish candidates do better amongst Jews, and Black candidates do better amongst Black. There is nothing racist in that statement. It is just a fact.

Since when is being black, or any minority for that matter,.. an advantage for any candidate in any race ?  That's a very insulting, and mildly racist assertion to make.

And I stick to it.  If you want to be ignorant of the fact that racism still occurs and Obama even encouraged it, that's your prerogative.  He told the blacks that they needed to band together to get him elected.  Just like Hillary tried to play the woman card.  They both charged those people specifically to vote for them to create history.  Sorry but that is not a basis for voting in a president.

None of what you are saying is true, and your wiki links aren't convincing nor specifically validating any of your claims because it's all based on ONE presidential race.  What about Bush ?  What about Bush Sr. ??  Reagan ?
Look it up yourself then.  If you don't like my links, don't make me do all your research.  Did you even look at the references by wiki links?

If what you say is true, then you wouldn't have any Republican presidents, at all, because the have-not's outnumber the have-s by about 50 to 1 in this country....
What are you talking about?  You lost me here...

""Unfortuantely there are quite a few ignorant people voting. """   =  Tea party base.
All you said there was you are un-intelligent and like to flame parties that you do not belong to.  If you are too ignorant to know there are quite a few people who vote without even reading a damn thing about the people they are voting for, then then you sir are naive;  hell, I was one of them the first time I voted, but then I grew up and took it serious.  Try learning about the people in your society.

>>Since when is being black, or any minority for that matter,.. an advantage for any candidate in any race ?

Then why does Obama claim to be black when he's not?

Then why does Obama claim to be black when he's not?

He isn't?

It's absolutely racist, and no it's not a fact.
"""95%""""  -   Says WHO ?

"""Hispanics candidates do better in Hispanic communities""" - it's not a community it's a NATIONAL race for president.

You are saying that ....because someone is black, if they voted for Obama.... it's because he's black.
Does that apply to white people too who voted for McCain ?

What about white people who voted for Obama ?... is that just "white guilt" ???... i've heard that plenty of times too.

Would you vote for John Kerry if he was running against... (trying to think of Republican black guy....), got it...    Michael Steele ???

Boy that would be interesting, but i'm willing to bet that most Republicans and Democrats.... white or black, would still vote for the person that most closely matches their political philosophy.

There's plenty of Women who would not ever vote for Sarah Palin as well....

It's absurd.  Values trump everything else, unless you are a complete racist or just plain ignorant as dirt.

Nope.  See parents - he's as much white as black.
Dunham.jpg

Blacks still support Obama - simply because of his skin color, but he is losing support.  Down to 85% according to this article just out.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/base_in_the_hole_Vi2ap6WzciDqa77LNBhKrK

""why does Obama claim to be black"""


He does ?

lol....

I'm pretty sure most people see it as a non-issue, hence he was elected.

He was elected IN SPITE OF his race...not BECAUSE of his race.
Being that he's the FIRST black president in the history of the United States, should be enough proof of concept.

Please do not post links to right-wing rag sites with popups.....

..it's just not credible and kind of annoying.

You are saying that ....because someone is black, if they voted for Obama.... it's because he's black.

Not in all cases, but in the majority YES.

Does that apply to white people too who voted for McCain ?

Nope, because of White privilage. The majority, or a large minority, does not define itself by success of one of its memembers as smaller minorities do.

What about white people who voted for Obama ?... is that just "white guilt" ???... i've heard that plenty of times too.

No, there were plenty of over reasons for none Blacks to vote for Obama.

Boy that would be interesting, but i'm willing to bet that most Republicans and Democrats.... white or black, would still vote for the person that most closely matches their political philosophy.

So, what you are saying that Blacks identify themselves, 95% of the time, as Democrats. Sorry but that is not true.

"""Not in all cases, but in the majority YES.""""

...that's called an OPINION...not a FACT.


""So, what you are saying that Blacks identify themselves, 95% of the time, as Democrats. Sorry but that is not true. """ 


Acutally it's Republicans who say exactly that.... all the time.
Right along with... gays/lesbians, mexicans, women, youth.....and  {insert minority here}

"""95%""""  -   Says WHO ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1083335/Breakdown-demographics-reveals-black-voters-swept-Obama-White-House.html
http://brandtao.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/demographics-for-us-presidential-election-2008/
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html

He was elected IN SPITE OF his race...not BECAUSE of his race.

I never said he was elected because of his race.  I simply stated the blacks overwhelmingly voted for him BECAUSE of his race.  Not all of them, but a lot of them.  I am not a racist in any way.  I believe in equal opportunity no matter the race if you can do the job just as well.  
One of my best friends for many years was black.  The fact of the matter is, generally speaking blacks are actually quite racist.  I have spent a lot of time with them, and a lot of them still think the whites owe them something for the slavery that happened 150 years ago.  They are allowed to use certain words, but no one else can.  They are allowed to talk a certain way, but if you do, they'll slap you silly.  They can dress a certain way, but shun you if you do.  The list goes on.  Society even enables the segregation in schools.  There are minority groups allowed in schools, but name me one white group allowed in a school.  We have black history month, but what about white history month?  They get fired?  it's automatically because they were black.  Couldn't' have been because they didn't do the job right, or listen to their boss.

Please do not post links to right-wing rag sites with popups.....

..it's just not credible and kind of annoying.

Lemme guess Fox News isn't credible either?  It's only CNN that is credible?  Or are you a MSNBC fan?  Get over yourself.  News is always slanted in some way.  They take some facts and throw any sort of slant they want to them.  Get used to it.  

There's also this thing called a pop-up blocker.  IE and Firefox both have them built in.  I didn't see a single pop-up from the site he posted.

CSO, I don't watch any of those news stations... in fact I rarely watch television at all.
But when you have a site that was created for, and dedicated to, pushing right wing ideas and spin... you should realize how ridiculous that is to me, that you are posting it as a source for your arguments..

""blacks overwhelmingly voted for him BECAUSE of his race""

You do not know that for a fact.   All you know is that black people voted for him..."overwhelmingly".

On your own link, go back to the year 2000.... 90% of black voted for Gore over Bush.
In 1984, 90% voted for Mondale over Reagan..

Fact is, most minorities vote Democrat.  I think having a black candidate simply increased the turnout, which is expected.... it doesn't prove what you are impying though.

"""The fact of the matter is, generally speaking blacks are actually quite racist.""""

... I just cannot have a conversation with you if you are going to keep injecting these sweeping generalizations with regard to race.  It's absurd.  It's all hyperbole, and more importantly it's meaningless.

>>But when you have a site that was created for, and dedicated to, pushing right wing ideas and spin...

Unlike MSNBC?
(course, very few people watch that station anyway.)

CarsRST,

Why are you assuming im' some sort of MSNBC cheerleader ?
Have I mentioned them ?
Have I posted a link to MSNBC ?



I'm sure it's convenient for you guys to assume all these things about "liberals", minorities, etc etc...  but it isn't reality.  When you use generalizations and stereotypes as a foundation for your arguments, your arguments just don't hold up.

>>Have I mentioned them ?

No - and that's the issue.  

You jump on fox for its so called bias, yet fail to mention far left station MSNBC.

But i'm not using MSNBC as a source for my arguments...so why would I mention it ?

I do understand that most media is slanted..msnbc included.... which is why I don't usually post links to news media websites.

For every site you can post a link to assert X is true, and I can post one to assert X is false.  It's pointless.

But i'm not using MSNBC as a source for my arguments...so why would I mention it ?

You are right, you are not using any source for your arguments and attacing any source that others use to support their statements.

Is it possibly time for the takers to pay their fair share and not leave the burden on the rest of us?

"...nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all. "
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/17/nearly-half-households-pay-income-tax-feds/

""There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank."""


So you are saying we should raise taxes and eliminate some of these tax breaks ?

So you are saying we should raise taxes and eliminate some of these tax breaks ?

I've always been an advocate of a flat tax rate.  No credits, no deductions.  ZERO.  Everyone pays the same rate across the board.

On that note, I'd rather see the credits disappear long before the deductions.  For example, explain to me how it's fair that someone who didn't even pay 3k dollars in taxes can get a 3k credit and get paid just for having kids?  That's tax payers paying them to have kids.  Blows my mind.  At least with deductions, you'll never get paid more than what you put in, so there'll never be a negative flow of taxes.

""That's tax payers paying them to have kids."""


...indeed.

I actually support a national sales tax in place of income tax, because every dollar taxed would only be taxed if it is directly contributing to the economy.  Tax on labor is pointless because it is taxed before it is spent, therefore eliminating it's economic potential before it goes into the pocket of the FED.

Income tax is counterproductive to a free market economy, especially if we're talking about the taxes middle to lower income people are paying....because those people generally spend every penny they earn through labor, right back into the economy anyway.

If we had national sales tax, even illegals couldn't avoid paying into it.

Well, I think we found something we 100% agree on.  Ultimately I believe in a sales tax as well, I have just given up on it, because it will never happen, thus I resign myself to wanting a flat income tax. :(  

If we had national sales tax, even illegals couldn't avoid paying into it.

Very good point.  I never thought of that.

For any fair or flat tax to work, you need a Constitutional  amendment so that politicians can't add special "breaks" - otherwise, we're right back to where we are now.

>>If we had national sales tax, even illegals couldn't avoid paying into it.
They could if they had respect for our laws and stayed home.

The only problem I have with a flat tax, is that...where do you set it ?
10% ?

10% may be too much for a college kid, but too little for Bill Gates.  There is something to be said for eliminating all the funky calculations on deductions and credits though.

In a sales tax scenario, I think you would still have to have capital gains taxes as well.  Taxing Bill gates when he buys a loaf of bread is pretty pointless when he earning a hundred million in capital gains.

Clearly there are some details that would need to be worked out and debated on, but I think either system or combination thereof would cretainly be more fair to everyone, and more beneficial to the economy in general.

"""They could if they had respect for our laws and stayed home.""""

Well until that happens...(advised not to hold breath)... I would rather them contribute than continue to be a burden.

The only problem I have with a flat tax, is that...where do you set it ?
10% ?

I don't think your concerns are an issue to be honest.  A college student shouldn't be buying the same stuff as a Bill Gates.  I don't think food should be taxed anyways.  Not sure about other states, but AZ doesn't tax food (necessity food), alcohol, etc are still taxed.  Bill gates would be buying Ferraris and Lamborghinis where as a college student most likely would be buying a KIA, Toyota, or Honda.  Know what I mean?  Not to mention the volume of items as well.  Bill gates has a lot bigger house to furnish than a college dorm room.  So just in that sense the rich are gonna pay way more than the college kids.

Oh, as far as the exact percent, it'll take some trial and error, kinda like our tax system now.  Honestly it can't be much worse considering the deficit we have.  :)  

>>Clearly there are some details that would need to be worked out and debated on, but I think either system or combination thereof would cretainly be more fair to everyone, and more beneficial to the economy in general.

It amuses me that you start off wanting something very simple and then find out that it has to be adjusted to be "fair" without actually considering what "fair" actually is.

>>I actually support a national sales tax in place of income tax, because every dollar taxed would only be taxed if it is directly contributing to the economy.

The purpose of taxation is to raise revenue for govermental service. The problem with sales taxes is that in order to raise such revenue they must be high and this particularly hits the poor and the retired.

Again the principles are missing. The principle about taxation - which goes back hundreds of years - is each according to his ability. That is why you are taxed on total earnings. But even this is not enough which is why sales taxes are added as well. Ideally one would eliminate the sales taxes and not the income tax.

>>Bill gates would be buying Ferraris and Lamborghinis where as a college student most likely would be buying a KIA, Toyota, or Honda.

Note that none of these cars is actually bulit by a US firm.

>> Bill gates has a lot bigger house to furnish than a college dorm room.

I saw an American documentary recently where an average American family had their house contents analysed. Things which were not made in America were removed. There was virtually nothing left.

>>The problem with sales taxes is that in order to raise such revenue they must be high and this particularly hits the poor and the retired.

Fair Tax is price neutral, as it replaces the currently embedded taxes within the price of a good with a 23% tax.  

So no, it would not hurt the poor.

>>The principle about taxation - which goes back hundreds of years - is each according to his ability

All you have to do is listen to the liberal talking points to see this is all about class warfare.   Nothing more.  Democrats use class warfare as a disingenuous tool to get elected.  Sickening, to be honest.  

The "rich" already pay most of the taxes.  Confiscating all their wealth still leaves a HUGE budget gap.

We have a spending problem.  That's it.

>>Bill gates would be buying Ferraris and Lamborghinis where as a college student most likely would be buying a KIA, Toyota, or Honda.

Note that none of these cars is actually bulit by a US firm.

>> Bill gates has a lot bigger house to furnish than a college dorm room.

I saw an American documentary recently where an average American family had their house contents analysed. Things which were not made in America were removed. There was virtually nothing left.


BigRat,
I was just talking tax wise.  I think it is unfortunate we don't buy American, although I think the problem is American's don't build.  It's all outsourced, cuz prices here are outrageous most the time compared to imports...

Wow, there are some wild things going on in this thread.    Forgive me for paraphrasing:

"We should have let GM fail"  um, no, just no.   Can we put ideology aside for a minute and look at the results?  The economic consequences of letting GM fail would have been devastating.  Instead, they're profitable and providing jobs.  The American tax payer is left with a large holding in a profitable company.  IE - it worked.

"Wish we could go back to the 1800's and get what you work for on your land without the government taking from you and giving to others" .... except that the land you'd be living on had been taken from others by the government.   You're complaining about taxes and social programs, yet you're advocating genocide for your personal gain.

"The poor are lazy"  LOL - this favorite old chestnut.   Just because someone is poor, does not automatically make them lazy.  Do some people try to get over?  Sure.   But what's happening is the rich are getting dramatically richer, the middle class are stagnating or regressing.  The fiscal rallying cries are all targeting programs that help the poor, while not addressing obscene corporate and even individual profits.  This is common knowledge and should be terrifying to anyone concerned about this country's future.  


"The Democrats made the banks lend money to the poor some 35 years ago, and consequently the poor caused the housing bubble and ensuing economic crash".  Boy, those poor folks sure are crafty for the lazy bunch they are.  Or maybe the bubble was caused by deregulation of derivatives trading, and the credit ratings agency's pushing a product to their customers that they knew would fail, and then betting on those products to fail.  Making loans to poor people or those with bad credit is NOT the law, but the major banks found a way to make making those loans profitable.  They knew the bubble would burst, and having that knowledge proved to be very lucrative for them.  The poor guy who the bank was "FORCED" to lend to?  His mortgage tripled or more to the point he couldn't afford it.  Ironically, after he was kicked out of his house, the banks got bailed out - in other words he was FORCED to give the banks a nice low interest loan, not the other way around!



Is the Tea Party extreme?  If you guys represent the Tea Party, then "extreme" is an understatement.

Forgive me for paraphrasing:
Um, no, because some of your paraphrases are completely out of context and are not what we said, so please do not paraphrase in the future.

IE - it worked.
Maybe by your definition.  Any time the government becomes a stock holder we have failed imo.  The government is not supposed to be in the stock market.  The government is meant to govern the people according to the Constitution set forth by our fore-fathers.  There is also this simple concept of supply and demand.  If GM was allowed to fail and close down, and there was still a demand for vehicles, those jobs would have surfaced somewhere else.  Only this time hopefully it'd be by a company that has good business practice.  My other issue is where is the government when all these small businesses collapse?  Why do they not get bail outs?  So only the big companies where the CEOs line their pockets with billions are allowed bail outs?  Not the small scrubs who just take enough to earn a living?  Please.  It's a bit more involved than jobs.

You're complaining about taxes and social programs, yet you're advocating genocide for your personal gain.
Who said anything about genocide?  Did I condone killing of natives?  Did I condone the natives killing the Europeans?  I don't recall ever doing either.  I think there was plenty of land for everyone to share, and there still is.

"The poor are lazy"  LOL - this favorite old chestnut.
Wow, talk about taking everything out of context and not even quoting me correctly.  I never once said "The poor are lazy".  please show me where.  I do recall listing a few reasons why the poor are the poor.  Lazy was one of the reasons some people are poor, but again please show me where I made that claim.  I believe you are definitely breaking the EE rules here by supposedly quoting what people say, but not really doing it and making them seem to have said something they didn't.

But what's happening is the rich are getting dramatically richer, the middle class are stagnating or regressing.
And who's giving the money to the rich?  the non-rich mostly.  They keep buying their services/products.  so where's the issue?  I don't get it.  If they were brilliant enough to come up with a product people want, then they should be able to go home with the money.

Or maybe the bubble was caused by deregulation of derivatives trading...
Or maybe the bubble was caused by a huge influx of people purchasing homes that couldn't afford them in the long run and foreclosed on them.  Since the banks were the ones that gave the loans the banks should be the ones who eat it.  It's their problem to deal with if they lend to someone they shouldn't have, it's not the tax-payers' responsibility.

If you guys represent the Tea Party, then "extreme" is an understatement.
Thank you.  I take it as a compliment cuz anything that is different from how the government is being run right now is a good thing.  The government is in a quick downward spiral, and something drastic has to happen to get it out.

Beetos is silly.

>>The economic consequences of letting GM fail would have been devastating.  Instead, they're profitable and providing jobs.  The American tax payer is left with a large holding in a profitable company.  IE - it worked.


This is only superficially true. If GM had "failed" other investors would have picked out the best parts and set up new operations. THe European experience is a good example of what happened without state intervention. GM, having gotten monies from the American taxpayer used a part to restructure their European operation. Opel, for example, shed a large number of jobs in Germany, closed plants in Belgium. The number of jobs actually lost were, at the end of the day, more than in the plan from the state plus private investors. The state was saved from having to find the money for the rescue.

There is an important principle here which conservatives need to learn. In the seventies in Britain the then conservative prime minister Edward Heath refused to help "lame ducks", which were mostly steel and ship-building companies. In the end the clamour about "job losses" forced him to change his mind. A lot of effort and money was poured into these industries which went bust anyway, because, they switched to low cost economies like South Korea. In Luxembourg, which was biult on iron and steel, no such effort was spent. In fact the European Iron and Steel pact ensured that France, Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg only produced what was actually needed and did not spend money trying to compete in world markets. Luxembourg's steel, what littgle there is left, is now owned by an Indian company. The country is no longer a major producer and has switched to more "high tech" industries - particularly banking and entertainment - and the result is that we have the highest standard of living in the world.

GM shed jobs oin Motown as well, so it might have been better to look around what America ought to be doing futurewise rather than hanker after the past. It is extremely unlikely, I'd say nigh on impossible, that GM will mass produce cheap cars as in the past, so the value of the state portion should not be overestimated.

Good wash. times article detailing why helping GM was such a waste.  Huge tax payer losses and stock price continues to sink.

March 31, 2011:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/31/barack-obama-losing-84-billion-big-success/

GM should have been allowed to fail.

Yet again I give more to charity than our own VP.  What a shame.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/15/obamas-earned-55-million-2009b/


And Obama and the liberals keep talking about how the wealthy wish to pay more federal taxes, yet Obama, on his own 2010 return, takes every deduction he can to lower his taxable income.   Someone do the math on that.

I repeat - liberals are ONLY generous with other's money, not their own.  

>>yet Obama, on his own 2010 return, takes every deduction he can to lower his taxable income

Like everybody else does and in particular like all those who have accountants to take care of their earnings and the complicated tax system. If the accountant DIDN'T put down everything which was deductable he'd not be doing his job. And moreover if he didn't deduct what he gave to charity, you'd never know about it anyway. So he's dammned if he does and dammed if he doesn't, in your eyes.

The article is also a bit weak on facts. It does not mention how many "givers" there actually are (as a percentage of the tax base) it only states that the givers average out between 3 and 5 percent (which really means that there are very few above 5% and very few below 3%). Even if we assume that every taxable person actaully gives there is no way that the claim of a commentator " Get government off of the people's backs and out of our wallets and we can give even more" can replace the tax system - which is one of your pet ideas, carsRST.

Once again it's a wonderful diversion from the real issues facing the United States.

Well i'm going to have to agree with Beetos here...
Everything he said was spot on, and he poked a lot of holes in your arguments guys.
I notice each time that happens the subject changes on this thread.

"" If GM had "failed" other investors would have picked out the best parts and set up new operations.""   -  You have a crystal ball do you ?  And where were these investors ready to rescue GM during that time ?

"""And Obama and the liberals keep talking about how the wealthy wish to pay more federal taxes, yet Obama, on his own 2010 return, takes every deduction he can to lower his taxable income.   Someone do the math on that.

I repeat - liberals are ONLY generous with other's money, not their own.   """"


So when are all the Republicans releasing their returns ?

"""liberals are ONLY generous with other's money, not their own"""

It should be understood that if Obama and "liberals" in congress are advocating a tax increase on the "RICH"...they are in affect, advocating a tax increase on THEMSELVES.  They are litterally putting their own money where their policy is.

Meanwhile the conservatives in congress are advocating a tax BREAK for themselves.

..do that math.

Republicans = Greedy and self serving.
Democrats = ready to cough up their own coin to help the country.

"" liberals are ONLY generous with other's money, not their own."""


...VERY offensive and very UNTRUE.

I give to charity at least once a month.  My wife is religious about having people bring food items instead of presents to my kids birthday parties (because they are spoiled), and we donate that as well.

In terms of generosity, I see no link to TAX issues...because NOBODY "likes" to pay taxes.

>>Like everybody else doe

He's not everyone else.  He is wealthy and he says the wealthy want to pay more in taxes.  If that's true, he should have told the accountant NOT to take deductions so that he can pay more.

Obama recent quote:
"I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me," Obama said. "They want to give back to the country that's done so much for them. Washington just hasn't ask them to."

>>...VERY offensive and very UNTRUE.

Sorry that you feel that way, but facts are facts.

....calling something a fact and pretending it is.

It's the Republican way.

""If that's true, he should have told the accountant NOT to take deductions so that he can pay more."""

That makes NO sense.
Nobody volunteers to pay more taxes.  That has got to be the most ridiculous argument the right wing blowhards have drummed up yet.

Why dont' we make speed limit signs OPTIONAL ???
How about we add a "pink light" in between orange and red...and if you think you should stop then stop...if not then not.  How about... NO TAXES at all... and if you feel like paying taxes...go for it...if not...then not...Not sure how you are going to keep foisting that defense budget upward without any revenue though...

>>Nobody volunteers to pay more taxes.  

See BHO's quote.  He says the wealthy want to pay more taxes.  It is a stupid argument, but it's one he's making.

ID: 35424996

>>"" If GM had "failed" other investors would have picked out the best parts and set up new operations.""   -  You have a crystal ball do you ?  And where were these investors ready to rescue GM during that time ?


Well here in Europe there were several different groups of investors ready to pick up Opel, GM's European operation. The State was also willing to add 4 billion Euros to the projects. Note it was NOT a GM rescue, but a takeover of those bits which could be made profitable.

(And please omit remarks about crystal balls)

How would a European investor picking up Opel save/create jobs for Americans ? =  it wouldn't.

So back to what Beetos was saying...he was absolutely right.

xuserx,

Honestly, we do not know what would have happened if there was no bailout.  Can you at least admit that?  Maybe we would have lost jobs permanently, maybe they would have just been moved elsewhere; maybe a new company would have risen from the ashes and started more jobs by being more responsible with their money.  We never will know.  That's the honest truth.

I just have issues with govt getting involved in businesses.  We disagree obviously, but I think businesses should be left to fend for themselves, no matter the reason.  Demand of supplies goes up and down constantly.  Businesses must account for this IMO.  

Yes, I admit that I do not have a crystal ball.

...and I choose my words very carefully....
"I believe the stimulus was necessary, and without it we would be talking about a prolonged depression rather than the end of the recession" < my words

Yes, we disagree...
I think businesses should be left to fend for themselves in MOST cases.
But when greater economic issues are in play and REAL PEOPLE will be affected by the mismanagement of a "fictitous entity" (company), then the government not only has the right but an obligation to step in..."FOR the people".

I'm not one of these people who thinks we should regulate *everything, or that the government should be involved just for the sake of being involved... but I do believe in *special circumstances, and that sometime requires taking actions that are not ordinary, or even desireable.

I'm not one of these people who thinks we should regulate *everything, or that the government should be involved just for the sake of being involved... but I do believe in *special circumstances, and that sometime requires taking actions that are not ordinary, or even desireable.

Fair enough, and I think most people would agree with you.  I have always admitted to being extreme in my beliefs and values.  I have never found someone who believes all that I believe.  Every once in a while I find someone who believes one or two things, but never everything.  :)  That's why it's fun to debate.

Let's also be clear about something here...

If some of these businesses had been allowed to fail...who would be hurt ?
The CEO's ? = NO...they already got paid an obscene amount of money, and on top of it they add bonus to it..

Stakeholders ? = Absolutely.  Stock bottoms out, everyone is left with ..NOTHING.

Underlings who have their entire retirement wrapped up in a company ? = yes.

I believe that when a company is a PUBLICLY traded company, and the public interest is wrapped up in it's existence, then the Federal government should be watching that company very closely to make sure it either A) doesn't become too big to fail ...or, B) isn't purposefully making nefarious decisions that undermine the stability of said company.

Once a company is PUBLIC...the stake in the company is a matter of public interest.

...the main reason I support the bailout, is because fictitious entities do not feel pain.  REAL people do.

Commerce should exist for the good of the people (which includes it's stakeholders), not the other way around.

Re: GM....

Let's be clear.  Unions destroyed GM.  Flat out.  GM should have declared ch 11 and gotten out of these ridiculous union contracts.  Instead the tax payers funded their "recovery" and the tax payers lost big time.

I want none of my money going to save a $40 an hour job that could be done by a monkey.

>>How would a European investor picking up Opel save/create jobs for Americans ? =  it wouldn't.

I never said it would nor did I even imply that. What I did say is that the bail out was not the only option. There were investors willing to take up where GM left off - by discarding the unprofitable bits. That's quite normal in the business world. But when politics steps in HUGE quantities of taxpayers money is poured into industries which SHED JOBS ANYWAY - which is EXACTLY what happened. Go tell all those who lost the GM jobs during the bail out whether they think it was a sucess!

It is very debatable that more people would keep their jobs in a public bailout rather than through a private takeover. If so, then the cost of those jobs is ENORMOUS.

Now try this :-

Where are the politicians who want to take 80 odd billion dollars and set up a new high tech industry sector which would create thousands of jobs and put America back on the map?????

>>Where are the politicians who want to take 80 odd billion dollars and set up a new high tech industry sector which would create thousands of jobs and put America back on the map?????

I hope you mean investors and not politicians?

BigRat,

The point Beetos was making had to do with American jobs and economic prosperity, not Europe.  The other options you speak of have nothing to do with that point.

""Go tell all those who lost the GM jobs during the bail out whether they think it was a sucess!""
Well on the flip side, go ask all the people who still have a job at GM if it was a success.

""Where are the politicians who want to take 80 odd billion dollars and set up a new high tech industry sector which would create thousands of jobs and put America back on the map?????"""

Is that for real or are you just making an example ?
I agree with Cars that it should be investors not the government.  You can't just spend money and create an industry.  The government's job is to provide incentive and remove obstacles, contest grants are not unusual, but they should not pay the whole way.

Obama recovery plan?
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/04/19/tuesday-is-national-hiring-day-at-mcds/

As it's impossible to balance the budget and by soaking the rich (which we know as class warfare), perhaps Obama may break another pledge and hit the middle class.

50K jobs times maybe an average wage of $25k.

""which we know as class warfare""

...no ...no we most certainly don't.
Nobody ever shouts "class warfare"... when the middle class pays more taxes.  Nobody is shouting class warfare when I get my check and 434 dollars is missing out of it.

When the income desparity between rich and middle is growing exponentially...forgive me if I don't shed a tear when the rich are asked to kick in some more cash.

The rich profit from our wars, from our rollercoaster stock market, and the benefit the most from our free market economy... therefore > they should pay more !

That's not class warfare... that's LOGICAL, that's FAIRNESS, that's a NO BRAINER.

My boss is a millionare.  He brags to me about how his accountant hides his money...
Now if I could afford an unscroupulous accountant, maybe I would have my money floating offshore as well and avoid the lion's share of my tax liability as well....

Put it like this...
Whenever he cheats his taxes...he isn't writing out bonus checks to eveyone in the company with the money he hid.

Do you have any idea WHY all these politicians and other rich people all have a pet "non-profit" company in their names ?... I'll give you two guesses but you should only need ONE..

The class war is this....
The top class is working to eliminate the middle class, until all that's left is rich and poor class.  Someday, they hope our children...will be one of two things.  1) Poor and on the streets, or 2) poor and in the military.

The rich already control our government.

The only thing we have left is our VOTE...and they work around the clock to reduce the power and affect of our vote every single day.

We have the best politicians money can buy.....

>>which we know as class warfare

What I know as class warfare is sending soldiers to fight and die in a war and at the same time declaring a tax break for the wealthy.  That is the most ugly and glaring example of class warfare that I have ever seen.  The military is disproportionately made up of people making less than 250,000 a year, so while they are out there fighting and dying their tax burden, in the form of tax cut created deficits is increased, while the tax burden of the wealthy decreases.

We need to cut spending, we need to tax the wealthy and we need to support our troops.  

Supporting our troops involves more than buying a bumper sticker and giving it lip service.  During WWII people collected Tin, they paid taxes, and they rationed to support our troops and they thanked god that they had two good arms and two good legs.  No one, absolutely no one during the WWII era would have suggested a tax cut at a time of war because war involves sacrifice from every class in the nation.  Anyone who thinks that supporting our troops involves a $2 bumper sticker and a huge tax cut is shallow and ungrateful.  A nation makes choices, some of those choices are expensive, expensive choices must be paid for.  Those who pay with dollars should kiss the ground and thank god that they have not paid with their sons, daughters or legs.

Those who think health care should be managed by politicians who either start wars and cut taxes or institute government run health care in a government that has not been able to balance a budget for more than a single year in the last 25 is irresponsible.  If you spend more money you need to tax more, if you have a surplus for several years running you can tax less, but if you have a deficit you need to tax more.

The thing that makes the tea party good is that they are in favor of a balanced budget amendment in spite of the fact that those they have supported have not balanced a budget in 50 years and they are attempting to be the first republicans in 50 years to actually really reduce spending instead of just talking about it.  There is no way that they will actually create a surplus by impacting the spending side only, but I am completely in favor of allowing them the opportunity to find out if it is possible, provided they have a plan of action to undertake should it prove itself to not be possible.  I would be thrilled to see a balanced budget amendment.  I would be more than happy to allow Liberals an opportunity to try, on a limited basis, government run healthcare provided that there had been a balanced budget for the preceding 10 years, and provided that the cash into the system matched the cash out of the system with an agreement that as soon as that was not true, the system would automatically have to be dismantled.

You can't teach a fish to ride a bike, and you won't teach either a modern day Democrat or a modern day Republican to balance a budget.