Is it sick that I kind of want to see the Tea Party's plan put to work??

After last nights debate, I had an epiphany. Kind of a sick one, but I honestly thought that it would be a great test to American history to allow the Tea Party to instill it's anti-Government economic system.

I want to see what the country would be like with a balanced budget, no social security, no food stamps, and no welfare.

I mean it's sick, because most mainstream economists and logically minded people know what would happen, but you have real life people that are advocating these ideas that have the potential to call the shots in America.

Mitt Romney, Newt, Jon Huntsman are more of the Reagan type conservatives
Then you have Ron Paul who should not even be considered a Republican
And of course you have the Tea Party clan!!

It would be very interesting to see if Rick Perry can continue his Tea Party ideology in a general election. And it would be very interesting to see if he uses real economists or if he literally does just think what he "believes" is what would work in this economy.

I'm willing to bet when the economy slumped back in a recession, and unemployment jumped to 15-20% and the Tea Party didn't do anything about it, except cut spending even more, that people would ditch the Tea Party and come running back to the nearest Democrat!!

 

You know no one says to stop these programs out right tomorrow right? But I guess since you can't get through a post without demagogueing the issue, I will just assume you know what you meant to say.

Yet you can't post what will happen here, just everyone else knows, but you won't tell the ones that "don't know"? Please, enlighten us, what will happen?

How so?

You are kind of right, he is more libertarian, but flys under the GOP cause he knows a 3 party system isn't going to work till more people realize that the GOP and the dems are pretty much one in the same.

Nice use of the word "clan", trying to be all sneaky with that little enduendo.

Although the TEA party was really spured from the ideals that Ron Paul has always been about, they have been taken over by some that are GOP that are really just part of the progressives of the right.

Funny that what the GOP "belives" would work, HAS worked every time. But I don't know much about Perry, just don't really trust him.

Yes, cause massive entitlements in the urban areas and cities ran by democrats/liberals that have huge deficit spending and large tax rates are just pristine utopias of full emplyment...I mean unemployment that is already at 15-20%. If you don't understand that liberals ideology hasn't worked for 50 years now in major cities, why can't you understand that MAYBE the complete opposite would work?

 

We would be in a depression right now based on mathematics if we ran a balanced budget during our latest recession.

Actually I had no intention of the word "clan" meaning anything but a group of people. No innuendo what so ever.

Exactly my point. You don't even know your history. The GOP has NEVER done what the Tea Party is advocating. Absolutely never in recent GOP history have they balanced budgets, cut spending, cut food stamps and welfare, etc.

This is the bottom line... not anytime in the past 4 decades has any President cut spending. You guys confuse deficits with spending all the time. The fact is that the GOP has never done what the Tea Party is advocating. No one has. This would be a completely new test to our economic system.

 

It is pretty sick to hope for great suffering in order to discredit a movement.
Besides, it wouldn't work. Strife and suffering actually help this kind of irrational reactionaryism. The more people struggle, the more animosity toward immigrants and the "undeserving" poor. And a lot of people accept supply side as an article of faith. When it fails, they'll just say it wasn't tried, echoing communists.

Improving the economy actually makes society more liberal. More flies with honey than vinegar.

Besides, at some point, likely soon, the economy is bound to recover naturally. Whether it's optimal or not, long-lasting or not, it will be better. And whoever is in charge at the time will get full credit regardless of policies. That's why this race will be so tough.

What is likely to happen, and will be very annoying, is Romney or Perry win the presidency followed by Republicans suddenly changing their mind on stimulus (stimulus of sorts anyway). They'll pass a stimulus plan while spouting anti-stimulus rhetoric. Economy recovers a bit. The punditry credits the rhetoric rather than the policy.
Supply side economics gets renewed for another disasterous couple decades.

There is no alternative to just fixing the (*)(*)(*)(*) economy. Don't wait for the idiots to disqualify themselves because they'll stretch or deflect and won't diminish a bit (unless the timing is really bad and we're looking at more hard times for at least five years).

 

Yes, it is sick to wish for the things you listed. However, none of the GOP candidates are advocating any of those except for a balanced budget.

I'm surprised that you are even watching the debates, because apparently you are not listening to them.

 

Based on speculation. But, never mind that, then you would be in favor if another tax break came out (lower than what they are right now) and gave everyone the ability to spend THEIR OWN MONEY instead of spending money on crony companies and unions?

I know the history, both parties are actually very progressive (bigger government) in their own rights, just there isn't much room for that third party to nudge in there really. Look at Ron Paul, how does he not appeal to the center right, left, and independents?

Cutting spending? Right. Paying off our debts, or stop increasing spending FASTER than the revenue, that is a must. The founders believed that debt would destroy the nation, that is why they paid off the $75 mil debt they incured from the revolution as fast as they could.

 

What is their plan? I don't see one.. All I see is a loose group of Americans who are afraid and want answers.

 

Their plan is essentially to eliminate Govt deficit spending and for the Govt to spend what they tax. Other than that, they have no other plan... lol

 

If you are an advocate of a balanced budget than you are going to have to make sacrifices. Do you honestly believe the first things cut would not be welfare, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and public education?

 

Let's see...

Let's look back in history to see a president that did that. They need to have been firm believers in a balanced budget and not believed in welfare (we'll be looking back before SSI, so that doesn't play a role).

Oh, Hoover jumps to mind. He cut welfare by 50% in his 4 years, and refused allow an unbalanced budget until his last year in office (when he suddenly became a progressive to try to win re-election). He worked wonders, didn't he.

 

You are apparently not familiar with Ron Paul or Parry's recent book.

 

Sure, spending in those areas might be reduced, but not one candidate is advocating the complete elimination of those programs as you are inaccurately representing.

 

Certainly wouldn't be the military (unless Ron Paul found his way to the WH).

 

I'm all for tax breaks on anyone making less than $1 million a year. But tax breaks are nothing more than a stimulus. We tried tax breaks with the Obama stimulus plan. The problem now is not giving people who pay taxes back more money, it is getting tax payers who have money to pay taxes, lol.

Because he advocates something that people deem as "uncontrollable". The Govt has set up regulations because of private sector failures. He advocates that the private sector can self regulate itself, yet it never has been able to, and the very reason we have such a big Govt is because of all the faults of the private sector. All I'm saying is that regardless of Republican or Democrat, they have never done what the Tea Party is advocating. And it would be interesting to see if people like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann can outsmart the smartest economists throughout the centuries.

Yes, the Founders were around in the uncivilized times of the 18th century. We have a completely different economic system, driven by completely knew economic theory. The evolution of mankind brings about the evolution of economics. If you think that we are not better off than the 18th century, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

So you are telling me that the Tea Party does not advocate eliminating welfare programs?

 

Correct.

You might find a few irrational people that would like to eliminate welfare completely, but overall, that is not part of the platform. Scaling back the welfare system...yes, but eliminating it?....no.

 

The Tea Party is irrational people.

 

They have an unrealistic view of how much money is spent on those things, as well as an unrealistic view of how much waste and corruption there is.
They're going to do more damage to people than they realize.
This is what happens in an accountantocracy like we seem to be headed towards, where all politics is based on a budget (annual and quarterly budgets are actually pretty arbitrary and focus us more on short-term costs and benefits; we want to cut spending now, are wary of increasing any spending now, and don't really notice what's more efficient for later).

 

Some are but most are not.

The same with any party...Democrat, Republicans, or others....there are some extremist, but most are rational.

 

Yes, everyone will have to make sacrifices. Right now the sacrifice lands on the tax payer, not those sucking a free ride. Can't you see that?

We never hear a thank you for the tons of effort we provide, we only see a hand sticking out with a sour face who screams, "MORE!"

 

After the debt ceiling debate, I'm 100% certain that the Tea Party is not rational. Even their own party was calling them out for being irrational.

I remember Bill O'Reilly talking to Michelle Bachmann. And he kept asking her... "Why are you right and everyone else is wrong"? And she wouldn't give her answer as to why. Just more talking points about runaway spending.

And he kept drilling in to her that the majority of people that are economists, financial gurus, politicians, etc are saying that we need to increase the debt limit and she kept saying that they are all wrong. She literally believes that she is right, and the mainstream thought process on economics is wrong.

Even Bill O'Reilly of all people thought she and her party are loonies.

 

Some do. I'm sure we could cut it back at least 50%. I'm sure those who have paid into SS for their retirement would like to receive more but can't because of all those who are sucking disability right out of the system.

And who wouldn't want to get more bang for the buck out of education? Bring it back to the State level to deal with.

 

Why do we need to make sacrifices?? What is the purpose of making people suffer when we do not have to?

 

If you still have a job or a pension, you're not suffering much. Tax rates are not high in America today. Unemployment is the issue.
The economy sucks now and as a result there is more need for social services.
Your idea for "sacrifice?"
"Shucks no, we can't pay for the extra burden."
This is not sacrifice on behalf of the people in need of assistance. This is failure to pay the extra to pay for the greater numbers that need assistance because the economy is tanking!
Spending on such programs naturally go up when the economy goes down.
And you're suggesting not paying for it when needed because what? Because god forbid we pay more taxes or put off dealing with the deficit until the economy recovers.
Sacrifice, my ass.

Where do you get this 50% figure?
More people are in need because of low employment. Welfare is already pretty much subsistence level.
What are you going to cut?

Meanwhile, you could cut the entire discretionary budget and the middle class entitlements and defense will continue to build the budget (plus the infrastructure will get more and more expensive to fix whenever you guys feel we should get around to that).

 

Have you seen the government's checkbook recently?