The Tea Party...
 

I've made no bones of not being fond of many of the Tea Party and it's candidates. Honestly I don't understand most of their ideas or how they would work. But the main reason I dislike the Tea Party is because of candidates like Glen Urquhart who recently stated-


"Do you know, where does this phrase separation of Church and State come from? Does anybody know? ... Actually, that's exactly, it was not in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. He was reassuring that the federal government wouldn't trample on their religion. The exact phrase 'separation of Church and State' came out of Adolph Hitler's mouth, that's where it comes from. Next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State ask them why they're Nazis."

Of course that's not true. The truth and the Tea Party seem to be in constant conflict. In Jefferson's letters (to the Danbury Baptists) he stated-

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."


I'm tried of this revisionism history. I know all politicians do it but to me this is beyond the common bull shit spread by someone trying to get elected or re-elected.

So, do you support the Tea Party? If so what do you make of statements like this?

like the man said: "there is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action..."

that man being johann wolfgan von goethe...

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" Isaac Asimov

The meeting of pride and ignorance is worthy of scorn and marginalization.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/customp...ic147753_2.gif
unless the morons are in the majority. Then it is, you betcha.

Jesus Christ we've got to get some Quality Control going...

*Facepalm*

This is the central problem with the Tea Party not actually being a party or organization of any formal kind. Any fool can call themselves "Tea Party XYZ," and any number of other fools will follow them based solely on that, no matter what other silliness they come up with. It's getting to be as bad as the damned Unions. The fiscal and economic and social-liberties concerns that animated the Tea Party movement in the first place are starting to get lost under an avalanche of sectarianism and liquifacted stupid.

See I'm not even sure they're a 'party." I mean most of the candidates that claim to be "tea party" members are heavily funded by two lobbyist run think tanks- Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works and of course the billionaire Koch brothers. And naturally anything they do gets free promotion from Fox News. So there's a lot of funding coming in from two or three main sources and free publicity but does that make them a party? I think that just means they're not a grass roots roots movement, as so many claim, but it doesn't make them a "party."

i think the tea party shouldn't be underestimated. i think they're dangerous and that how problematic they are is concealed behind the clowntime surfaces they seem to feel the need to generate and maintain.

but mostly, i think they're depressing. that there is such a thing, that it resonates in all its vacant snippiness...ugh.

In addition to Jefferson's letter in the OP:

Anyone with an Internet connection can find the same answer to this idiot's claim, and they can find it in under 5 minutes.

Of course, this assumes one is capable of critical thinking and has the capacity for doubt. It also assumes that one supports the idea of a separation between church and state.

We live at a time when this kind of legitimate information is literally at your fingertips, and you can confirm any of it with actual books. But, alas, that takes time, energy, and care. It's better to just follow your compulsions. Go, Tea Party!

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

I may be overreacting, but there are certain similarities between today's "T", the political climate and the economic situation to conditions in Europe eighty-five to ninety years ago.

Of course I'm overreacting! (But that's what they probably said then

We also, sadly, live in an age where what ever you want to be true can also easily be verified. Want to believe 9-11 was an inside job? There's a ton of web sites to verify your belief. Want to believe Ann Coulter is really a dude? No problem, just Google it. That too can be verified. Want to believe trickle down economics works? There's a whole TV network telling you how well it works and why it's fair.

"Anger" is not a political platform

Anger is looking more and more like a political platform. In fact being pissed off at the people in charge has lead to a lot of good change historically. My problem with the current level and direction of anger is it doesn't seem to be 100% directed at the responsible parties. It's taken both sides to dig this hole, blaming one is just being blind. My other problem is the anger doesn't have any realistic solutions attached to it. All it seem to has is a bunch of people blaming other people and stating "I'm no longer willing to pay anything more then my fair share." Most of these people were 100% for the wars, paying for them was another thing. Don't want to pay for it? Fucking fiance it! Most people complain about getting what they deserve... I think if they got what they really deserved they'd be really disappointed

The critical error here is assuming the tea party is a political orientation. It is not. It is a religious faith composed of anti-intellectualism, religious extremism, and pure fear.

That is why no argument ever works, and facts are so unnecessary. Challenging an extremist faith with facts doesn't produce thought and change, it reaffirms their beliefs that they are persecuted, beset by enemies on all sides, and having their faith tested by a higher power.

To take examples from two people I know: One person was basically a teabagger in all but name, but he claimed to have various (inaccurate) factual reasons for having his beliefs and never articulated them in terms of morality, and even though I voted differently than him he was still quite happy that I'd voted at all. After much argument and confrontation with facts and evidence he now supports healthcare reform to the point of even considering a public option a good idea and grudgingly considers president obama to be doing an "okay" job.

Another person would rather I not vote than vote different, and flat out refers to any tax rate of even 35% to be "evil" and "immoral", along with most other things it's framed in terms of morality and patriotism. Nothing I say to this person ever does anything but convince them that I'm an enemy to america.

Very well said.

I'm not sure that's a completely honest assessment either. The "Tea Party" folks seem to be made up by combining a lot of different ideologies. I have a couple friends who I know support the Tea Party and neither of them have any real serious religious views. They just believe they're getting screwed tax wise and want that to stop. I think they're wrong. I think they're probably not paying their fair end of things. But that's all debatable. I wouldn't say either are religious nor anti-intellectual.

About the only thing I can say I firmly believe all the Tea Party people have in common is a serious dislike or even hatred for anything Obama does.

I'm surprised that I am defending the tea party, but there are blue dog democrats, environmental dems, gay dems, feminist dems,...

It did start as a anti-tax, anti-government regulation organization, and has recently shifted to take a more moral, pro Christian agenda. But, they still accept people who are for smaller government as long as they vote with them on social issues.

The Republicans used to have a big tent as well, but the tea party has shifted the values to the right, and has left a lot of people with nowhere to go.

No, they go to the party that'll accept them. This term I'll be voting Dem for the first time in my life.

I'm registered Green but I generally find myself voting for Democrats.

I don't view the Tea Party movement as a political party, group, or organization. I don't view it as a group with common ideologies; I view it as a group with common goals (mostly).

It is not a generative platform based on a shared ideology; it is a platform of protest driven by an agreed-upon negation.

Anyone who calls themselves a "Tea Party candidate" isn't doing so to identify with a particular group and their wider interests; they're doing it as a mode of politicking.

This makes sense, as the Tea Party started out as gatherings, rallies, and protests before they gained all of the national political exposure which transformed the entire Tea Party outlook/agenda.

"The meeting of pride and ignorance is worthy of scorn and marginalization."

This juvinile mentalitly about "the other" (hehe) has played out very successfully here at the TFP. I don't mean to burst your bubbles, but it's nothing more than the numbers. I do apologize I periodically can't help myself from periodically interupting.

For me the most comical part of it is the political party that has made non-careers of countless young people getting arrested in political protest and calling it something like "civil disobedience", call a bunch of people that don't have smiles on their faces in protest to you "angry mobs".
Also just as funny is your self described intellectualism. Quoting John locke, jesus christ, Danbary baptist, Thomas jefferson, johanne van sucked my dick last night, and George Santy something....all crazy smart people I suppose. Don't I feel stupid and anti-intellectual. I'll find some smart people to quote that have nothing to do with what I'm saying soon probably.

I also like your language. I find that after the George Bush presidency, the collective use of the word "snippy" in your moments of trying to rise above is particulary amusing.

That "religious extremism" if uttered in the same sentence as "islam" is islamophobic, but here when talking about the tea party...well, duh. Western civilization defend yourselves!!

I"m so pure fear and anti-intellectual. We all are. We're also depressed - its our ideology, we can't help it.

And I rest my case.

matthew, passive-aggressive finger pointing and the false accusations aside, is there anything constructive you want to add?

I support the financial conservatism of the Tea Party. I have a couple cousins who also support it financial conservatism. I don't support any attempt to try to impose religion or support religious bigotry.

This is just one example of stupid and one example of revisionism. I can find examples of both from both the left and the right. I look at this as a badly misguided attempt to generate enthusiasm by members of the public, and as an embarrassment to any party.

Also, as others have stated, anybody can claim to be a Tea Party member, just as anybody can claim to be a Republican, Democrat, Green, Communist, Socialist, or whatever. Crazy and stupid people too.

---------- Post added at 08:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 AM ----------

So it was ok for George Soros to try to buy the 2004 election?

---------- Post added at 08:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 AM ----------

I think there's much more to be concerned with from the left. I'm old enough to have lived thru the late 60s and remember the riots and terrorist activities that were sponsored by the left with groups like the Weathermen and the SDS behind some of the terrorist acts.

I'm really not that concerned about any attempt to form a state sponsored religion. Even if someone tried to state that Christianity was the state sponsored religion, you would first have to get that past the numerous Christian denominations who can't even agree among themselves who is a Christian. There are different denominations that don't even get along, even to the extent of religious persecution. Besides which, part of the rationale for migration from Europe to the US was to get away from state sponsored religion.

I hope you periodically don't mind if I periodically call you on your interupting.
For me, the most comical part is how overtly astroturf this whole thing really is. what corporations were funding the 2003 protests against the war? NONE. We had no media wing of the Democratic party organizing, funding, and running the protests. Why? Because we were honestly protesting against something we knew to be wrong. The Tea Party isn't protesting against something they know to be wrong, they're protesting against progress because that's what they're told to do. They're fighting for more deregulation, they're fighting to protect the tax cuts for the wealthy, they're fighting against anything that could possibly cause trouble for the richest people on Wall Street or the richest CEOs.
I was quoting Isaac Asimov because he put eloquently a point relevant to the topic at hand. And it stands. Where is the Tea Party on climate science? Or evolution? Or the age of the Earth? Or basic economics? Or history?
Rise above what? George W. Bush was a horrible president. That has nothing to do with bitter partisanship or mindlessly following what Fox News has to say.
I'll be here when you want to step down off the cross.
Nope.

[IMG]http://www.motifake.com/image/demoti...1236295906.jpg[/IMG]
What other country can you put DEMOCRAT infront of a politican running for office and the brilliant electorate will re-vote them into office.

(drive by for members who like posting pictures)

Big deal if tea party members are for fewer taxes, hell I'm for fewer taxes, want to make it fair? 10% national sales tax on everything except food.

I'm just going to assume our dear friend matt got on here last night drunk.

In answer to your OP tully: No, I don't support the Tea Party. I would say that I find it simply to be very tacky, except that I'm afraid of people being roped in by the mob mentality.

edit: possible subconscious slip

As a Republican all of my life, it astounds me that the top 10% have convinced the majority of Americans to believe such a lie.

Sales taxes are not fair, they are regressive. I know you'll follow up with "rich people buy more and buy bigger stuff so they pay more!" Just realize that poor and middle class can not save as much of their income in the bank, but spend the majority of their income on must-haves. You mention all but food, but there are a LOT of other must-haves to function in America.

Computer, refrigerator, proper clothing, internet connection, electricity, water, etc. etc. etc.

If you spend 80% of your income and are taxed at 8%, you pay a MUCH higher percentage of your income than a 10%er who can EASILY afford to sit on 40% of their income.

Now you'll be tempted to say something about needing to save, work harder, boostraps, and all. The deck is stacked against anybody making less than $120k, these people (i.e. lets face it everyone posting on this thread) don't deserve more trump cards being given to the other guys.

It all seems to be circular, this talk about taxes, whether it be support for tax cuts or criticism of progressive taxation. Those who both support tax cuts and criticize progressive taxation are essentially promoting the idea that the poor should pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes while the wealthy should pay less.

I think the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer just fine as it is. If it's not broke, don't fix it, right?

'Have you guessed the riddle yet?' the Hatter said, turning to Alice again.
'No, I give it up,' Alice replied: 'what's the answer?'
'I haven't the slightest idea,' said the Hatter.
'Nor I,' said the March Hare.
Alice sighed wearily. 'I think you might do something better with the time,' she said, 'than waste it in asking riddles that have no answers.'

"Do you know, where does this phrase separation of Church and State come from? Does anybody know...?"

Seaver is living proof fiscal conservatism no longer has a place in the Republican party. Based on what I know, it hasn't been since 1980.

I would have voted for Ike.

Ike taxed the top marginal bracket at around 85% on average, and he's the guy that added "Under God" to the pledge. I've had people openly accuse me of "communist revisionism" for pointing that out.

In God We Trust on the money as well.

But that didn't have anything to do with McCartney did it? I don't know much about him, but I think he would fit in at Fox News quite well.

No. I don't like this system we have where the folks with the most cash usually win. I wish we could figure a way to take the money out of politics. I like to see some real grass roots movements.

i think the tea party is a strange revolt of the serfs. they are revolting against the scary impersonal modern capitalist system and want to replace it with a new feudalism in which they will be exploited by lords whose name they know directly and be able maybe once a year or so to visit the lord's manor and spend the rest of their time pretending they are that person. they'll be able to console themselves about their miserable lot in life by thinking about some imaginary natural order and how great it is that they know their place in that natural order even if that places is at the bottom of a giant chute that delivers shit onto them at least they'll know the name of the person who squeezes off the bon-bons at the opposite end.

sometimes i think the tea party is merely a giant paranoid reaction to the scale of globalized capitalism, from which can follow a sense of being-erased as a person or a sense that the framework within which one had operated is being dissolved. and thanks to the giant passivity generating machine that is american edutainment, these folk can't relativize their own position. so they panic. and then there are very wealthy individuals committed to the politics of being narcissistic assholes who are willing to spend vast sums of money directing this panic this way and that.

either way, it's all counter-intuitive. i would have thought people would revolt against capitalism. but these people want to revolt against what prevents capitalism from descending into barbarism on its way to imploding. they are revolting against the mechanisms that enable the system as it is to operate at all. their solution to a wobbly-bad situation is to make it worse.

sometimes i wonder if the tea party is full of trotskyists.

It wasn't about McCarthy, it was a simple fix to try to prevent further revolutions in Latin America. By doing so, he tried to force a point between the enforced atheism of the Soviets and the open religion of the Americans to the heavily Catholic Latin America.

I disagree. I believe as you do this is a reaction to the massive shifts caused by globalization, but I also believe it's a bit more.

The older generation is finding their children without jobs, their pensions long gone and their 401k's losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and are forced (or have friends that are) to work at Walmart because no other company will hire retirement age workers. They are nostalgically looking back to when they remember times being different (i.e. '50s) and desperately want that back. Unfortunately they have collective amnesia and don't realize that when they were young their parents paid MUCH higher taxes, which paid for all the nice parks/pools/schools/etc that they remember. It was also after WWII when international competition was 0 and very strong tariffs kept manufacturing jobs in country.

This collective anger is being redirected by a few really rich people with really bad ideas... and it's not being pointed out by the media unfortunately.

Maybe they're the disciples of Leon Trotsky and Ayn Rand's secret love child.

I wouldn't be surprised if many Tea Partier's "minds were blown" by Atlas Shrugged and would rather see American society shift in the direction of Objectivist principles. Maybe that's what they're protesting—those very things that are getting in the way of that.

Actually Ayn Rand wouldn't be accepted into the current Republican Party. She was a lesbian atheist after all....

That's the only problem. However, I wouldn't put it past them if they were to cherry-pick.

EDIT: Oh, you mean the actual Ayn Rand.... Well, they probably wouldn't let Lincoln or Roosevelt in either—too progressive....

The anti-taxers never bring up what happened to the economy under Bush's tax policy versus Clinton's tax policy. I cannot take them seriously until they can rectify the differences between those two policies and their respective effect on the economy.

Let's go back a bit further:

An example of fad economics occurred in 1980, when a small group of economists advised Presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan, that an across-the-board cut in income tax rates would raise tax revenue. They argued that if people could keep a higher fraction of their income, people would work harder to earn more income. Even though tax rates would be lower, income would rise by so much, they claimed, that tax revenues would rise. Almost all professional economists, including most of those who supported Reagan's proposal to cut taxes, viewed this outcome as far too optimistic. Lower tax rates might encourage people to work harder and this extra effort would offset the direct effects of lower tax rates to some extent, but there was no credible evidence that work effort would rise by enough to cause tax revenues to rise in the face of lower tax rates. … People on fad diets put their health at risk but rarely achieve the permanent weight loss they desire. Similarly, when politicians rely on the advice of charlatans and cranks, they rarely get the desirable results they anticipate. After Reagan's election, Congress passed the cut in tax rates that Reagan advocated, but the tax cut did not cause tax revenues to rise.

—From economist Gregory Mankiw's Principles of Macroeconomics (3rd ed.) in a section entitled "Charlatans and Cranks"

Nicholas Gregory "Greg" Mankiw is an American macroeconomist. From 2003 to 2005, Mankiw was the chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors. His publications are ranked among the most influential of the over 22,000 economists registered with RePEc (Research Papers in Economics). [Note also that Mankiw has been skeptical of the amount of the recent stimulus spending.]
N. Gregory Mankiw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

seaver---we're saying similar things. i just have a peculiar coffee-addled shorthand that perhaps minimized that. anyway, the reorganization of the american economy, the fracturing of the manufacturing sector, the crushing of the union movement, the collapse of the institutional and cultural logics that made collective bargaining arrangements a useful paradigm for thinking wage relations, so that expansions in consumer credit were tied to predictable wage increases in the leading industrial sectors--all the features that made the american/fordist model functional during the period it was in effect from after world war 2 through the 1970s.

the nixon administration was deeply reactionary and full of people so saw in this actually relatively functional model of capitalism some spectre of democratic socialism so the administration moved to fundamentally undermine it, replacing it with more "market" orientations. simplifying a bit (because, well, it's a messageboard) the nixon period opened the way for the reagan thing, and the reagan thing is what descended neoliberalism like a giant fungus over us all.

much of what the tea party is freaked out about seems to follow in a straight line from the implementation of **exactly** the kind of capitalism they continue to endorse.

so they really make no sense in that respect.

that would be one UGLY baby

let's see.......I'm certainly intelligent. I'm not religious in that I don't follow any specific faith, and I have no fear. So how does that label work again? :rolleyes:

the folk i've talked to who are active in the tea party share an incoherent sense of Something Being Horribly Wrong that despite their personality and political differences **none** of them can articulate either in it's specific causes (beyond the idea that Something Is Wrong) and still less in terms of plausible solutions (beyond RUN AWAY). it doesn't make them individually stupid people. what it does is shows what happens when you put people in a movement predicated on a debilitating, stupid ideology---or in this case something that's not even clear enough to be an ideology.

obviously, because i've always followed people who didn't know shit.

seriously, hatred of those whose views and ideas you don't agree with really skews the perceptions of people who try to articulate the hatred into something intelligible.

There's "don't agree with," then there's flat out, irrefutably "wrong." Catering to ignorance is, uh, ignorant, and I don't think anyone should be asked to meet ignorance "half way."

Not so much again as still the first time around since you apparently didn't get it. Now this is what you quoted:

Aaaand here's our friend Mr. Context:

So returning to your arguments one by one and in no particular order:

The "label" is that being a teabagger is in and of itself a personal subscription to a "religion" of anti-intellectualism, hate, and fear. Whether or not you want to admit the fear is entirely up to you but the actions speak louder than words and joining up with these people is a really loud action.

Also note the italics. Anti-intellectualism isnt the same as anti-intelligence, there are plenty of technically-intelligent people (like my father the human calculator and most of the redneck branch of the family tree) that are also rabidly anti-intellectual and have a seething hatred for anyone who in the words of one of my aunts "knows too many things".

As for your first and last points...

:rolleyes:

Taxes are lower now than they've been in over a generation. Things are in the shitter. Turns out the whole lower taxes thing is complete bullshit. We have small government, we have less taxes, and we're in a depression. Compare that to when we had larger government and more taxes.

You can't argue with the facts.

No but you can ignore them.

Small government? Really? Even after Obama presided over some of the largest expansions of govenment services and spending in history?

A democrat believing in small government is like an athiest believing in God

We're not in a depression.

What is Obama expansion compared to Bush Jr.? Bush Jr. and the neo-cons spent money like no tomorrow... all borrowed for the tax cuts of course but they spent like crazy. I saw the right leaning CATO guys came out with a study in 2006 or 7 and found bush increase the Fed's by something like 30% or more.

Least Obama's spending has been more focused on helping out people hurting in the US.

I don't think we really have a small government either. Both Bush and Obama have expanded the size of our government all while fighting wars on two fronts to boot. Hell I don't think we've had a small efficient federal government in the better part of 200 years now.

EDIT: I agree Tully how anybody that support smaller government could support George Bush is beyond me.

The problem with the idea of "small government" from the perspective of the Tea Party is that it's likely a pipe dream. What I can glean from the movement is that many are strict constitutionalists who would like low taxes lowered and a big budget balanced all during a severe recession.

Maybe they're along the lines of libertarians who'd like to see government be no more than an agent for upholding laws, building and maintaining infrastructure, and coordinating foreign policy and organizing the military to support it—but no more.

What you have there is small government, yes, but there are very few real-life examples of this kind of governance where it has worked on a long-term basis. It's like communism in a way; it looks good on paper, but....

I don't think most people would want the ultimate "small government"; I think instead people would rather see responsible government. The thing about Obama's spending that people should keep in mind is that a whole crapload of it is a short-term expenditure in the form of stimulus spending, and it was done on an emergency basis. How many conservatives took to the streets when Bush Jr. opened up the coffers and kicked them over post-9/11?

Small government is an easy slogan without having making the hard choices.

And the few choices I have seen expressed by Tea Party candidates certainty dont reflect a majority opinion - dismantle EPA, privatize Social Security, unemployment insurance is unconstitutional, end all earmarks (pennies on the budget dollar), etc.

And, not one has explained how supporting an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket will not result in significant loss of revenue ($4 trillion over 10 years) and growing debt.

That's an interesting fiction.

We've been living in a time of smaller government for a long time now. When you compare the United States to other industrialized nations, our government is actually quite small (except for defense, of course). This idea that we need even smaller government is nothing but a cover for increasing corporate control, regardless of whether not the people clamoring for smaller government know it or not.
It's small compared to other nations.

It will be small when we are once again sitting at a 10% tax burden.

You mean like last year?

But I think that's the problem, small is a relative term and can mean different things to different people. I think what people really want when they say small government is efficiency, cut down on the bureaucracy, pointless offices and wasteful spending...but what you cut, streamline and where money is wasted is all up for debate too.

I agree with DC its a quick, easy slogan that sounds great at first but when you start thinking about it, its a different story.

...never the less there are plenty of good arguments for streamlining and adhering to efficiency (especially if you want lower taxes), but you have to be willing to make those cuts across the board and not just when its convenient to you. How many Tea Partiers will be just as willing to cut military spending as they are social programs?

The thing is, one person's pork is another person's valiant struggle for justice. Some people think Social Security is bureaucracy that needs to be cut. I think about half the defense budget is unnecessary and should be cut.

After the Bush tax cuts, money collected by the federal government went up, not down.

Obama's plan is not a tax cut, but a tax increase on top earners. A tax increase during a recession. The suggestion that "rich" people won't "spend" the money is an ignorant statement. the issue is not about "spending", it is about "investing". Investment has long lasting implications, spending does not. One reason job growth is slow is due to unwillingness of people to invest in the future. We are seeing an increase in merger and acquisition activity, which is not what we want. Corporations and "rich" people are sitting on cash, we need tax policy that is predictable so that people feel comfortable putting money to work. Buying TV's and cell phones, etc. does not make for a strong recovery.

Spending and investing are connected. If people start spending money on consumer goods, inventories drop and they need to be replenished. If the spending grows to a level where demand outstrips supply, what happens? There's market growth and investors want a piece of it.

The trick is to figure out how to get the money moving. Is it easier to get consumers to spend money if you let them keep more of it in a down economy or is it easier to get capitalists to invest money if you let them keep more of it in a down economy?

If you ask me, it's seems easier to get people to spend. It's only when there are opportunities for growth will investors want to invest. It doesn't help to put the cart in front of the ox.

We had a smaller government until Obama took over. The 2010 budget increase was about 15% year to year and the 2011 budget increase looks like about 10%. By comparison, Bush's budget increases were smaller than that.

United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have to measure it as budget compared to GDP or per capita in order to compare us to other countries. As of 2009, tax collections were only 15% of the GDP, which is frighteningly low, in fact it's the lowest in half a century. We can compare that the the rapid inflation of debt, which is of course relevant, but please don't pretend that somehow the government was small under Bush and suddenly massive under Obama. That simply isn't so. It was small-medium under Bush and now it's slightly more medium but still small under Obama.

Comparing the budget to GDP or per capita has absolutely nothing to do with the percentage increase in the federal budget year to year, where Obama is doing a fine job of increasing the budget much faster than Bush did.

I also really don't care what the comparison is to budgets in other countries. First you need to be comparing total tax burdens in each country from local entity up thru national entity to get the entire story and to also properly account for federal mandates that affect state and local taxes.

Second, circumstances and political agendas are different from country to country. Just because socialism is more prevalent in Europe does not justify it's expansion here. If I wanted to live under the European social and political model, I would move to Europe. I tend to not look at Europe as an example of outstanding success in economic or political matters.

I hate this group-think.

Honestly are you telling me that 4% of personal income would cause investors to stop buying into companies? Don't even tell me that 4% is the difference between the desire to make more money or sit like a fat kid on the bench.

Besides, the nations corporations HAVE well over a trillion dollars sitting idle waiting for the economy to get better. If the supply-side logic held true that money would be currently spent creating new jobs... which they're clearly not doing. Therefore, if companies owned by rich people are not reinvesting to grow the economy why would we expect the rich to do the opposite?

Government spending as a percentage of GDP in the U.S. is sitting anywhere between 21 and 25% even after Obama's spending, which is indeed extremely low compared to most other developed nation (Russia is an exception, but they do spend more). If you do the comparisons, you will find the U.S. is sitting amongst many developing nations.

It's not so much that the U.S. overspends, it's that it undertaxes with regard to its budgetary and social spending targets, under both Bush jr. and Obama.

They call the U.S. the richest land in the history of the world; it's too bad it's a nation of misers and penny-pinchers. This is an exaggeration, I know, but you get the point.

Lets just let the historical top marginal income tax rates speak for themselves.

We shouldn't, but obviously if they have so much more money than everyone else they deserve to have more money than everyone else and it's immoral to do anything that might interfere with that because it is.

Once you get rid of everything that's factually incorrect you're left with nothing but arguments that it's somehow just morally wrong to help the unfortunate or tax the fortunate.


Not so much an exaggeration, our gini coefficient is frankly absurd for a first world nation. Wealth is one thing, but when a massive majority of all INCOME across the nation is going to single digit percents then something is out of whack. The difference between now and when Rockefeller et al were basically getting the entirety of the nation's income is that they felt it was a requirement that they put significant quantities of that income right back into the people they got it from, hence basically inventing modern philanthropy. That tax rates were capable of actually paying for things helped.

Now all that happens when you lower taxes is that multinational corporations and their executives, assuming they were paying ANY tax revenue to begin with (which is a big one these days), just get to pay out more bonuses to everyone which they then get to spend on... whatever people making more money an hour than I'll make in a year spend that much money on.

Bullshit.

2009 vs. 2009 - Wikipedia

Other people have taken care of the accounting part. The other part that needs to be taken care of is that a significant chunk of the budget is actually allocated to entitlements and thus not subject to year to year controls. Bush's medicare part D, for example, is more expensive than anything Obama has created by several orders of magnitude.

I see, so in a conversation about how big or small the government is, you refuse to look at any other governments in order to determine an objective, verifiable scale. I see this as nothing but an admission you can't back up your religious faith in the big government talking points.

There's nothing in your reference that describes the year to year increase in the budget. Deficit, yes, but that's a different question.

---------- Post added at 05:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 AM ----------

If you look at the detail at this link, the discretionary spending increased 13%

2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This thread is nothing more then people debating in favor trickle down economics and others against. History has shown they don't freaking work. If they did I'd have no problem supporting them... but they don't. We tried them at least twice now and every time more of the middle class ends up in the ranks of poverty. The more people that sink in poverty the worse off we are as a nation. We keep doing this and we just end up with fewer and fewer people having the vast majority of the wealth and a mass amount of families unable to obtain a decent living wage.

Poverty numbers are soaring while taxes are a near record lows. The wars and all the spending done by the GOP while they were in charge hasn't been paid and none of them seem to have any interest in paying it. They want to wipe it out by cutting off poor people from receiving services. Great then we have even more people who can't afford health care, food or a decent education for their children. Not only that but they won't be paying much, if any, in taxes either. Seriously why is this even a debate? Are wealthy and greedy people so worried about losing a few % points of their income so much they're willing to let the US sink into becoming a third world nation? How American.

if by "worked" you mean that neo-liberal/washington consensus/supply side economic policies have resulted in a redistribution of wealth unprecedented that has made the united states resemble guatemala, that shining beacon of social and economic justice and stability, that capitalist shangri-la, then yes, they worked.

Investment is different than spending. Investment leads to innovation, productivity gains, standard of living increases, increased tax bases, etc. Spending is current consumption. A farmer can spend $1,000 on a TV or the farmer can invest $1,000 in seed corn. We need investment. Investment will fuel employment. Employment will fuel current consumption. But, forgive me for yet another supply side argument - it is ingrained in my psyche.

We need the next Microsoft, the next Apple, the next Ebay, the next Google. We need people who can take an idea and turn it into a multi-billion dollar enterprise. Government needs to creat an environment for that to happen.

---------- Post added at 06:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 PM ----------

I want smaller government, as measured as a percentage of GDP. Thanks.

My point is that no one will invest unless there's a market. There's no need for innovation and productivity if not enough people are buying anything.

People aren't investing for a lack of money, they're not investing because sitting on the cash is safer at the moment.

What's the point of investing $1,000 in seed corn if you'll only have to dump the yield into a Third World market?

The magic happens on the margins.

Every decision made and every decision you make has a pivot point, a point where it turns from no to yes or yes to no.

So, yes. Millions of jobs pivot on decisions on something as small as a 4% swing. Then there is a trend or momentum affect. If competitors are expanding, growing, adding employees, it will impact my outlook on the future. In business perception can become reality. And, perhaps the real issue is not the 4%, but confidence levels.

If you are sitting on a pile of money and you expect things to get worse, you hold on to cash - we are in an environment where cash is king. If you expect things to get better you may not only spend your cash but use leverage for growth. Think of the housing market. If I can buy a $150,000 house six months from now at $125,000, I wait. If in 6 months I expect it to be $175,000 I buy now. People, business or market participants are rational. I know some don't agree, but decision making can be explained and predicted with enough information.

---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------

There was no market for airplanes before people invested time and money in flight.

Supply side.

To keep the pump primed. An old fashion water pump required a outside source of water to get the pump to start producing water. If you consume the outside source of water, you are screwed. It is often easier to keep you pump operating than it is to re-start it.

What were the markets for rail, automobiles, and oceanliners like?

My point is, people won't invest in existing markets if they are contracting or if they are up one day and down the next. Without the spending to support these markets, they are a huge risk, and investors don't like that kind of risk, so they sit on their money.

No one said to stop the pump, but no one's going to build aqueducts if not enough people are drinking the water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAQDz6m2XPk\

intergender forest elves from sweden provoked by the arrival of politics like those advocated by the tea partiers, like those advocated by the right in the states.

way more interesting to watch this than read a bunch of tired supply-side bromides.
you can swap subtitles into english by clicking the cc button.

Dear God, what pretentious, laughable tripe.

why yes. yes it is. thanks for stopping by.

Socialists in Sweden are a bunch of weirdos :-)

You mean to tell me there's a move afoot to eliminate socialism in Sweden? Really? In a supposed socialist utopia?

Why on earth would I support socialism, where the state takes away what I worked for to give it to somebody they decide needs it more?

I suppose one way socialism might benefit me is if I was to quit my job and let the government take somebody else's nice stuff and give it to me because I'm such a deserving person.

Seriously, I have far more confidence that I can be successful under capitalism and buy my own nice stuff than to sit around in a socialist paradise waiting for the government to give me nice stuff.

what's funny in your post, dogzilla, is pretty much everything.

i don't think you have the first idea what democratic socialism is.
i don't recall anyone at all having referred to sweden as a socialist paradise. not at least anyone who knows what they're talking about.

the funniest thing is that democratic socialism has worked as a political orientation for managing the swedish economy for a long time. the problems it's encountered have been either a function of being in the majority for too long or having been caught in a protracted recession which strained the full-employment priorities that shape the system (ye gods! full employment! equitable wage levels! comprehensive health care! who would want such things?)-----and it was far more successful and for far longer than the fatuous free-marketeer nonsense that you continue to repeat despite the reality of it's record.

Pretty strong for rail and oceanliners at the time. Is my point lost, or are you challenging me to find something where there would be no response?

I am going to disagree again. For example, equine industry is subject to short-term cycles and has been in a long-term decline for decades - but there has been continued investment and innovation in good times and bad. Churchill Downs where they run the Kentucky Derby recently had a multi-million dollar renovation even-though horse racing interest is nearing historic lows.

There is a difference between a manager and a entrepreneur. Managers are bound by what you describe, entrepreneurs are not. Take a guy like Ted Turner, founder of CNN. He invests everything in a 24 hour cable news channel taking a huge risk when there was no known interest in people wanting CNN. Innovation comes before demand for certain products. Often entrepreneurs create new markets, create new demand. The cycle of innovation is what fuels economic growth, and increase standards of living for all. Again, fundamental supply side stuff, it is everywhere. Ted Turner became a multi-billionaire but so did others, many many more became millionaires, and today the 24 news cycle industry is at its peak - millions benefit - and so does the government.

Correct, consumer demand and spending in 2010 is at very high levels in absolute terms. What we are really talking about is the rate of growth, and that is often how they define the health of an economy. I bet very few people in 1950 imagined the size of the world economy in 2010, and the thought that because there may have been stagnant or negative growth from 2008 to 2010 is trivial given the size of the world economy. But some, like Obama, need the fantasy of thinking they saved the world.:shakehead: and others, Roach, need the fantasy, that some neo-conservative plot has ruined life on this planet and that sooner or later (perhaps in the next 50,000,000) he will be proved correct.:shakehead: Then there is me, have government get out of the way and we will be o.k.:thumbsup:

---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------

Are you really a moderator here?

I nominate capitalism as the first clue.

---------- Post added at 04:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 PM ----------

No, my point is that the push for a commercial aviation market was based on their being an existing market for other modes of transportation. The aviation industry didn't blossom from nothing.

You are suggesting that investors want to put money into things without first realizing the potential for a market. There are investors that might do this, but it likely happens on a small scale, because it's a huge risk.

If you look at the investing environment on a wide scale, investors don't put good money into things they don't see a market for. If strong spending isn't happening in a particular market, people won't be as inclined to invest in it.

I should probably point out that I'm referring to all investors, not just institutional or corporate investors. The average investor (which makes up quite a bulk of available capital in the U.S.) is rather shaken by what happened in 2008-2009. But even institutional investors won't put money into anything unless the fundamentals are strong, and one of these fundamentals includes market outlook. For a while now, people have been parking a lot of cash because of that. It's only when the markets begin to turn around will the average investor want to invest in them again.

I'm not suggesting that investors don't do what you are getting at, because they do. They see opportunity despite no track record. However, I don't think this kind of investing is the norm, and I don't think it drives the economy like the spending/investing balance I'm getting at.

Yeah I've got to second that one. Wow.

so basically, what you're saying, is that you have to defame the entire group as a collective to avoid having to deal with the real intellectuals of the group. In other words, you're full of shit.

---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------

no, but you certainly can embellish them. small government? GW Bush nearly doubled this government. Obama is increasing it more. Less taxes? how do we pay for this large government, excuse me, size handicapped government.

bottom line, neither of your republican or democrat policies are working. they are both flawed and destined to destroy us.

You had me along with your argument until I found out it was this:
While I'd buy an argument that either sets of policies aren't working, I have to roll my eyes just a little bit at that nice piece of hyperbole at the end.

How would either sets of policies "destroy" you? Are you talking about certain states going independent, or maybe nationwide rioting until a police state?

I can't for the life of me figure out what the Dems or Republicans are doing that would destroy the U.S. directly. I can only think of indirect ways.

really? when destruction happens, is it really a big deal if it's direct or indirect? really?

This article states that the number of millionaires in the US was up 8% in the past year. I've seen similar articles over the last few years. I'll take 'destruction' of the middle class by capitalism like this over a socialist agenda any day.

Survey: Number Of U.S. Millionaires Increases : NPR

This too

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update1-.html

The millionaires’ club in the U.S. grew by 16 percent in 2009, following a 27 percent decline in 2008.

Families with a net worth of at least $1 million, excluding primary residences, rose to 7.8 million in 2009, an increase from 6.7 million a year earlier, according to a survey of high- net-worth U.S. households conducted by Spectrem Group.

so more millionaires at the expense of the middle/lower class = successful system in your eyes? are you for real?

Yes I am for real. I much prefer a system that rewards the ambitious and successful over one that penalizes them.

so you'd be good in the radically class stratified context that policies based on your way of thinking has created. the only flaw in your argument, really, is that you have a pollyanna view of how class works. you seem to actually believe this whole bootstrappy horatio alger thing. that's hopelessly naive. but it's an enabling naivete for folk who think as you do, because it allows you to see in class stratification a reflection of virtue. but that's absurd.

it also enables your "be a dick" approach to questions like poverty. the poor are poor because they deserve it.

at least you don't shy away from just how ugly your political worldview is.
and that i have to hand you.
i'm just glad you are nowhere near power
(none of us are. we're posting here. q.e.d.)

Nope, no hyperbole here.:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 PM ----------

"I have more serfs than you."

People should be allowed to reap the rewards of ambition and success and we always have to be careful not to discourage people from working hard to get ahead but I simply don't buy the right wing argument that people are being penalized for either. The multi billionaire that invents life like hologram porn is going to have no problem going out and buying a posh mansion, a yacht and a new high end car to drive for every day of the week.

The rewards we get for our hard work and ambition is the success we may or may not find on the other side. If I'm able to get to the top of the ladder in my field I certainly wont expect a gold star from big daddy government for the amount of work I put into it (YAY!!! You won the game of American life enjoy all the 100% completion rewards for your success), the financial security and comfortable living will or should be enough.

Haven't seen any. Been looking. So far, been disappointed.

How is this binary?

Honestly how can you say that 4% changes someone from innovating ideas to make money to sitting unemployed doing nothing?

No business can predict the income they make during startup, hell if they could even predict within 10% of actual income they'd classify as psychic. You can't tell me that this minuscule amount would prevent people from making money.

If you honestly think this, why is the economies of Germany, England, and Canada already almost entirely recovered with MUCH higher tax rates while ours sits idle?

$10 million income is fine, but if it drops to $9.6 million I'm taking my ball and going home!

Yeah that blows my mind too Seaver.

"God damn taxes!!!! I could have bought that $400,000 yacht this year when oh when will I be able to reap the rewards of my hard work!!! I'm burning my blue prints for lifelike hologram porn and going to go drive my jet ski around our olympic sized pool and sulk about it for a while." :sad:

Seriously its not like there is some government mechanism in place that just steals people innovation and leaves them penniless in the ditch for the greater good of society.