Romney keeps away from Tea Party

[TexasCop]

Lots of questions.  Pardon me if I forget one.
 
1.  It's my opinion.  Like I said, I'm not a CPA.  I am, however, a realist.
2.  You and I are arguing the same point on welfare.  I could agree to a 5 year lifetime cap.  I know job training exists.  I'm saying we need that.  If that doesn't work or they fail in it, sorry.
3.  I think we're having confusion on definition.  When I say Palin wants the government to consume itself, I'm meaning she wants the government to overcome our huge deficit mostly through the downsizing of government.  That  sounds good on the campaign trail, but what cuts would be made?  I don't want basic and crucial government functions to go away.  I will admit my ignorance on Palin's full platform, so I'm open to enlightenment.
4.  I served in the United States Army from 1987 to 1994.

[rich_t]

Lots of questions.  Pardon me if I forget one.
 
1.  It's my opinion.  Like I said, I'm not a CPA.  I am, however, a realist.

I too am a realist.  But I at least try to form my opinions based on fact, not mere speculation.  You don't have to be a CPA to do basic math.  If you are spending more than you are receiving...  reduce your spending.  It seems to work for millions of households and many companies that manage to survive without government subsidies.

2.  You and I are arguing the same point on welfare.  I could agree to a 5 year lifetime cap.  I know job training exists.  I'm saying we need that.  If that doesn't work or they fail in it, sorry.

So we have at least one thing to agree on.

3.  I think we're having confusion on definition.  When I say Palin wants the government to consume itself, I'm meaning she wants the government to overcome our huge deficit mostly through the downsizing of government.  That  sounds good on the campaign trail, but what cuts would be made?  I don't want basic and crucial government functions to go away.  I will admit my ignorance on Palin's full platform, so I'm open to enlightenment.

I for one agree with Palin.  We need to drastically downsize the government at all levels.  I find it ironic that you seem to dislike Palin, or at least don't think her concepts will work, yet admit you are ignorant of her platform.

I'll ask again... what "basic and crucial government functions" are you referring to?  They shouldn't be that hard to list if you have put much critical thought into it.

[TexasCop]

It's overly simplistic to say, "It's easy, quit spending more than you are making."  That would work if we were trying to balance a checkbook.  We're not.  We have to make up a $14 TRILLION deficit.  I can't wrap my mind around how cutting spending here and there will cover such a huge gap.  Logic tells me that we have to go further than that or we're leaving this debt for the next generation. 
 
I gave examples early on of crucial government programs.....highways, social security, etc.  Here in Texas we get something like $2 billion per year from the federal highway funds.  I shudder to imagine how quickly our interstates will erode from the increased truck traffic (thanks NAFTA) without those funds.  My parents and my lone surviving grandmother depend on social security.  It really hurts them when they don't get the COLA bumps.  I can't imagine what would happen if it went away completely. How about federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, DEA and, to some extend, the CIA?  What about crucial agencies such as the FAA?  Will the oversight of airlines drop?  I want to know what cuts Palin has in mind.

[rich_t]

It's overly simplistic to say, "It's easy, quit spending more than you are making."  That would work if we were trying to balance a checkbook.  We're not.  We have to make up a $14 TRILLION deficit.  I can't wrap my mind around how cutting spending here and there will cover such a huge gap.  Logic tells me that we have to go further than that or we're leaving this debt for the next generation. 
 
I gave examples early on of crucial government programs.....highways, social security, etc.  Here in Texas we get something like $2 billion per year from the federal highway funds.  I shudder to imagine how quickly our interstates will erode from the increased truck traffic (thanks NAFTA) without those funds.  My parents and my lone surviving grandmother depend on social security.  It really hurts them when they don't get the COLA bumps.  I can't imagine what would happen if it went away completely. How about federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, DEA and, to some extend, the CIA?  What about crucial agencies such as the FAA?  Will the oversight of airlines drop?  I want to know what cuts Palin has in mind.

But it IS indeed just that easy.  What makes you think there is something overly complicated about the concept of not spending more than you receive?

Highways and Social Security is all you got when it comes to "basic and crucial government functions"?   

Social Security is an unconstitutional Ponzi scheme that the feds managed to foist upon the gullible back in the 1930s. 

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, that Texas would be able to maintain it's own roads if Texans weren't forced at federal gun point to work as virtual slaves to the Fed for the 1st 4 months of each year and instead kept that money local?

I have a challange for you.  Before raising taxes, what government spending would your recommend cutting if it were your decision?

You seem convinced that mere spending cuts won't balance the budget.  Prove or disprove the idea using actual facts instead of what you "feel".  The CBO puts out many reports to help you find acutal government expenses.  But I warn you, it is very dry reading.

One does not have to be a CPA to do basic math.

[TexasCop]

First off, you can drop the condescending tone.  It doesn't intimidate me and you're wasting your time if you're trying to make me look less intelligent than you because your opinion of me doesn't affect me.  I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just being blunt.  Secondly, I consider highway funds to be critical infrastructure.  If you disagree, then fine.  Social security, fine, that's debatable and I can concede that.

Yes, I know it's easy to say that not spending more than you make is wise fiscal policy.  However, how long will that take to knock out $14 trillion? 

[TexasCop]

And it's quite possible that you're smarter and more informed than I am.  It's also possible that your johnson is bigger and you drive a nicer car.  You're probably nicer than me and your cologne smells better. 
 
I'm here to exchange ideas, not stroke egos.

[rich_t]

First off, you can drop the condescending tone.  It doesn't intimidate me and you're wasting your time if you're trying to make me look less intelligent than you because your opinion of me doesn't affect me.  I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just being blunt.  Secondly, I consider highway funds to be critical infrastructure.  If you disagree, then fine.  Social security, fine, that's debatable and I can concede that.

Yes, I know it's easy to say that not spending more than you make is wise fiscal policy.  However, how long will that take to knock out $14 trillion?  

Allow me to be just as blunt.  I am not trying to intimidate you.  Nor am I trying to be condescending.  I am merely asking you a few questions.  If you don't want to or can't support your opinion with facts, that's on you.

I also don't give a shit about making you look less intelligent.  Either you will answer questions or you won't.  There ain't jack shit I can do about it either way.  I don't have an opinion of you.  I don't KNOW you.  I only have an opinion of what you have posted here and I know that doesn't make me any sort of expert on you.

Most of my BS count is due to me not walking lockstep with a handfull of "broken glass republicans" and agreeing with everything they have said here.  I am not here to impress anyone or make friends.  I disagree with some of what is posted here and have been rather vocal about it.  I am not trying to be your enemy, nor your friend.  I am merely asking questions and trying to learn more about your opinion and why you have the opinions that you do.

I have asked questions to try to understand why you have the POV that you have posted.  No more, no less.

I haven't called you a noob nor disregarded your input based on your post count.  I have not challanged your claim of being a cop or former military member.

You keep bringing up highways....  and I keep asking what else you consider basic and crucial government functions.  You have yet to respond.

I agree that highways are important, but they hardly encompass all government spending or even a significant portion thereof.

Now as to your question of:  how long will that take to knock out $14 trillion?

It will never be reduced without a significant cut in spending across the board, and history has proven time and time and time again that tax increases ain't gonna get it done.

What makes you think that it will be any different this time?

[rich_t]

And it's quite possible that you're smarter and more informed than I am.  It's also possible that your johnson is bigger and you drive a nicer car.  You're probably nicer than me and your cologne smells better. 
 
I'm here to exchange ideas, not stroke egos.

Seriously....  Exchange ideas then.  Don't get so butt hurt when your opinion is questioned.

[docstew]

Attero, we're already losing those companies. 
 
I'm not gonna pretend to have the right answers.  I vote for the folks who are smart enough to figure it out. 

 

I just wanted to use a bong smilie.

If you believe that the people that you vote for are smarter than you are, well, that's part of your problem right there. Don't assume just because someone gets elected they all of a sudden become supergeniuses.  For evidence, I refer you to Sheila Jackson-Lee.

[Lacarnut]

ENOUGH!!! Until you have facts proving otherwise, new members WILL NOT be treated this way!!! Knock. it. off.

Texascop can handle himself and if the two of you want to duke it out about politics, have at it. But we will NOT discount someone simply for being a Newbie.

This crap ends here.

He stated that Palin and Bush were FAR RIGHT EXTREMIST. I would like him to provide "FACTS." He is making accusations that he can not or will not back up.
I was under the impression the topic was about Romney. Guess not cause newbie does not address Romney's extreme views. He only takes pot shots at Palin.  

[true_blood]

Drinking the Tea will be a hinderance in the general election.  You will not be able to embrace them and win.

FAIL.

[true_blood]

I'm sorry, but Bok is correct.

No, not in this instance. He gave us Romney Care here in MA.
DO.NOT.WANT.

[Lacarnut]

No, not in this instance. He gave us Romney Care here in MA.
DO.NOT.WANT.

I for one will not vote for Romney. If the mushy, middle of the road Repubs nominate him, many conservatives will stay home. We tried McCain and that did not work out too well. Romney is an extremist since he signed Romney Healthcare and he was for abortion but now he is against it. He is a flip flopper and is too cozy with homosexual activists.

[Crazy Horse]

Rich,

First we need to reduce spending to get rid of the deficit, which will in turn start to reduce the debt. 

Second Texascop was right about getting rid of the payroll tax and go to some sort of flat tax which is basically a National sales tax.  That in itself would bring more revenue in to the Federal goverment as all those, what was about 35% don't pay any taxes, would have to start paying taxes for services and products purchased.  That would alllow the IRS personnel to be reduced by 99% if not all.  There is one big reduction in goverment salaries, pensions and so forth.  This would also get rid of the various tax credits given to those.

As of right now I too am one that hopes Govenor Palin doesn't run for office.  She has become to polarizing a figure and since the majority of people do no research on the canidates, we would have another four years of President Obama.  That is something I really do not wish to see on that fateful election night in 2012.

As for Romney..........I don't like him and never have, however it is so early still that I'm gonna keep the big britches on and not worry about it.  Right now the only one I like is Cain. 

[cavegal]

Now if he would just stay away from politics.

[Duke Nukum]

The problem with "independent" voters (not those who have strong views one way or the other, but those who don't have any either way) is that they're fickle and deliberately choose not to educate themselves on political matters. A Democrat gets into the White House, they are happy for a bit then get tired of him, then vote for a Republican, and the cycle repeats itself. Because they don't have strong views either to the Right or the Left, they don't vote consistently for either Right or Left, but for whatever isn't in the White House, depending on if it takes them four or eight years to get fed up enough with someone (and the ideology, conservative or liberal, that guy represents).

During the year, they don't pay enough attention to politics, I suspect. A little bit of the local news once in a while, or a few articles in the paper - that's it. As both serious Right- and Left-wing voters know, it takes more than dipping your toes in the water to be swimming, and it takes more than the occasional cursory glance at news sources to be informed. So, to "reach out" to independent voters, what needs to be done?

Either abandon your principles and appeal to them on a contrary basis vis-a-vis the guy who's in the White House, or stand firm on your principles and trust that an honest display of them will touch the hearts and minds of independents, who also want what's best for their country, even though they don't see the need to stay informed as a daily practice.

So, the Tea Party is hardly an instant death-blow to a candidate in the faces of independents. All the independents need to do is see what the Tea Party and any associated candidate has to offer and where they stand. If they aren't Left-leaning independents, they'll not be put off and probably attracted. Since most independents, despite their general lack of political interests, lean essentially either conservative or liberal, that is what determines much of how they vote, I think.

Besides, what's so "extreme" and "off-putting" about the Tea Party, anyway? They only want constitutional rights and limited, responsible government. Oh yeah, sooo hardcore and sooo extreme Only people who insist on letting the mainstream media influence their views could think that, not those who look at the Tea Partiers themselves and see just where they stand and what they think.

H-5

[Attero Dominatus]

Now if he would just stay away from politics.

[Attero Dominatus]

I for one will not vote for Romney. If the mushy, middle of the road Repubs nominate him, many conservatives will stay home. We tried McCain and that did not work out too well. Romney is an extremist since he signed Romney Healthcare and he was for abortion but now he is against it. He is a flip flopper and is too cozy with homosexual activists.

I will not vote for the Republican version of John Kerry either.

[Lacarnut]

Rich,

First we need to reduce spending to get rid of the deficit, which will in turn start to reduce the debt. 

Second Texascop was right about getting rid of the payroll tax and go to some sort of flat tax which is basically a National sales tax.  That in itself would bring more revenue in to the Federal goverment as all those, what was about 35% don't pay any taxes, would have to start paying taxes for services and products purchased.  That would alllow the IRS personnel to be reduced by 99% if not all.  There is one big reduction in goverment salaries, pensions and so forth.  This would also get rid of the various tax credits given to those.

As of right now I too am one that hopes Govenor Palin doesn't run for office.  She has become to polarizing a figure and since the majority of people do no research on the canidates, we would have another four years of President Obama.  That is something I really do not wish to see on that fateful election night in 2012.

As for Romney..........I don't like him and never have, however it is so early still that I'm gonna keep the big britches on and not worry about it.  Right now the only one I like is Cain. 

I doubt that those in favor of a flat tax have considered the fact that the real estate market would be devastated. Interest deductions would be eliminated. Private and commercial construction does not need a monkey wrench thrown at them while the economy is in the dumps. Charitable, education and other exemptions would also be eliminated under a fair tax plan. Good luck trying to sell that tax plan to the electorate. Changing the Commerce Clause would also be a hurdle with all the legal wrangling. .

Texascop has it ass backwards. We do not need more revenues. We need a hatchet taken to spending. It is idiotic to talk about raising taxes at a time when the economy is suffering. Spending cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars is the answer year after year. There is no quick fix and although the present tax system is terrible, the politicians could screw it up worse than it already is with a flat, fair or VAT tax.  

[rich_t]

Rich,

First we need to reduce spending to get rid of the deficit, which will in turn start to reduce the debt. 

Exactly.  I'm not saying that taxes may not have to be increased, but I want to try spending cuts first.  And I mean deep, piss off everyone spending cuts.

[rich_t]

I for one will not vote for Romney. If the mushy, middle of the road Repubs nominate him, many conservatives will stay home. We tried McCain and that did not work out too well. Romney is an extremist since he signed Romney Healthcare and he was for abortion but now he is against it. He is a flip flopper and is too cozy with homosexual activists.

Ditto.

[rich_t]

I doubt that those in favor of a flat tax have considered the fact that the real estate market would be devastated. Interest deductions would be eliminated. Private and commercial construction does not need a monkey wrench thrown at them while the economy is in the dumps. Charitable, education and other exemptions would also be eliminated under a fair tax plan. Good luck trying to sell that tax plan to the electorate. Changing the Commerce Clause would also be a hurdle with all the legal wrangling. .

Texascop has it ass backwards. We do not need more revenues. We need a hatchet taken to spending. It is idiotic to talk about raising taxes at a time when the economy is suffering. Spending cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars is the answer year after year. There is no quick fix and although the present tax system is terrible, the politicians could screw it up worse than it already is with a flat, fair or VAT tax.  

I am not convinced that most folks buy a home for the purpose of getting the interest deduction.

[Janice]

Kind of tough to draw a contrast between democrats and republicans when the repukes are sooooo busy trying to appear to be "not that much different from the dems". They want to appear to be "moderate" or "centrist". Which of course in reality ... they are.

The repuke elites hated Reagan (who was like "one of us"). And they will hate anybody favorable to tea party folk too, for the same reason. But it just so happens ... they (tea partiers) are the republican base. They are the conservatives. They are the "contrast". Unlike the current repuke "leadership". Hopefully we can vote them out this next election or 2.

Jesus said: "Since thou art neither cold nor hot, but are lukewarm ... I will spew thee out of my mouth."

Think McCain. Think Romney ... think repukes.

Or .... just ignore this, and rely on the NYTimes or the TVNews for wisdom "from above" (conventional wisdom).

[Crazy Horse]

I doubt that those in favor of a flat tax have considered the fact that the real estate market would be devastated. Interest deductions would be eliminated. Private and commercial construction does not need a monkey wrench thrown at them while the economy is in the dumps. Charitable, education and other exemptions would also be eliminated under a fair tax plan. Good luck trying to sell that tax plan to the electorate. Changing the Commerce Clause would also be a hurdle with all the legal wrangling. .

Texascop has it ass backwards. We do not need more revenues. We need a hatchet taken to spending. It is idiotic to talk about raising taxes at a time when the economy is suffering. Spending cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars is the answer year after year. There is no quick fix and although the present tax system is terrible, the politicians could screw it up worse than it already is with a flat, fair or VAT tax.  

So the fair tax sucks cause you or others would lose their intrest deductions on taxes.

really how is that different from other hand outs???

I think you have it ass backwards

[Lacarnut]

So the fair tax sucks cause you or others would lose their intrest deductions on taxes.

really how is that different from other hand outs???

I think you have it ass backwards

First of all, learn how to read. I pointed out some of the disadvantages of the flat tax. Show me where I said the flat tax sucks. What I said was that raising taxes (Texascop) sucks. BTW, my house is paid for so I do not have interest deductions. Ask anyone in the real estate business what a flat tax would do to the housing market.
Looks like you are the one that has it ass backwards.