PDA

View Full Version : 6 Reasons You Teabaggers Should Give Up.



Sev
03-15-2011, 07:15 AM
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnh...lling_spending

<span style="color: #000000">
It's time for all of you toothless hillbillies in the Teabagger movement to learn something from your betters on the Left. So, you need to stop listening to hateful ideologues like Rush Limbaugh, Thomas Sowell, and whoever the KKK's Grand Dragon is these days and start listening to reasonable voices of moderation like Paul Krugman, Rachel Maddow, and Michael Moore. Open up those Teabagger ears and listen to the sweet, sweet melody of the NEW TONE on spending.

1) Spending more money is popular. Spending less money is unpopular. Here's an experiment: Go up to a small child and give him an ice cream cone. After he licks it a couple of times, smash his face into it and take it away. If the child's parents are rich, you even have permission to enjoy that a little bit. Now, is the child happier when he's getting the free ice cream or when it's being taken away? Duh, obvious answer even for a Teabagger!

Now, imagine the American people as ignorant children from Alabama and yourself as a smart, compassionate adult from Berkeley who knows what's best for them. That's an analogy even a Teabagger should be able to figure out and it's why we demolish you in every election, except in the last one, when Halliburton probably teamed up with Fox to rig the numbers.

2) Somebody else will take care of it! The most tedious thing about dealing with you Teabaggers is your attitude toward spending. "Oh, WE'VE got to fix it. If not US, then who?" How about instead, we let somebody else fix it? That's easier, right? We can just write in the budget, "Twenty years from now, the budget is balanced and we start paying off the debt" and that's that. What do you mean that's not a strategy? It's a great strategy.

Step 1) We have a 14 trillion dollar debt and 100 trillion dollars in unfunded Medicare and Social Security liabilities.

Step 2) An unforeseen miracle occurs.

Step 3) The debt is all paid off. Medicare and Social Security are fully funded!

Who says we don't have a plan?
</span>

pooltchr
03-15-2011, 08:06 AM
This is funny stuff!

Steve

Soflasnapper
03-15-2011, 09:19 AM
As the budget struggle ensues, it would be better if people indeed understood that we cannot get a balanced budget while taxing at 1950 low levels of gdp (before the creation of Medicare), or trying to squeeze all the deficit out of domestic discretionary spending (only 14% of the total spending).

In fact, we cannot reduce the debt even as a percentage of gdp (as we did routinely over the 40 years after WW II, taking it down from a peak of 125% of gdp to maybe the 30% range, even while running modest deficits every year). The debt must go up and will go up, and we will be lucky to keep it below 100% of gdp. Even doing that will require strenuous spending and tax cutting discipline.

People who disagree with any of the foregoing just don't know this subject and the undisputable facts of the matter.

LWW
03-15-2011, 10:15 AM
By that account, the only logical action of a man being chased by a mad dog is to take out his pistol and shoot his own self through the temple.

pooltchr
03-15-2011, 10:29 AM
You are correct, at least with the part about cutting descretionary spending. That isn't going to make a dent. We need to take a serious look at every dollar we spend, and if there is an alternative to spending it.
We can look at our federal government and the huge number of departments and agencies, and start eliminating those whose existance is not mandated by the constitution.
Do we really need a federal department of education, or can we allow local communities to run their own school systems?
Do we really need the IRS, or would there be a way to collect taxes another way? (Yes, I do have a suggestion that I have posted before)
Suppose we stopped farm subsidy programs. Not only would we save all that money, but we could get rid of the agency handling them. Double savings!
There are plenty of opportunities to make some serious cuts, but we have to have someone who is interested in doing so. So far, nobody has stepped forward.
We are in a hole, and it's going to take some work (and in some cases, some painful sacrafices) to get out of it. But the alternative is to keep digging deeper and deeper, which is exactly what we have seen for the past few years.
We can only hope that someone will step up to the plate and say enough is enough.

Steve

Sev
03-15-2011, 10:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">By that account, the only logical action of a man being chased by a mad dog is to take out his pistol and shoot his own self through the temple. </div></div>

You know.

Ahh never mind. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sev
03-15-2011, 10:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As the budget struggle ensues, it would be better if people indeed understood that we cannot get a balanced budget while taxing at 1950 low levels of gdp (before the creation of Medicare), or trying to squeeze all the deficit out of domestic discretionary spending (only 14% of the total spending).

In fact, we cannot reduce the debt even as a percentage of gdp (as we did routinely over the 40 years after WW II, taking it down from a peak of 125% of gdp to maybe the 30% range, even while running modest deficits every year). The debt must go up and will go up, and we will be lucky to keep it below 100% of gdp. Even doing that will require strenuous spending and tax cutting discipline.

People who disagree with any of the foregoing just don't know this subject and the undisputable facts of the matter. </div></div>

The only things that will work it to substantially shrink the size of the federal government both in employment and size and scope of its programs.
Pass a balanced budget amendment.
Remove all redundant government programs.
And bring major manufacturing back to the USA. Without major manufacturing we remain a service based society.

LWW
03-15-2011, 10:50 AM
I honestly find it impossible to believe that if the gubmint did no more than install basic business cost control principles used in the corporate world, that the deficit could be eliminated without a single program being eliminated or agency disbanded.

Does anyone honestly believe that there isn't an average of 30% waste in every gubmint program?

Sev
03-15-2011, 10:53 AM
Funny you should bring waste up.

LWW
03-15-2011, 10:53 AM
And to clarify that, I mean simple stuff such as:

- Limiting who has use of the credit cards, and auditing their use.

- Actual competitive bidding for supplies and services instead of following a policy which says that since .1% of the nation is native American Nazi lesbian midgets, then we mist buy .1% of our paper clips from native American Nazi lesbian midget producers.

- Auditing vehicle use.

- Right sizing the employee base.

- Eliminating redundant reports.

etcetera.

LWW
03-15-2011, 10:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Funny you should bring waste up. </div></div>

If you only knew.

phil in sofla
03-15-2011, 06:51 PM
Steve, you agree that it cannot be done in discretionary spending, and then your entire list is discretionary spending?