Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
Julie Tucker
2553 Followers
stonecircle
2052 Followers
Matthew Lee High
3 Followers
Karen Jorgensen
1028 Followers
Eduardo Cantoral
1730 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
findshopandbuyhJan 30, 2011
Oh well Tea is the most consumed beverage on the planet. Not so much for politics. http://www.findshopandbuyhere.com/tea.html
findshopandbuyhJan 30, 2011
Oh well Tea is the most consumed beverage on the planet. Not so much for politics.
davidnivenJan 30, 2011
Well, considering that the New York Slimes thought that the Tea Party would not be effective during the last elections, their opinion in this manner can be safely disregarded as inaccurate liberal blather.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rcook18Jan 30, 2011
Corporate contributions to advance their stranglehold on this country was effective. The Tea Party is just a tool.
thecoolestguyJan 30, 2011
The leftist corporate media writes all of your talking points for you. You all sound the same.
The Koch brothers is all the Democrat media talks about. They are two billionaires who have long supported economic liberty (and also cancer research, PBS and other public services).
One the one side, you have two billionaires, the Koch brothers, and on the other side, you have all of the other billionaires supporting the status quo, in particular those invested in the sectors of the economy like Wall Street reliant on government spending.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cosmicsurferJan 30, 2011
Keep telling yourself the oligarchy YOU support every time you vote GOP and Libertarian; and buy their product is leftist...FAUX is the radical right but try defining corporatism..You either keep those blinders super-glued or you have gone to a land that even major psychotropics can't dissolve.
The KOCH Brothers are far from "leftist corporate media" hype (a statement in and of itself one of the more inane you have ever made on DIGG, uncool dude).
As I showed last year, they are involved all the way down to the training of the little boys who urged you on...
They are Dick Armey, They AFP, They ARE the TEA PARTY -bought and paid for with publicity, training, donations, transportation (from air-conditioned super coaches dragging the butts of shills around the country to pretend they were locals at town halls to Lear jets to fly your starry eyed organizers around the night of the election), printing, equipment...
Never paid attention as they ran out certain organizers from local and state groups, replacing with their own ass-kissing prostrated trained ops...
That happened last Spring and in the Fall of 2009.
All just workers for the cause?
The Tea Party is the manipulated cyborg arm of the gopper Right Wing terrorists that have tried (and semi-successfully) stolen the government.
Don’t imagine for a second all those Multi-millionaires and Billionaires from Koch to RAND PAUL have anything to do with Liberals,..I defy you to name 20 Billionaires that are leftist or even left of center..For every one, I will give you 5 Goppers from RON PAUL to RAND PAUL - including different names for every time you try to use the name Soros. The Millionaire and Billionaires elected by the Tea Party are not just using their own millions to buy elections; they have backing from KOCH, China, The House of Saud (run through the Chamber of Commerce), big oil to tobacco, insurance and banking to defense contractors like Raytheon and Boeing – and them we can go to the NEO-CON affiliates of the Tea Party..Those guys that were in power from Reagan to Newt to Bush/Cheney/Rove - Remember them? FreedomWorks – the political arm of The Project for a New American Century…formed by Bush’s boys and sat in the WH for a number of years before they had to start separating themselves to blow a hole in the laws and campaigning rules after their buy offs in the SCOTUS gave them carte blanche with Citizen’s United.
The baggy certified and approval stamped “representatives” in Congress, The House and the governor seats, certifiable and sanity questionable (and some of significant criminality like Rubio), are the willfully ignorant personified in a representational hubris and hate, ignorance and brain death of their uneducated and manipulated mini-mass of meme minions.
Not a one could one of these brain-trusts promoted, elected or not, could come close to being mistaken for a Mensa member but they are corporatist…all the way to the child demagogue and golden idol in waiting Rand Paul.
cosmicsurferJan 30, 2011
I have to correct one statement - the FreedomWorks is Dick Armey's army
FreedomWatch, another supporter of the extremist un-right cyborg arm- the supporters of the TeaBag boys and girls, and their offshoots from Rove's American Crossroads (another astroturf org of billionaire neo-cons and king makers)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Freedom%27s_Watch
http://dailyhurricane.com/2010/07/karl-roves-grassroots-organization-funded-by-billionaires.html
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
sourcewatch! Classic! No bias there!
cosmicsurferJan 30, 2011
A few sources for your edification
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tea_Party
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity
And
The media leftist?
Try to keep a straight face when you pull that out of your comedy routine
a...try Neo-Con
Neocon influence in the US media
The number of neocon dominated/controlled journals and program outlets has steadily increased over the last 2 decades
• The Weekly Standard (PNAC rag)
• Most of National Review
• The New Republic or much of it
• City Journal
• The New Criterion
• The Washington Times (Rev Moon's propaganda rag)
• Insight
• The New York Post - Murdock
• The New York Sun
• The Wall Street Journal - Murdock
• 60 or so percent of the Washington Post op-ed page
• At least 50% the New York Times op-ed page
• All of Fox News - Murdock
• MSNBC is FINALLY ridding itself of them
• Those from MSNBC have found a new home at Fox Lite or CNN
• More and more of PBS
• The American Enterprise Institute and publications
• The Heritage Foundation and publications
• The Hoover Institution and publications
• The National Post
• CATO Institute and publications
• Discovery Channel
• History Channel
• TLC
• NewsMax
That's just a start...NewsCorp owns at least 20% of the WORLD's media from magazines to websites to book publishers (Sistah Sarah's publisher and Karl Roves too) and TV/Radio
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
Wow...I have never seen such delusions in a human being. You are just sad.
Yeeah...that damn MSNBC...it was SO full of conservatives...and they are finally getting rid of those damn conservatives..like Olberman.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cosmicsurferJan 31, 2011
What can one expect from such a self absorbed self referencing tool of the corporate machine, JT?
Can't handle the truth so go back to looking deeply into that shiny manipulated surface with which you have fallen so madly in love....Not everyone is a failed attempt at being you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
What a wall of words...and hardly any sense made.
thecoolestguyJan 31, 2011
You just rehashed the standard leftist talking points. It's all manufactured outrage and no substance.
Of course there are people with money behind the tea party. Would you expect any thing less? You know rich people have opinions on politics too, and they are the ones that have the most influence. Any political movement has wealthy benefactors.
None of your points dispelled what I stated: that the leftist corporate media is focusing on two billionaires, while countless other billionaires continue to support the status quo (including American-Israeli Haim Saban, the largest political donor in American history, and the largest donor to the Democratic Party).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidnivenJan 30, 2011
Yeah, like all those hundreds of thousands of Tea Party voters are faking it and under the direct orders of some corporations?
Please tell me you're kidding.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
adaguyJan 30, 2011
T party is no more then a group of republickin's who started a third group with the same goals as the GOP. They had no effect on the election at all. What had an effect on the elections was the voters who went to the other parties because they wanted to oust the incumbents.
t party means nothing.
thecoolestguyJan 31, 2011
You leftists all sound the same. You all say the same talking points, that the corporate leftist media has taught you.
enantiodromiaJan 31, 2011
lol, every day you remind me of crazy bus people, arguing with lizardmen :)
adaguyJan 31, 2011
Someday we can all be wise and cool like you.
thecoolestguyFeb 5, 2011
---lol, every day you remind me of crazy bus people, arguing with lizardmen :)---
Another leftist talking point. "The redneck teabaggers talk about lizard people! Let's borrow another trillion $ for 'free health care'! We can tax it from American corporations! Reality has a liberal bias, LOLOLOL'.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
Never try to reason with the libtards, it's identical to trying to convince a Christian fundamentalist that there is no God.
Just point and laugh.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
enantiodromiaJan 30, 2011
Oh you're one of those who believe that Republicans couldn't have taken any seats in the House without the Tea Party, eh?
Just because Palin says the sun will come up tomorrow doesn't mean she caused the sun to actually come up.
I'm sure you have noticed by now that the various aspects of the US government go back and forth between the Democrats and the Republicans all the time.
Keep pretending the Tea Party is crucial to something that happens with or without them.
cosmicsurferJan 30, 2011
DN - The Tea bagged candy and the people who created them, sold them to the willfully ignorant, arrogant narcissists (like you), and who now own their ass
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/04/us/politics/tea-party-results.html
thecoolestguyJan 30, 2011
The intellectual wannabes at the New York Times are terrified of true conservatives like Rand Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao8Nnk-z-6E
enantiodromiaJan 30, 2011
Oh he's a "true conservative", instead of all those other Scotsmen who don't put honey on their porridge?
thecoolestguyJan 31, 2011
He proposed $500 billion in cuts, what have the status quo politicians proposed to deal with the deficit?
The status quo, in particular the left, is all about feel-good rhetoric so that they get every one to like them.
Real statesmen will tell you truth, even when it's not pretty. The truth is America needs to cut spending. It can't tax the economy more or else long term economic growth will be damaged. $2.1 trillion in revenues is enough. The federal government needs to cut spending.
enantiodromiaJan 31, 2011
Do you not see that you are buying to "feel-good rhetoric" too?
He can "propose" all the cuts he wants, it doesn't mean s**t. Talk is cheap when you aren't even close to being in charge,
adaguyFeb 3, 2011
'Talk is cheap when you aren't even close to being in charge,'
He's not smart enough to realize that yet.
ObaAdeleJan 30, 2011
Very interesting, Mr. Rich!
ObaAdeleJan 30, 2011
Very interesting, Mr. Rich!
u2canfailJan 30, 2011
Tbags were fully funded. This was not a grassroots movement. Bachman and Palin are more perfect for the movement than Paul. It is simple to them. You rewrite American history, to prove a point. It is funded vs grassroots!
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
The best way to reveal to the world that you are not worth having an intelliget debate with is by calling people who have different views than you names.
It shows you are a child.
enantiodromiaJan 31, 2011
now i know you be trolling... thats all you do all god damned day long.
u2canfailJan 31, 2011
Please join the movement. Do not respond to any blatant name calling or cussing on digg. We need more discussion and debate here. Tantrums by 2 year olds need to be ignored.
sniperhareJan 30, 2011
Getting our country out of debt is still my biggest concern. Anything else done will be for nothing if our economy falls apart.
neurn2Jan 30, 2011
Do you support tax increases if thats the only realistic way to accomplish your stated goal? Just curious. I agree with your sentiment that getting the country out of debt is a huge concern, but its looking like cutting anything substantial is a pipe dream.
jefftsJan 30, 2011
First, cut spending and root out fraud and waste. That includes the military. And that includes no longer being the world's police department. Then we can talk about taxes. Otherwise, if we don't get spending under tight control and limit it, we will have to continuously raise taxes to account for the ever increasing spending and debt. And that will result in an even worse economy and even worse unemployment rate.
Secondly, streamline the entire tax code so that ALL Americans and ALL American businesses pay taxes in an equal manner. Aside from donations to charities, no write offs. No deductions. No exclusions. Lower income tax rates and lower corporate tax rates. If you make $10,000 in a year, you pay X% in income tax. If you make $1,000,000, you pay X% in income tax. Period. Streamlining the tax code will have the added benefit of scaling down the IRS which will result in less government spending.
Also, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution would be helpful.
lightfallsupJan 30, 2011
Are you for policies that punish poor people in general or just regressive taxes?
jefftsJan 30, 2011
Oh, please. Just stop. High spending and high taxes punish the poor through the tax burden that is passed down to every worker and every consumer. So get off your high horse. Making every person who earns an income contribute an equal percentage of said income to public services that are readily available to every member of the public is fair, just and in no way a punishment to anyone. I would think everyone contributing equally would be approved of by the collectivist society on Digg.
lightfallsupFeb 1, 2011
It isn't fair to charge one group a substantively higher portion of their income. That's what regressive taxes do, even if you want to pretend they don't.
If one person is struggling to buy groceries, an extra $1000 in taxes makes a big difference. If another is struggling to decide which fourth home to buy, an extra $20,000 in taxes doesn't put a hurt on their ability to survive.
It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize this. Perhaps it is your high horse that needs to be put away.
jefftsFeb 1, 2011
If everyone is paying taxes and contributing to the costs of the country, then the percentage that everyone will pay will decrease providing that cuts in spending are made and overall spending is reigned in. It isn't that hard to understand.
It's the same exact argument being used by the Left for the health care law and supposedly lowering health care costs. The difference is that requiring everyone to buy health insurance will not lower overall costs because nothing is being done to reign in the underlying costs of medicine.
So if you disagree that everyone paying income taxes will not be a positive for everyone in the long run, then I surely hope you are not a proponent for the idea of everyone paying for health insurance to lower the cost of health care.
Right now, roughly 40% of Americans pay no income tax. And due to loop holes, deductions and write offs, some major companies end up paying very little income taxes. Setting a flat rate would end both problems by requiring everyone to pay. Labeling it a regressive tax, plane and simple, is false because the tax method you are arguing for, that shifts more and more of the tax burden on some and less and less on others, is truly regressive.
atomheartmotherFeb 1, 2011
"It isn't fair to charge one group a substantively higher portion of their income."
The republic doesn't exist to make life "fair," inherently, it isn't. What's guaranteed is equal protection under the law.
lightfallsupFeb 14, 2011
@atomheartmother I was responding to jeffts saying it should be fair. If you don't like fair, your issue is with him.
murxJan 31, 2011
Creation of money is nothing else but taxing the whole economy that uses that money(currency). Why should the USA pay interest on a tax on their own economy? Because that is exactly what is happening.
Creation of money belongs into the hands of 'the people' - and not individuals, incorporated or not. And if 'the people' decide to 'weaken' their currency by creating additional money so be it.
But those 'incorporated individuals' who currently have the power to create money spread the fear that 'the people' - its voted government - wouldn't use the ability to create money in a irresponsible way and create inflation even hyperinflation.
While at the same time THEY are already doing this - to transfer real, physical property into their hands.
Does creation of money need strict rules? Yes - else things would go like they do in Zimbabwe.
Does it belong into the hand of individuals instead of 'the peoples government'? Absolutely not.
sniperhareJan 30, 2011
It depends if the government is honest, they're usually not so that's why I'd like to not have to give them more money.
But I do support the Fair Tax, and think our current tax code needs to be rewritten.
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
Fair Tax? Well, sir...you just lost all your credibility.
enantiodromiaJan 31, 2011
sort of like how you have zero credibility other than telling us what an unemployed teenager thinks about everything on digg?
you should actually move out of mom's house someday, get a job, and support yourself for a few years.
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
Moot point, since it is NOT the way to get out of debt. NO country has ever taxed its way to prosperity.
If we lived in La La Fantasy Land where taxing WOULD erase the debt..then sure...let's do it. But the fact remains that we still happen to live in the REAL world. (At least some of us do) So taxing is not the answer. As shown by history.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
neurn2Jan 31, 2011
I'm not sure what you mean. All countries have taxes, therefore if any country is successful, it has 'taxed' its way into prosperity. After WWII, the US had a 94% highest bracket tax rate to pay off the WWII debt. If you consider the US in the late 40s and 50s successful, then I would argue that we taxed our way into success.
enantiodromiaJan 31, 2011
what history? what are you even talking about? there are plenty of very well of countries with very high citizen happiness levels who have tax rates which would make you weep like a little girl.
you are a never ending source of lies and failure.
i do think its funny you talk about living in the real world, as i doubt you are even old enough to be paying taxes yet.
jay2kJan 31, 2011
We could start by getting congress to print its own money interest free instead of borrowing money from the banks at interest, or better yet audit and shut down the Federal Reserve which is a privately owned bank and not part of the government.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
Obama trying to be like Reagan, pleeease. I was unaware that Obama thought taxes were to high and that he believe Government was not the solution but the problem. Just shows what kind of complete failure Obama is, can't stand on his own and needs the media to define him as someone else. But, obama has always rided on the back of others.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zahikanaanJan 30, 2011
The reason our economy is in the hole is because of the laws that govern economy. Not because there's a shortage of resources or factories. You never want to be completely out of debt, some debt is a good thing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pandaxrageJan 30, 2011
The main problem here is that, as demonstrated perfectly by the plethora of comments HATING on each other, America can't get along. A two party system isn't in place so we can argue about who is right and who is wrong. But instead so that we may work out our differences in a way that is best for ALL of the American people. Anyone who aligns themselves with ONLY the Right or ONLY the Left is part of the problem. We are all in this together. You may forget sometimes, but we are all human beings, who at one point in history tried to strive for equality and human rights across the board. Now we only have time to debate topics of special interests groups and the fat wads of money going into Congress' back pocket.
Just sayin', all of your constant bickering over who is right and wrong overshadows the problem that you all sound like a bunch of 10 year olds arguing over which Hanson song is the greatest, Congress included.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
I believe the main problem here is we have a ruling class of people that believe they have a devine right to tell other EQUAL adults how to live, think, eat, raise childeren etc. Instead of minding their own business and taking care of their own house, the ruling class feel they have a devine right to invade the lives of others simply because another dependent group of people have begged them to run their lives. I believe when you tell a full grown adult how to live and you impose your devine solution's onto him, he may get pissed
spectecjrJan 30, 2011
Based on your other posts, you're anti-choice. Talk about telling people what to do with their lives. You're a troll.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
If i was anti-choice I would impose my believe you should not exsist. But, since i believe we are equals I accept your words but reject the idea. I do believe there is a difference between telling someone what to do with their lives (advice) and imposing that idea onto them (slavery). A freeman can reject the advice and go on his way with his own solutions, when the advise is imposed on him, not so much. See the difference?
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
Where the f**k is there slavery in America?
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2009/030609Lendman.shtml.
Slavery of early america started as a idea and then that idea was imposed (brutally) on a people.
geroncoJan 30, 2011
wags who?? I thought Sarah was supposed to be a pig with lipstick
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
The reality is that we will have to cut spending. Government should be downsized. Liberals will squeal bloody murder at the idea.
lightfallsupJan 30, 2011
You believe in balanced budgets as long as we don't raise taxes as well as cutting spending? Or do you think we should cut all spending (including, and especially the military) and raise taxes to get things straightened out?
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
Here's what I believe...I believe that the government is not showing any good faith moves to cut spending. It has been spend spend spend.
The American public, especially during a recession, is not going to allow the federal government to increase taxes. I live in Illinois ... people here just had a tax hike. It's VERY unpopular. I haven't heard the governor talk about cutting spending.
There are pundits and well-respected figures on the left saying that we need to hike taxes AND increase spending.
Apparently, according to the SOTU, we ARE going to cut military spending. What else are we going to cut? Cuts MUST be made.
I believe the Democrats KNOW that we have to cut (hence the bipartisan study before the elections) but I guaran-damn-tee that they will scream about the cuts and blame the GOP or the Tea Party for unpopular cuts.
Your "either/or" isn't an either/or.
But I was weary of hearing, within days of the new congress..."They won't say what they'll cut!"
Then you have politicians talking about what can be cut and the same farking people are barking, "They can't cut THAT!"
It's time for the liberals to join the conservatives in CUTTING spending.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lightfallsupJan 30, 2011
I don't see either side talking about any real spending cuts. I see one side talking about it (conservatives), but their actions clearly say they don't mean it.
Nothing I've heard about amounts to real spending cuts. From either side. Cutting NPR funding doesn't really count as spending cuts. If we cut the real money wasters first, then we can talk about cutting out tidbits of money here and there.
Hundred of billions a year ($600 billion less a year still makes us by far the highest military spenders in the world) need to be cut from the military alone. If we could get that, I could certainly see cutting some other areas as well. Real cuts, not cosmetic ones.
As for the people not standing for tax increases, I'm for tax cuts where they help, which is just about everywhere except the top 1%, where tax cuts do more harm than good for the economy given the tendency to hoard.
I don't think there's a party intending to do cuts for another party to join. Conservatives seem to pretend they want to, but never actually get to it. Not real cuts. They just play at cuts for political reasons. Democrats do the same with those little 9 billion a year cuts to the military. Of course, democrats don't claim to be the fiscal responsibility party. (Not that it matters at this point)
I do think a person either wants to cut spending, raise taxes, or both (assuming they care about deficits). There aren't really any other options. It just seems foolish to me to pretend it can all come from one side or the other. There must be both if a person is serious about deficits.
I know many economists do say we need to increase spending. I don't pretend to be an economist so I'll say that I don't know if that's right. World War II was probably the largest stimulus plan in history and it did a pretty good job before of getting us out of a depression, but who knows if it would work again?
I'm just saying that if we are going to try for a balanced budget, it has to come from both sides. The history of the "starve the beast" fairy tale has shown it to be a spectacular failure. "Voodoo economics" is just that. And just raising taxes doesn't get us anywhere except a lot of new cronie projects that go nowhere and serve no real purpose.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
At least you understand that it's WWII that got us out of the depression and not FDR's policies.
"Cutting NPR funding doesn't really count as spending cuts..." Yes, it does.
Michelle Bachmann's currently taking a lot of flack because she made spending cut proposals that included benefits for veterans. THAT'S an unpopular cut.
The fact is that the government doesn't want to make itself smaller. And the PEOPLE are saying, "Don't raise my taxes until you make some sort of a show that you are going to start being more responsible with my money."
"Of course, democrats don't claim to be the fiscal responsibility party. (Not that it matters at this point.)"
They don't. They believe in taxing and spending. THAT'S their answer. The people, however, have said no. The Dems have been spending like drunken sailors UNTIL it became clear that there was a public revolt. *Then* we saw a bipartisan commission dedicated to cutting spending.
Obama said in the SOTU that the defense budget is going to be cut. So, there's a start. It's hard to do MUCH when we're in two wars....
He, however, also talked about investing re: stimulus for things like high speed rail, which IMO is a boondoggle.
I believe Americans KNOW that cuts are coming and those cuts may impact them. But Americans are saying, "Let's see your cuts before you tax me more..."
My hope and my pragmatic realism indicates that we WILL see cuts. These cuts might be considered painful and, if so, will be blamed on the Republicans.
The Tea Party, overall, is concerned with spending. They are concerned about the size of government. Their focus is fiscal.
It's time for the government to be responsive.
Thank you for the decent conversation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spectecjrJan 30, 2011
Spending like drunken sailors? Don't forget - they changed accounting to be more accurate when Obama came in - and that accounts for at least $3T of the debt, which was being hidden under the carpet by previous administrations.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
Yes, they have been spending like drunken sailors.
ncmusicJan 31, 2011
You know the commission was, uh, commissioned, before the election.
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
You, uh, know that they didn't announce their recommendations until, ugh....after the election.
lightfallsupJan 31, 2011
I do see that WWII got us out of the depression, but I also note that it was massive deficit spending by governments that made the war work, which pulled us out of the depression. In that one case, even if in no other, Keynes was right about deficit spending to get out of a depression.
I actually don't believe there was a "revolt" or the "people" are saying anything. There are 300 million people in this country. They don't all agree on the color of milk, let alone complex things like economics and foreign policy.
Experienced political statisticians will tell you that if you look at a half dozen economic factors, you can guess with near certainty who will win races. According to the experts, basically, if a person's individual economy is "bad", they vote for the non-incumbent party. If their personal economy is "good", then they vote for the incumbent party. It's a little more complicated than that because it involves crimes rates, poverty levels, unemployment, etc, but that's the basic notion. Those are the decider votes. Next to them you have people who vote for republicans no matter what and people who vote for democrats no matter what.
I should have been more clear on the NPR comment. Yes, cutting a few dollars to NPR is less money spent.
But no one's going to be able to *honestly* say they're for balancing the budget by cutting spending without looking at the areas where money is really disappearing from.
If the only thing you cut is tiny programs that you've decided you get political advantage in cutting then you get a giant laugh in the face from everyone who's paying attention when you try to sell yourself as tough on deficits.
People who do that (Dems and Reps) are just hoping everyone is too stupid to realize they never had any intention of doing any real cuts.
I would also say that being concerned with the size of government and being concerned with fiscal matters are not the same thing. They seem like the same thing, but they aren't. You cannot (as we've seen tried over and over) use fiscal means to try and change the size of government. It doesn't work.
It makes more sense to attack specific areas. For example, If you're for more freedom and smaller government, then you're against the drug war. Huge amounts of money is wasted on this and getting rid of it lowers the deficit, decreases federal reach, and increases freedom. There are lots of areas like this that can be attacked and when eliminated, do the work of creating a smaller government.
It's also weird to me when people talk about smaller government, I usually find the one they are interested in shrinking in the federal government, which is a government, but there are lots of governments that rule over the citizens of this country and for some odd reason, that's the one people seem to have a problem with. They're not usually interested in smaller government, they just want one particular government to be smaller. At least, that's been my experience in talking to "small government" folks.
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
"People who do that (Dems and Reps) are just hoping everyone is too stupid to realize they never had any intention of doing any real cuts.
I would also say that being concerned with the size of government and being concerned with fiscal matters are not the same thing."
Let's talk about Ryan...he was panned for his Republican response...but he has been working in DC and he is experienced enough to go line by line and cut things.
I am fortunate enough to have experience in the DC game.
I only *wish* I'd had sex on a senator's desk...no I don't ...yes I do...
no I don't. I have dugg you up in this conversation...I hope it won't be completely buried.
Anyway...
Size of government is the whale in the room. It is ABSOLUTELY at issue.
It's THE issue.
Again...thanks for the decent conversation...I guess it hasn't been popular....
There WILL be cuts....
There must be...or the people will revolt with their vote again...
It's the way we work.
ncmusicJan 31, 2011
What you said is false.
"They don't. They believe in taxing and spending. THAT'S their answer. The people, however, have said no. The Dems have been spending like drunken sailors UNTIL it became clear that there was a public revolt. *Then* we saw a bipartisan commission dedicated to cutting spending."
If public revolt was the election the commission was setup before. So you're order of events is incorrect. The recommendation cuts military and social spending and raises revenues, so I'm not sure what your point was with that. Just because the results were issued after the election doesn't mean anything. Are you arguing the election had an impact on the report's contents?
Also why didn't Ryan mention in his response that he wants to get rid of SS and medicare?
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
I love how you want to talk in absolute numbers when it is convenient for you. You want to talk about how much we spend on defense...but want us to ignore the fact that as as percentage of our GDP, it is tiny compared to most countries. That is NOT the money waster.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lightfallsupJan 31, 2011
It's also small when compared to the number of atoms in the sun, but I'm not looking to compare it to random numbers so that it sounds better.
I'm open to cutting in all sorts of areas, but I'm not open to the tea party trick of defining cutting spending as "looking at entitlements" as if that's the only thing we spend money on. It isn't and it'd be nice if everyone got a little honest about it.
enantiodromiaJan 31, 2011
since you are so concerned about military spending and the rest of the national budget, i thought this would be a good time to remind everyone that the amount spent on one (1) jet fighter R&D project, just one, is almost the same exact amount we spend nationally on "welfare", the kind the Republicans claim to hate so much, you know, with the black people who keep having kids so they can get the free money?
one R&R project = all the 'welfare'
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
The point is, dumb f**k...that just because it is big does NOT mean it is wasteful..or that it would save money in the ong run..
You are a f**king nobody with ZERO knowlede of ANYTHING. So stop acting like an economics or a defense expert.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spectecjrJan 30, 2011
We wouldn't need to cut spending if we allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire. The other problem with cutting spending is where do you cut?
Education? You'll wreck the GDP of the country a decade from now.
Defense? Arguably that's a good place to start - too much of an industry has grown around it.
Research? Bad bad bad idea. You'll kill the country, or at least leave us very very far behind.
Infrastructure? Again, a bad idea. Way to sink the country.
I'd start by decriminalizing marijuana, and shutting down a whole bunch of private prisons. There's no reason why prisons should be outsourced to private industry - nor that those prisons should make a killing in the process, and should lobby heavily to stick around.
Closed AccountJan 30, 2011
"The other problem with cutting spending is where do you cut?"
No, really?
THAT'S our problem, right there. Too many in government seeing their projects as sacred cows.
THAT'S the problem.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spectecjrJan 31, 2011
Sacred cows? Do you want to compete as a 1st world country or not? If you want a capable workforce, with the latest tech and not just a nation of burger slingers, the above are /minimum requirements/.
Studies have shown over and over that Education = greater GDP. Infrastructure is required to run a country. Research is required to keep the export fires burning - because the only industries we have left are tech, and retail.
What would you cut?
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
Tell me how you can spend someone smarter???
lightfallsupJan 31, 2011
quirk,
You can start with making sure everyone has text books and computers and access to the internet.
The schools in this country are feast or famine. Some schools have everything, some have walls that are crumbling. I think that's a good place to start. Fix the walls. Get enough school buses. Get everyone text books and good computer labs. If necessary, hire security for the school so that it can be safe for the kids who want to learn. Give them all good libraries and clean walls. Make sure students have pencils. Lower the student to teacher ratio. There are lots of things that can be done.
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
We are only under Canada per capita on what we spend for education.
The education system is bloated by overpaid bureaucracy...
....but we can't say that, or we'll piss of teachers' unions.
lightfallsupJan 31, 2011
Actually, we're behind Switzerland and both countries have more educated populations than we do (statistically).
But those per capita numbers aren't reflective of reality. They even out the money between the rich schools and the poor schools. Every school doesn't have the same per capita rating and overall, ones that spend more per student, have better educated students.
We have a lot of rich schools and that skews the numbers a whole lot. It's important to note that.
lightfallsupJan 31, 2011
I'm for cutting excess spending in education. But I'm also for spending more on areas that matter.
The future of any country is largely determined by the education level of it's population. The point of education is that it increases people's functioning capability. It doesn't get us anywhere to say that you can't spend someone smart, so we must just be too stupid to go on. There are ways to improve education. They're not all about more money, but some of them are.
I'd like to look at all the ways and move forward on as many as possible.
bille3Jan 30, 2011
Our governments from federal to state to county and city all suffer from the same problem. It is not a revenue problem, they have been raising taxes routinely for decades. It is a spending problem. As they have continued to increase taxes overall they also increased spending beyond the revenue, that was the justification to continue to raise taxes. Now that economic crisis in looming out of the fog the spending must be addressed first and foremost. To not do so is going to ensure our doom.
Those that only propose more taxes on someone else are far to young to understand that increasing taxes only serves to encourage even more spending increases. Or they are already so dependent on government for survival they fear for their well being.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lightfallsupJan 31, 2011
Actually the marginal tax rate has been on steady decline for about 60 years. Tax rates have been going down, not up. The top marginal tax rate under Ike was over 90%. Under Nixon it was in the 70% range. Under Reagan it was in the 50% range. And those are all republicans.
That's the problem: taxes have been going down and spending has been going up. The problem is in that equation.
enantiodromiaJan 31, 2011
so you just let a $1,000,000,000,000+ war slide, and pretend it never happened?
truth is, you wanted the war but you don't want to pay for it, so you are blaming everyone else for being in so much debt.
o76923Jan 31, 2011
Didn't Obama create a deficit reduction commission, support simplifying tax code, institute a pay freeze, and pledge to reduce the size of the government in the past 2 months?
catjugglerJan 30, 2011
Buried for subscription link
312139Jan 30, 2011
The relationship between The GOP and the Tea Party is much like that between Dennis and Randy Quaid.
e9turkelJan 30, 2011
this is fairly genius
Closed AccountJan 31, 2011
Ahh...the NY Times....Good old hilperspective thinking that anyone gives a f**k about what anyonne at the NY Times says anymore.
cosmicsurferJan 31, 2011
Oh, I get it...WND and NewsMax your idea of journalistic integrity?
enantiodromiaJan 31, 2011
thanks for the opinion of someone not old enough to purchase beer. we'll make sure we consider it.
quadeJan 31, 2011
Dear teabaggers,
You are the worst thing to happen to this country since ever. Please FOAD.
Sincerely,
Everyone.
shportJan 31, 2011
Yes, idiots. Don't you know that us Mer'kans just want to step outside....so we can discuss things?
o76923Jan 31, 2011
It's because compromise is a sign of weakness in this political climate. So whenever a side offers an olive branch or agrees to make concessions. That is probably what screws us over the most.
torisutanJan 31, 2011
f**k you, DiggPatriots, let's see how many buries I can get in this thread!
Let's start by addressing the issue of the conservatives' stance on government control, shall we?
A) Conservatives claim they want a completely free market. If you ask them what happens when a company sells unsafe goods, they say the consumers will sue the company and court will find them guilty. But they don't seem to realize that in a completely free marketplace, anyone can sell anything they want, at any price they want, to anyone who is willing to buy it. There are no restrictions whatsoever. In a free marketplace without regulation, I can sell used coat-hangars with complimentary abortion procedures taped to them, and nobody can do anything about it. I can sell a toy literally drenched in lead-based paint to a child and nobody can do anything about it, because it's my right to sell it and their right to buy it IF THEY WANT. So clearly, we need regulation. They'll even admit that.
But then you ask them to name a single regulation that they feel is excessive, or oppressive, and makes it too hard for the average American to simply live. They can't name one. Not a single one. If they do, it's because they heard it on Fox, and they'll be unable to give a REAL reason for doing away with the regulation, other than to say "It's regulation and HERP-DERP I hate regulation"
For this reason, I feel every Conservative who does not personally own a mid to large sized business, and a fortune of at least $2,000,000 is a complete and utter f**king moron who should be exempted from all Government handouts, so they can see how "easy" life is when you're truly an individual, forced to do everything on your own.
B) The Tea Baggers, who are so completely obviously nothing but angry old white people who probably think Ben Franklin was a president because he's on the $100 bill, and couldn't be bothered to Google the name they'd chosen for themselves to make sure it wasn't a euphemism, are a crowd of idiots that prove the theory that stupidity increases exponentially for every person added to a group. They chant "Repeal Obamacare" without actually knowing ANY of the policies listed in it, or which side of the aisle the policies they hate the most actually came from (and here's a f**kin hint for you Conservatards, all the policies you hate most came from YOUR SIDE of the goddamn aisle, you idiotic twits), and worst of all they have the absolute GALL to call themselves patriots, when they won't even respect a President or Congress who were LEGALLY and DEMOCRATICALLY elected by this nation's voters. The President even won in a landslide, and that was when he was promising to enact policies that make his ACTUAL policy contributions look downright Libertarian in comparison. The f**kers in the Tea Party and the GOP are no Patriots. I spit on each of their names a thousand times for having the arrogance to call themselves Americans when they don't even know the meaning of being a true American.
C) You DiggPatriot asswads need to go to another website and pull your heads out of your asses with the help of people who have experience with that. I suggest Googling "Conservative turned Liberal" and seeing how many support groups can help you all remove your thick craniums from your gigantic rectums. We aren't going to be fooled by the fact that someone has 60 buries on their comment, when all they say is something short like "TeaBaggers are idiots". We KNOW it's you and your dummy accounts.
I know, I know, it's hard to understand that just because Conservatives make squirrels and bugs look like hyper-advanced lifeforms capable of solving complex quantum mechanic equations, it doesn't mean Liberals are equally retarded. We're actually a hell of a lot more intelligent than you. And definitely more numerous, thank god. See, natural selection has this way of ensuring that only the smartest and strongest survive, so even though you may have put a dent in our plans by fighting against birth control so you can stay alive longer, eventually your inbreeding will catch up to you, and then it's game over.
In conclusion,
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
miklkitJan 31, 2011
Thank you for saying what many of us feel, but don't say.
lightfallsupFeb 1, 2011
I do have one complaint about your comment and that is that natural selection promises no advantages in the short term. In the short term, the stupid, weaker ones can thrive.
Over the long haul, the cream will rise.
torisutanFeb 1, 2011
I'm just concerned because it seems like at our current rate of technological growth we might achieve a cure for death before we achieve a cure for stupid.
warthog258Feb 3, 2011
short sightedness is the hall mark of the gop. No ideas only FEAR