What are the Tea Party doing to cut spending? - GoFuckYourself.com

Paul Markham · 07-31-2011, 07:24 AM

Been watching the debates and votes on raising the debt ceiling and it got me thinking. The Tea Party seem to be the ones who are shouting that the debt needs to be cut. Which is right, they argue the Government spending needs to be slashed, which sounds good. However I was wondering what they are doing in their States to cut spending.

Maybe

Michele Bachmann.

Should start at home and cut the Government offices, Transport, Policing in affluent areas and any other scheme that benefits the rich in her congressional district of Minnesota.

Maybe

Ron Paul.

Should start at home and cut the Government offices, Transport, Policing in affluent areas and any other scheme that benefits the rich in his congressional district.

Not social welfare cuts, except maybe spending on rent to landlords or spending is supermarkets, make these business give the food away. I see Ron is from Texas, so maybe he should force all the land owners to get rid of the cheap labor, illegal Mexicans for instance, and employ only US citizens. Of course it might cost more.

But no worries it takes people off benefits.

Or is the Tea Party advocating a N.I.M.B.Y. approach. Not In My Back Yard.

Cut anything but what effects us?

Stupid approach because taking money out of an economy is going to hurt unless the money taken out is 100% going over seas.

Maybe the easiest solution is to raise taxes to a level that clears the debt. The lowering of taxes by Bush hasn't stimulated the economy enough. I saw a graph which showed a direct link to lending and the US economy under the last 5/6 last Presidents.

Has the Tea Party considered that solution?

iamtam · 07-31-2011, 07:29 AM

ron paul is busy changing his mind again. so asking him for an opinion is useless, because he will give you the exact opposite answer the next day, mr flip flop.

bachman is still out trying to "cure the gays". if she has that poor of a grip on the basics, i would have to see her trying to solve a monetary crisis.

Vendot · 07-31-2011, 07:33 AM

Reminds me of an awesome Canadian band called "The Tea Party"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tea_Party

Amazing band...... anyone got the "Splendor Solis" album?

Paul Markham · 07-31-2011, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamtam

ron paul is busy changing his mind again. so asking him for an opinion is useless, because he will give you the exact opposite answer the next day, mr flip flop.

bachman is still out trying to "cure the gays". if she has that poor of a grip on the basics, i would have to see her trying to solve a monetary crisis.

Probably people who will say anything to get a vote.

Cutting spending of any amount will have an effect on the economy. These Tea Party voters and congressmen will soon change their tune if the spending cuts effect them.

I heard once that Government spending included Congressmen getting huge Government grants for schemes in their areas. To pander to voters. Maybe that's an area the Tea Party should be looking at and making sure there's no spending in in their districts.

I see Bachmann talks good and thinks it applies to others.

Here.

Nice quote.

Quote:

Bachmann Farm Reaped $252K in Gov't Subsidies

Free-market fan is a closet welfare queen, writes Yasha Levine

(Newser) - Rep. Michelle Bachmann is one of the Capitol's most vocal opponents of socialized medicine?but she's happy to take government handouts for socialized dairy and corn, writes Yasha Levine. Records show that the Minnesota Republican's family farm raked in almost $252,000 in agricultural subsidies between 1995 and 2006, Levine

Cut all Farm Subsidies to profitable farmers, raise food prices to cover the loss and open non profit shops for the poor. That would cut Government spending. Especially in Minnesota

Yes Government spending needs to be cut. But government spending = Someones wage packet. If that person resides in the US that will effect the US economy.

The only way for the US to get out of this mess is spending cuts, tax rises and increased production/exports. And less reliance on imported consumer goods.

tony286 · 07-31-2011, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Probably people who will say anything to get a vote.

Cutting spending of any amount will have an effect on the economy. These Tea Party voters and congressmen will soon change their tune if the spending cuts effect them.

I heard once that Government spending included Congressmen getting huge Government grants for schemes in their areas. To pander to voters. Maybe that's an area the Tea Party should be looking at and making sure there's no spending in in their districts.

I see Bachmann talks good and thinks it applies to others.

Here.

Nice quote.

Cut all Farm Subsidies to profitable farmers, raise food prices to cover the loss and open non profit shops for the poor. That would cut Government spending. Especially in Minnesota

Yes Government spending needs to be cut. But government spending = Someones wage packet. If that person resides in the US that will effect the US economy.

The only way for the US to get out of this mess is spending cuts, tax rises and increased production/exports. And less reliance on imported consumer goods.

this too http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43583232...-funds-clinic/
Bachmann defends Medicaid funds to clinic
Presidential candidate's husband received $137,000 for clinic work

also tea bagger Rand Paul most of his practice was medicaid payments. But the middle class keep voting for these people and voting against their own best interests. its sad.

Joshua G · 07-31-2011, 08:52 AM

The tea party is amorphous. It has no history, no power & no single face of the party. As a result, the tea party typically reflects back peoples biases for & against the far right.

Joshua G · 07-31-2011, 09:21 AM

one thing about making serious entitlement reforms that would balance the budget...

nobody in any party wants to put a plan on paper that would make the entitlements run inside a balanced budget. The demographic numbers are ugly, & they will become obscene in 10 years when baby boomers really start sucking the life out of america.

the answer to the entitlement mess is going to be delayed & reduced benefits. Things like raising the age limit, lowering COLAs, raising the amount people have to cover for their medical care.

as soon as paul ryan put a plan out that ends the open ended nature of medicare spending, the repubs lost a special election in a safe repub district in NY.

So no party will put anything on paper that actually solves the problem. its political suicide.

Barry-xlovecam · 07-31-2011, 10:31 AM

They are busy dressing up and playing asinine games ...

"Idiot convention"

tony286 · 07-31-2011, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshgirls

one thing about making serious entitlement reforms that would balance the budget...

nobody in any party wants to put a plan on paper that would make the entitlements run inside a balanced budget. The demographic numbers are ugly, & they will become obscene in 10 years when baby boomers really start sucking the life out of america.

the answer to the entitlement mess is going to be delayed & reduced benefits. Things like raising the age limit, lowering COLAs, raising the amount people have to cover for their medical care.

as soon as paul ryan put a plan out that ends the open ended nature of medicare spending, the repubs lost a special election in a safe repub district in NY.

So no party will put anything on paper that actually solves the problem. its political suicide.

the baby boomer paid for ssi they arent sucking anything dry.

Barry-xlovecam · 07-31-2011, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshgirls

[t]hey will become obscene in 10 years when baby boomers really start sucking the life out of america. ...

That's just a bunch of bullshit.

I am one of those "baby boomers" you despise. I have paid in this social security crap for 35 years. My money was used to support my parents generation's Social Security and Medicare and to pay US Government general budget obligations.

So tell me, if I paid to support my parents generation's retirement benefits and Medicare I should have to pay for mine too? (Or, to forsake any Social Security/Medicare that I have paid for)? If, the Social Security benefit is income qualified I could live with that I suppose. I could write some of it off to "social responsibility" and just keep making money 'till I drop dead — a lot of people cannot do that ... factory workers, construction workers — people that do physical labor.

The whole Social Security and Medicare thing is a giant ponzi scheme — but without Medicare in particular; the elderly retired working class were living near the poverty level in 1965. I was a kid back then but I remember how fucked up it was then.

V_RocKs · 07-31-2011, 11:10 AM

I would be impressed if our next president got elected using about 10 million in campaign funding... That would make me think... wow... this fucker can take us to the moon with shit you can buy at Radio Shack like John did!

IllTestYourGirls · 07-31-2011, 11:12 AM

The only sane thing to do:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50974600/S...wiqv0a3y4y3441

FYI Moody's says that they may downgrade US credit from AAA if EITHER the republicans or dems bill is passed because THEY DO NOT CUT ENOUGH (unlike Rand Pauls bill above).

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...ons-aaa-rating

Quote:

The "limited magnitude" of both debt plans put forward by congressional leaders would not put the nation's AAA credit rating back on solid footing, Moody's Investors Service announced Friday.

"Reductions of the magnitude now being proposed, if adopted, would likely lead Moody's to adopt a negative outlook on the AAA rating," the credit rating agency said in a new report. "The chances of a significant improvement in the long-term credit profile of the government coming from deficit reductions of the magnitude proposed in either plan are not high."

And Michele Bachmann is not a tea partier, she is a neo-con leech.

Barry-xlovecam · 07-31-2011, 11:15 AM

Is that the same Moody's that rated Washington Mutual and AIG so highly?

Then they went belly up ...

But yes, if the TBill and TBond rates go up the banks' prime rate will rise along with business and consumer interest costs. All this balanced budget shit will just second dip this recession.

Paul Markham · 07-31-2011, 11:17 AM

If anyone made a real list of what the cuts were and where they would hit, there would be 2 possible outcomes.

Cutting benefits for lower paid, retired and unemployed type cuts. = Riots in the lower class areas that would need troops sent in.

Closing manufacturing plants like the Stealth Bomber. = The middle classes would go ballistic.

If they want to find areas to cut. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in650949.shtml

Quote:

Our military budget now is $447 billion. A billion is 1,000 million. Sometimes it seems to this old $250-a-month sergeant as if we're buying too many weapons for wars we no longer fight. Maybe our purchasing agent in the Pentagon ought to be replaced.

Our military leaders work pretty much in secret. They say they don't want our enemies to know, but sometimes, I think they don't want us to know, either.

Look at some of the weapons we have and then look at the wars we fight.

We have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out civilization. No one should have any, but I'm enough of an American to be glad we do. We have a lot of unnecessary stuff, though.

The Air Force flies 30 different kinds of airplanes. That's good for the airplane industry, not so good for the rest of us who have to pay for them. Twenty different planes wouldn't have been enough? The Stealth bomber costs $1 billion, $1 million.

The Pentagon ordered 21. How would you like to have what one Stealth Bomber costs to pay teachers in your local school?

There is a multi-billion-dollar boneyard for not-very-old airplanes in Arizona. They never flew much, and they'll never fly again. You're looking at a $100 billion-dollar parking lot you paid for.

The Pentagon doesn't scrimp on the Navy either. Over the years, we built 69 battleships, even though battleships never did much except get sunk. The last one cost $3 billion. The good news is the Navy no longer uses battleships.

These are mothballed now, just rusting away. We have nuclear submarines for sneaking up on enemies under water. One nuclear submarine costs $1.6 billion. We have 50.

DIVE. DIVE. They don't dive in sand.

The Army has 8,000 Abrams tanks. How effective was one of these $3 million vehicles in Baghdad?

We captured prisoners and couldn't question them because no one spoke their language. With what we paid for one tank, we could have taught several hundred people to speak Arabic.

The most effective weapon we have in war is still that poor dogface crawling forward on his stomach with a rifle in his hand. The Pentagon might consider spending more money on our soldiers and on better intelligence, and less on billion-dollar weapons that are as out of date as the bow and arrow.

Of course then the US couldn't go around acting like big police dogs and be more in size with their wealth.

Cost of wars since 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financi...r#Direct_costs

Quote:

The costs of the War on Terror are often contested, as academics and critics of the component wars (including the Iraq War) have unearthed many hidden costs not represented in official estimates. The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project, which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion.[1] The report disavowed previous estimates of the Iraq War's cost as being under $1 trillion, saying the Department of Defense's direct spending on Iraq totaled at least $757.8 billion, but also highlighting the complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars and a potential nearly $1 trillion in extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat through 2050.[2]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/afgha...ry?id=13902853

Quote:

All told, the war that began in October 2001 has cost taxpayers more than an estimated $443 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service, and the lives of more than 1,523 U.S. military service members.

And they blame Social spending and Obama.

Barry-xlovecam · 07-31-2011, 11:24 AM

In hind site, and that is always perfect, it would have been cheaper to have contained Saddam Hussein's Iraq and just have assassinated bin Laden and other terrorist leaders.

But then all the defense contractors would have not made bank ...

theking · 07-31-2011, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Been watching the debates and votes on raising the debt ceiling and it got me thinking. The Tea Party seem to be the ones who are shouting that the debt needs to be cut. Which is right, they argue the Government spending needs to be slashed, which sounds good. However I was wondering what they are doing in their States to cut spending.

Maybe

Michele Bachmann.

Should start at home and cut the Government offices, Transport, Policing in affluent areas and any other scheme that benefits the rich in her congressional district of Minnesota.

Maybe

Ron Paul.

Should start at home and cut the Government offices, Transport, Policing in affluent areas and any other scheme that benefits the rich in his congressional district.

Not social welfare cuts, except maybe spending on rent to landlords or spending is supermarkets, make these business give the food away. I see Ron is from Texas, so maybe he should force all the land owners to get rid of the cheap labor, illegal Mexicans for instance, and employ only US citizens. Of course it might cost more.

But no worries it takes people off benefits.

Or is the Tea Party advocating a N.I.M.B.Y. approach. Not In My Back Yard.

Cut anything but what effects us?

Stupid approach because taking money out of an economy is going to hurt unless the money taken out is 100% going over seas.

Maybe the easiest solution is to raise taxes to a level that clears the debt. The lowering of taxes by Bush hasn't stimulated the economy enough. I saw a graph which showed a direct link to lending and the US economy under the last 5/6 last Presidents.

Has the Tea Party considered that solution?

Clueless...Bachmann and Paul are Federal law makers not State law makers... thus they cannot force cuts in their respective States as they do not have any authority to do so.

icymelon · 07-31-2011, 02:47 PM

most tea bagers don't really want to cut spending. military seems fine way to waste tax payers dollars. What they really want to do is roll back the new deal and put an end to compassionate conservatism in the us

IllTestYourGirls · 07-31-2011, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

just have assassinated bin Laden and other terrorist leaders.

But then all the defense contractors would have not made bank ...

This was Ron Paul's suggestion in 2001, that and to never have gone into Iraq.

baddog · 07-31-2011, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

They are busy dressing up and playing asinine games ...

"Idiot convention"

That sign is spot on.

marlboroack · 07-31-2011, 05:34 PM

Simply adding sugar.

Ethersync · 07-31-2011, 06:55 PM

They have not been arguing about cutting spending. They are arguing about how much (or how little) to raise spending...

Paul Markham · 07-31-2011, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Clueless...Bachmann and Paul are Federal law makers not State law makers... thus they cannot force cuts in their respective States as they do not have any authority to do so.

I'm sure even someone as clueless as you would see the irony in my post. Well I was wrong.

the point I'm trying to make is if the cuts hit hardest those screaming the loudest for them, they won't scream so loud. What they want is cuts to others peoples Government spending. If the "Tea Party" districts have a large agricultural economy, maybe they would like to start with those Government spending. Maybe if they have factories producing arms or large military bases in the District, they should close them to aid Government spending cuts.

As some of the post indicate. Those screaming for cuts are also sicking their hands in the honey pot. Maybe they would like to return that money.

Even Baddog, I'm sure you benefit from Government spending in your area. Roads, police, etc. Maybe you wouldn't be screaming for cuts, if those things got cut in your area.

Everyone wants less tax, more services and a better life style. Well the US has had it for decades. Funded by loans. The US, like many other countries, lived on a giant credit card of credit and loans. The ATM is running dry. The small cuts that have been put through will start to bite, watch what happens.

Then imagine what is going to happen as the cuts get deeper.

</irony> Just for those who missed it.

Paul Markham · 08-01-2011, 12:32 AM

Maybe this will bring it home to those here supporting cuts. Not personal as it will hit us all.

Are the beaches in SoCal free for people to walk on or paid entrance?

The maintenance of these beaches is free, it's paid for out of Government spending. So that's an excellent place to cut and then charge people who use the beaches.

Cut Government spending on freeway maintenance and construction and turn them all into toll roads.

After an earthquake, no one turns up to rescue you or repair the damage until the bill is paid, because maintenance on these services were cut.

As less money flows into the economy, people will have even less money to spend and will be looking for places to cut their own personal budgets. Porn is free online, so let's cancel those recurring memberships, not join any new sites and rely on free porn.

That's what cuts are about. Doesn't sound so good when it's your services and income they cut.

And don't fool yourself the major cuts will hit the unemployed. It cost $1 to keep someone in work for every $1 they earn. So if they earn $18,000 a year. Their costs are $18,000 = $36,000. Someone on benefits is likely to cost less. Yes there are exceptions, but on average it's cheaper to put someone on benefits than keep them in a direct non profit related job. Like a Life Guard on a beach.

Please don't nit pick like theking, think of it as examples.

07-31-2011, 07:24 AM	#1
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	What are the Tea Party doing to cut spending? Been watching the debates and votes on raising the debt ceiling and it got me thinking. The Tea Party seem to be the ones who are shouting that the debt needs to be cut. Which is right, they argue the Government spending needs to be slashed, which sounds good. However I was wondering what they are doing in their States to cut spending. Maybe Michele Bachmann. Should start at home and cut the Government offices, Transport, Policing in affluent areas and any other scheme that benefits the rich in her congressional district of Minnesota. Maybe Ron Paul. Should start at home and cut the Government offices, Transport, Policing in affluent areas and any other scheme that benefits the rich in his congressional district. Not social welfare cuts, except maybe spending on rent to landlords or spending is supermarkets, make these business give the food away. I see Ron is from Texas, so maybe he should force all the land owners to get rid of the cheap labor, illegal Mexicans for instance, and employ only US citizens. Of course it might cost more. But no worries it takes people off benefits. Or is the Tea Party advocating a N.I.M.B.Y. approach. Not In My Back Yard. Cut anything but what effects us? Stupid approach because taking money out of an economy is going to hurt unless the money taken out is 100% going over seas. Maybe the easiest solution is to raise taxes to a level that clears the debt. The lowering of taxes by Bush hasn't stimulated the economy enough. I saw a graph which showed a direct link to lending and the US economy under the last 5/6 last Presidents. Has the Tea Party considered that solution? __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

07-31-2011, 11:15 AM	#13
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Is that the same Moody's that rated Washington Mutual and AIG so highly? Then they went belly up ... But yes, if the TBill and TBond rates go up the banks' prime rate will rise along with business and consumer interest costs. All this balanced budget shit will just second dip this recession. Last edited by Barry-xlovecam; 07-31-2011 at 11:19 AM..

07-31-2011, 02:47 PM	#17
icymelon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 3,220	most tea bagers don't really want to cut spending. military seems fine way to waste tax payers dollars. What they really want to do is roll back the new deal and put an end to compassionate conservatism in the us __________________ Network Of Adult Blogs With Hardlink Rentals Available

07-31-2011, 06:55 PM	#21
Ethersync Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: London, Saint-Tropez, Bermuda, Moscow Posts: 5,289	They have not been arguing about cutting spending. They are arguing about how much (or how little) to raise spending... __________________ The best ePassporte replacement I have found: OKPAY

08-01-2011, 12:32 AM	#23
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Maybe this will bring it home to those here supporting cuts. Not personal as it will hit us all. Are the beaches in SoCal free for people to walk on or paid entrance? The maintenance of these beaches is free, it's paid for out of Government spending. So that's an excellent place to cut and then charge people who use the beaches. Cut Government spending on freeway maintenance and construction and turn them all into toll roads. After an earthquake, no one turns up to rescue you or repair the damage until the bill is paid, because maintenance on these services were cut. As less money flows into the economy, people will have even less money to spend and will be looking for places to cut their own personal budgets. Porn is free online, so let's cancel those recurring memberships, not join any new sites and rely on free porn. That's what cuts are about. Doesn't sound so good when it's your services and income they cut. And don't fool yourself the major cuts will hit the unemployed. It cost $1 to keep someone in work for every $1 they earn. So if they earn $18,000 a year. Their costs are $18,000 = $36,000. Someone on benefits is likely to cost less. Yes there are exceptions, but on average it's cheaper to put someone on benefits than keep them in a direct non profit related job. Like a Life Guard on a beach. Please don't nit pick like theking, think of it as examples. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

07-31-2011, 07:29 AM	#2
iamtam So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 1,211	ron paul is busy changing his mind again. so asking him for an opinion is useless, because he will give you the exact opposite answer the next day, mr flip flop. bachman is still out trying to "cure the gays". if she has that poor of a grip on the basics, i would have to see her trying to solve a monetary crisis.

07-31-2011, 07:33 AM	#3
Vendot Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Malaysia Posts: 3,376	Reminds me of an awesome Canadian band called "The Tea Party" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tea_Party Amazing band...... anyone got the "Splendor Solis" album?

07-31-2011, 08:52 AM	#6
Joshua G dumb libs love censorship Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,198	The tea party is amorphous. It has no history, no power & no single face of the party. As a result, the tea party typically reflects back peoples biases for & against the far right.

07-31-2011, 09:21 AM	#7
Joshua G dumb libs love censorship Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,198	one thing about making serious entitlement reforms that would balance the budget... nobody in any party wants to put a plan on paper that would make the entitlements run inside a balanced budget. The demographic numbers are ugly, & they will become obscene in 10 years when baby boomers really start sucking the life out of america. the answer to the entitlement mess is going to be delayed & reduced benefits. Things like raising the age limit, lowering COLAs, raising the amount people have to cover for their medical care. as soon as paul ryan put a plan out that ends the open ended nature of medicare spending, the repubs lost a special election in a safe repub district in NY. So no party will put anything on paper that actually solves the problem. its political suicide.

07-31-2011, 10:31 AM	#8
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	They are busy dressing up and playing asinine games ... "Idiot convention"

07-31-2011, 11:10 AM	#11
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,409	I would be impressed if our next president got elected using about 10 million in campaign funding... That would make me think... wow... this fucker can take us to the moon with shit you can buy at Radio Shack like John did!

07-31-2011, 11:24 AM	#15
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	In hind site, and that is always perfect, it would have been cheaper to have contained Saddam Hussein's Iraq and just have assassinated bin Laden and other terrorist leaders. But then all the defense contractors would have not made bank ...

07-31-2011, 05:34 PM	#20
marlboroack So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ☣ Posts: 9,327	Simply adding sugar.