Anti-Tax Tea Parties Held Across U.S.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
This isn't a plan, this is a suggetion. Government can't do anything to control or regulate this.

I know. I'm refering to the public on this forum reading these posts. The government can't do anything without being elected by voters. Since the public elects the government they need to walk the walk before any politicians can have any sense that there are enough numbers willing to elect plaforms that fit with this kind of culture of self-discipline. If the public doesn't have it then where is the motivation?

You are just downright laughable at times...:lmao:

I used to worry about what people think of me but I realized that in order to put up an opinion you have to be able to withstand ridicule. I'm sure no matter what opinion I put up someone somewhere will find issue with it.

Aesop's Fables, by Aesop; The Man, the Boy, and the Donkey Page 1

You need to learn this lesson.

So your plan is to eliminate all other parties. I think there is a word for that...

A ha! Putting words in my mouth. Nice try! Is there a problem with having electoral preferences? Democrats want to defeat Republicans and vice versa. I think my post is very clear that I love democracy. If Democrats want to do the proper fiscal management (as opposed to what they are doing now) I would be for them.

Ok, but how? You aren't answering this. The question is what plan would those tea partiers want in place of what is going on now? Your answer is "fix it", this is worse than the Republican budget that had no numbers.

I've talked about this many times. Spending must come under control and that means standing up to special interests to make those cuts. In order to preserve the programs we want it's important to rein them in to avoid currency sell offs and in extreme instances, bankruptcy. Instead of spending more on mediaid/medicare how about allowing insurance competition between states? That could save people health costs without increasing taxes. Do I personally have to come up with numbers? There are plenty of people in the Republican party that can do that if they get enough balls. If the public is changing their tune and support this action then the politicians will get more courageous. If the public asks for low taxes and more spending there will be no political strengh to rest on that.

Give me a real life example of how you stand up and to who that would fix the situation right now...

My list is in order. Without the first two steps you can't fund a military properly. Certainly continuing to ban bad Chinese products is one step to continue. Also creating as many improved trade relations with as many democracies will create competition for China so we rely less on their products. I don't perceive this as an instantanous solution but we can slowly do this over time. Embargo pressure can happen once we are less dependent on them. Until then they can constantly pressure us with their trade surplus leverage. Canadian conservatives were harder on China in the past and just some small threats from them made Stockwell Day pant like a dog and lick the face of the bureaucrats there. Everything is about leverage when dealing with dictators.

Same as above...

Free trade agreements. They do exist. Just negotiate more and more with democracies as often as you can. The reason why China is so open to us is precisely because of the leverage they can attain. It's no different in business that when a business relies too much on one supplier the supplier can raise prices beyond competitiveness because of that leverage. China also likes to force their currency downward so their products are always cheaper and then they buy U.S. treasuries. Without steps 1 and 2 we are going to go in the same direction as before with no leverage. We also need to have competitive corporate tax rates so production doesn't just fly to China and India all the time. The U.S. can't just rely on service jobs.

None is this has anything to do with the situation at hand and what the tea parties were apparently about...:doh:

I feel it's all connected. If you can't have a robust productive economy then your defence goes and then your freedom goes. If you look at all past civilizations they had some advances over prior ones but there always was this problem of decadence that comes with success where institutions are taken for granted and the public supports less and less lifestyles that are conducive to preserving their freedom and then it becomes a "surprise" when they fall.

Now we live with nuclear weapons and the pentagon has fears that China is trying to nulify the Mutually Assured Destruction scenario by researching ways they could attack quick enough so the U.S. has destroyed capabilities before they can retaliate. When you couple that with Nationalist Socialist ideas of this century being the "Chinese century" it's cause for concern and with rampant social spending in the West its hard to see the military really being able to stay on top of things. The irony is that even Obama mentioned this in regards to Bush's overspending and how that affects the financial feasibility of reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. With no control on social spending (health care/education) it provides plenty of distraction so people fear less any U.S. retaliation to stop them. It happened during the Carter era (Soviet Union/Central America/Afghanistan) and I don't see why challenges won't happen now. Eg. Iran/China/Russia.

It starts with individuals saving money and getting more financially secure to handle economic changes. Then next electing people that preserve that economic freedom and also try to expand it with trade negotiations with democratically elected countries. (Not with fake democracies like Russia and Venezuela). Once we have more economic freedom and less economic leverage against us we are then in a position to embargo those countries that partake in human rights abuses. If Obama wants to take these ideas for real (yeah right!) then he can by all means do so. To me only the conservatives in the Republican party will have realistic political chances to enact any of these policies.

It starts with step 1. If people don't pay their mortgages ASAP and prefer consumerism instead they will be in situations where they will demand more government spending on themselves and vote accordingly. Democracies always get the government they deserve. Bush talked about "compassionate conservatism". Why? Because he only won the election against Al Gore because of the electoral college and felt he had no real mandate to be hardcore conservative on economics so he split the difference between tax cuts and increased social spending. I would prefer him to be more brave and simply do what he thought was right but politicians like to hedge their bets. Politicians reflect public demand. Face it. The ignorance of the public in regards to how an economy works and politics is astounding. This ignorance will be reflected in our institutions. I wish more people would get some curiosity like I have. I learned more on my own studying than relying on agenda driven university courses.
 
i know, i know .... you'll get into the whole "but they weren't *real* conservative Republicans," but we know that's garbage in the same way that free market capitalists sound exactly the same as utopian communists who both say, "well, our system would be perfect if it was properly implemented."

That would be SOME libertarians that look to perfect systems. I don't go that far but I do feel that the public sometimes forgets that the market is where most of the production is and if we want programs we will have to be able to pay for them. It's not utopia but what works better. If I get cancer I can't be so selfish as to assume the entire GDP of the country should automatically stop what they are doing and try to cure me because I'm so important. I agree no system is all perfect.

bottom line: conservative Republicans in this country have proved themselves to be incompetent. they were booted out of office in 2006 and 2008, and the Republican Party is now the party of white southern christian males. that's not a base upon which to build any sort of future.

The only problem with this is that I agree that Republicans (and Democrats; are we forgetting already?) were incompetent but electing Democrats everywhere to continue that incompetence is viewed by me and other conservatives as "two wrongs equal a right". The Democrat base is just basically special interest groups that want to compete for command of taxpayer dollars. As long as the public thinks that organizing into 1,000 special interest groups to compete on how they can pass the buck onto someone else we will consume faster than we produce which leads to the current problems we have.
 
That would be SOME libertarians that look to perfect systems. I don't go that far but I do feel that the public sometimes forgets that the market is where most of the production is and if we want programs we will have to be able to pay for them. It's not utopia but what works better. If I get cancer I can't be so selfish as to assume the entire GDP of the country should automatically stop what they are doing and try to cure me because I'm so important. I agree no system is all perfect.


when it comes to actual goods and services, the market is a better judge of quality than the governments are. but it's absolutely utopian to think that the market is better at everything. look at what's just happened. when Ponzi products are traded back and forth -- subprime mortgages just to begin with -- only the government can step in and regulate before the market goes on to ruin lives and the entire economy.



The only problem with this is that I agree that Republicans (and Democrats; are we forgetting already?) were incompetent but electing Democrats everywhere to continue that incompetence is viewed by me and other conservatives as "two wrongs equal a right". The Democrat base is just basically special interest groups that want to compete for command of taxpayer dollars. As long as the public thinks that organizing into 1,000 special interest groups to compete on how they can pass the buck onto someone else we will consume faster than we produce which leads to the current problems we have.


you have such an uninformed view of the "democrat base" and it's so ridiculously biased that it's hard to know where to begin.
 
A ha! Putting words in my mouth. Nice try! Is there a problem with having electoral preferences? Democrats want to defeat Republicans and vice versa. I think my post is very clear that I love democracy. If Democrats want to do the proper fiscal management (as opposed to what they are doing now) I would be for them.
Then you should have stated that people should vote in fiscally responsible canidates no matter what party, instead of saying "conservatives" or "Republicans" because it just weakens your stance. Look around conservatives aren't being that fiscally responsible at all...

Instead of spending more on mediaid/medicare how about allowing insurance competition between states? That could save people health costs without increasing taxes.
We've talked about this before I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Certain limited insurance companies can and do compete across state lines, but the problem is the standards change over state lines; what's defined as podiatry in Texas is different than what is defined as podiatry in Arizona. Plus insurance companies "compete" within state lines and it doesn't help much because honestly most of the insurance companies are in cahoots with each and set the prices collabortively. So none of this is going to work...

Do I personally have to come up with numbers?
No, but the point is theory can only go so far, and so far not one person has come up with any real alternative plan. Fox, Hannity, Beck, Rush, Republican politicians none of them have any room to bitch or throw these tea parties unless they honestly have a real alternative.

There are plenty of people in the Republican party that can do that if they get enough balls. If the public is changing their tune and support this action then the politicians will get more courageous. If the public asks for low taxes and more spending there will be no political strengh to rest on that.
I think you just answered your own question here...

The rest of the post meanders... Some of what you say makes sense the rest is way out in left field(I guess right field in your case), but none of it is an alternative plan. It's long term goals, but the question is for all those partiers is what would they have wanted their canidate to do right now in this paticular climate?

Can someone please answer this!!!:scream:
 
Then you should have stated that people should vote in fiscally responsible canidates no matter what party, instead of saying "conservatives" or "Republicans" because it just weakens your stance. Look around conservatives aren't being that fiscally responsible at all...

No it doesn't. Democrats don't support fiscal responsibility. Look at them now. In actions they don't. Unless I see an about face there is no evidence that Democrats are really doing anything about fiscal responsibility. They are following the Krugman template which is about spending our way out of a recession. Isn't this over spending what got us into the problem in the first place?

We've talked about this before I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Certain limited insurance companies can and do compete across state lines, but the problem is the standards change over state lines; what's defined as podiatry in Texas is different than what is defined as podiatry in Arizona. Plus insurance companies "compete" within state lines and it doesn't help much because honestly most of the insurance companies are in cahoots with each and set the prices collabortively. So none of this is going to work...

Why do we have anti-trust laws then? Just because there is some complexity in standards it doesn't mean that it wouldn't improve competition. It's easier to collaborate with other insurance companies when there are more border restrictions.

No, but the point is theory can only go so far, and so far not one person has come up with any real alternative plan. Fox, Hannity, Beck, Rush, Republican politicians none of them have any room to bitch or throw these tea parties unless they honestly have a real alternative.

The rest of the post meanders... Some of what you say makes sense the rest is way out in left field(I guess right field in your case), but none of it is an alternative plan. It's long term goals, but the question is for all those partiers is what would they have wanted their canidate to do right now in this paticular climate?

Can someone please answer this!!!:scream:

- No cap and trade. Support more nuclear power plants. (Some military are pushing for fusion over fission for a long-term plan 30 years on). Cap and trade or carbon taxes = higher energy costs for all.
- Don't increase health-care coverage. Do the U.S. have to rely on Chinese bondholders for this too?
- Lower corporate taxes. Both the U.S. and Canada are uncompetitive in this area.
- Cut wasteful spending in all departments (including non-essentials in the military). Both McCain and Obama know there is wasteful spending in all areas. Most politicians tolerate it because it's a way to buy votes. Obama basically admited that when he attempted to look at spending on government workers having a "trickle down" effect. Use line-item veto on earmarks like promised.
- Don't shake hands with Chavez (which is quickly undermining Democracy in his own country).
- I don't know what the best timing for this suggestion is but at some point critical areas of Iran's nuclear program will have to be destroyed. If there are critics of this, who cares? See link on Aesop's fables. :wink:
- Finish off the Taliban with or without the help of Pakistan (obviously with is better than without). Set a timetable to withdraw in Iraq and Afghanistan in stages (some of this is already in the works). Some Iraq vetrans can move to Afghanistan (Obama is working on this).
- Continue supporting more free trade in South America. Brazil is a bit two-faced on this but with more negotiations it could turn around. If Stephen Harper in Canada can do this so can Obama.

I'm sure there could be more suggestions but doing half of this would be an enormous achievement. Some of these suggestions can be done quickly and others cannot. Trying to improve productive capabilities in the U.S. will take YEARS. The west relies too much on services for their economy.
 
when it comes to actual goods and services, the market is a better judge of quality than the governments are. but it's absolutely utopian to think that the market is better at everything. look at what's just happened. when Ponzi products are traded back and forth -- subprime mortgages just to begin with -- only the government can step in and regulate before the market goes on to ruin lives and the entire economy.

Yeah but when the government pushes banks to increase risky loans it's the same thing as telling investors to take more risks. Investors in a normal mindset wouldn't invest in low yield investments with high risk. The banks pretty much had to lie to the public to get the money to lend. Banks are intermediaries. They won't loan their own money but make money by being the go-between of investors and borrowers. I do feel disappointed that they didn't fight back against the government and raise hell but ACORN political correctness and the race card was used to shame bankers into making these loans. I mean would you personally save and invest in risky investments knowingly for low yields? Increases in risk should have an increase in reward to be worth it. When the government makes regulations to protect investors but pushes for more investment in risky borrowers it sends a mixed message.

Government should regulate but we all know that there are loopholes and just plain bad regulations that don't work (SOX didn't prevent private equity firms from hiding toxic assets). It's not more regulation but smart regulation. Unfortunately that means we have to rely on the "right" people at the "right" time scenario which is usually disappointing. I believe that most managers in the market aren't all that into free markets and feel that they can take any risks they want because they feel they are too big to fail. This is a narcissistic cultural element that I don't know the cure for. I've been studying narcissism for a while now and having big egos = entitlement behavior and that seems to be the popular zeitgeist of today in western democracies. Couple that with a reliance on special interest groups. Everyone wants to receive but how many want to pay?

you have such an uninformed view of the "democrat base" and it's so ridiculously biased that it's hard to know where to begin.

There are some responsible Democrats who voted against much of the stimulus so I applaud those guys but they are not even close to the majority of that party. Most of the stimulus money is going to special interest groups for buying votes (not a new concept in either party though there is a difference in degree). Most left-wing parties throughout the western world believe that organizing into special interest groups is the only way to get what people want. Yet getting tax payers to band together (hence unorganized temporary tea parties) has something left to be desired. :D Everyone is splitting into these NGO's and other groups like unions and want to get special benefits but fail to realize that much of the same population in these groups will have to pay taxes for it.
 
No it doesn't. Democrats don't support fiscal responsibility. Look at them now. In actions they don't. Unless I see an about face there is no evidence that Democrats are really doing anything about fiscal responsibility. They are following the Krugman template which is about spending our way out of a recession. Isn't this over spending what got us into the problem in the first place?
Look at Republicans now. What did they do the last 8 years? I'm sorry did they have control of house, senate and white house recently how responsible were they then? Give me a break.
Why do we have anti-trust laws then? Just because there is some complexity in standards it doesn't mean that it wouldn't improve competition. It's easier to collaborate with other insurance companies when there are more border restrictions.
The complexity leads to the reasons why so many can't cover multiple states at a time. We've talked about this. There would have to be a complete overhaul of the industry as a whole.


- No cap and trade. Support more nuclear power plants. (Some military are pushing for fusion over fission for a long-term plan 30 years on). Cap and trade or carbon taxes = higher energy costs for all.
- Don't increase health-care coverage. Do the U.S. have to rely on Chinese bondholders for this too?
- Lower corporate taxes. Both the U.S. and Canada are uncompetitive in this area.
- Cut wasteful spending in all departments (including non-essentials in the military). Both McCain and Obama know there is wasteful spending in all areas. Most politicians tolerate it because it's a way to buy votes. Obama basically admited that when he attempted to look at spending on government workers having a "trickle down" effect. Use line-item veto on earmarks like promised.
- Don't shake hands with Chavez (which is quickly undermining Democracy in his own country).
- I don't know what the best timing for this suggestion is but at some point critical areas of Iran's nuclear program will have to be destroyed. If there are critics of this, who cares? See link on Aesop's fables. :wink:
- Finish off the Taliban with or without the help of Pakistan (obviously with is better than without). Set a timetable to withdraw in Iraq and Afghanistan in stages (some of this is already in the works). Some Iraq vetrans can move to Afghanistan (Obama is working on this).
- Continue supporting more free trade in South America. Brazil is a bit two-faced on this but with more negotiations it could turn around. If Stephen Harper in Canada can do this so can Obama.
You're still missing the point. Some of this is just political garbage. But you're ignoring the issues of the very current problems with AIG, Detroit and the American auto industry, the rising unemployment, etc... Can you try and address these specifically? Otherwise you're just as confused as the tea partiers. In other words what would you have wanted McCain to do within his first 2 months to try and solve this problem?
 
The "Tea Party" in Memphis was a total joke. Organizers claimed they were "protesting out of control spending in Washington", but I think it was just an excuse for religious kooks and closet bigots to come out without fear of reprisal. I saw signs that were opposing gay marriage, affirmative action, city-county consolidation (that is a major racial/political issue going on now in Memphis & Shelby County), and social programs designed to help the underprivileged in West TN. Aside from the social programs, what do the other issues have to do with Washington spending? There were also signs opposing abortion and gun control. Again, I don't see the connection here.

I think the Tea Party participants would have had more supporters if their main goal was to speak out on Washington spending. Instead, they saw this as an opportunity to promote their own social and moral agendas.
 
You're still missing the point. Some of this is just political garbage. But you're ignoring the issues of the very current problems with AIG, Detroit and the American auto industry, the rising unemployment, etc... Can you try and address these specifically? Otherwise you're just as confused as the tea partiers. In other words what would you have wanted McCain to do within his first 2 months to try and solve this problem?

- End subprime loans.
- Bailout AIG and only allow bonuses when there is success. AIG insurance supports 80% of banks. No bonuses for Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac employees.
- No earmarks.
- Let investment banks fail. Only support commercial banks.
- Let American auto companies go into bankruptcy protection. Apparently they will probably go that way anyways because without restructuring (ie. letting go of employees that are not needed) they can't sell cars that people don't demand. Losses of jobs will happen anyways.
- Companies and banks that did the right thing will expand and take up some of the employees who lost their jobs.
- Extend employment insurance benefits and welfare benefits where applicable. This is obvious.
- I'm okay with an increase in monetary production during deflation but I don't want interest rates to stay too low for too long because we need people to save again or else we'll go into stagflation. High inflation can kill jobs. Wages have a hard time keeping up with inflation.
- Instead of a 6% reserve ratio the Canadian 9% seems more robust. If and when there is a run on the banks enough cash should be made available so panic dies down. Raise the ratio higher if necessary. (This is really important and the main thing that will keep a depression from occuring).
- Regulations preventing the packaging of risky securities with safe securities should be banned and it should be clear who the investor is and who the borrower is.

Some of these ideas are good. Especially getting the government to stop pushing for high risk loans:

Republican Bailout Ideas | The Political Bear

- The corporate tax rate being lowered is important now. Increased trade is important now. Even a 1 year tax holiday would be a good idea since companies with losses would not pay tax anyways.
- Government can train where applicable so those who have to move to other industries have opportunities to do so.
- The other long-term approaches I mentioned in other posts are important such as no cap and trade schemes or carbon taxes since they just raise costs
- Freeze health and education expenses. If Americans want more government control of healthcare they are going to have to wait until a proper balanced budget is possible in the future before going down that path.
- No personal tax increases or decreases. No social security tax credits. Social security has enough problems down the road to deal with.

This decade may be a lost decade because there is no quick fix. People over-leveraged for years and it will take years to deleverage. The most important thing is to get Americans producing products again and to attract as much investment as possible. Once the toxic assets are sold back onto the market (when there is real demand again), the government can pull back more. At this point the government should never allow inflation to increase as high as it has in the past and should measure real inflation for their interest rate moves instead of ignoring food and energy. Too much inflation leads to more booms and speculative investments that distort the market.

If the public wants to gamble on the stock market and wants to get into flipping again there will be more booms and busts in the future. The west shouldn't pursue 0% savings rates and not expect over-leveraging. Sadly the government can't do anything about stupid behaviour. It's up to the public to keep their freedom. If they saved more people would have a buffer to deal with economic changes much easier. The most the government can do is what I mentioned regarding keeping inflation at a reasonable low level to reduce the temptation for gambling or at least to prevent too much borrowed money going into day-trading speculation. This also helps preserve value of savings so people will have some incentive to save. Increased production increases our purchasing power.

I'm not an expert yet I can figure out some obvious solutions. I mean if there are any other conservatives that have other solutions I'm all ears. Obama should be focussing more on banks, credit, and military than health-care and education. There's only so much that debt that can be racked up so priorities should be made.
 
Finally...

Thank you for addressing the question.

But if the tea parties were really about spending and principle even your plan would have pissed them off.

But you're white and conservative so they probably would have praised the plan.

I appreciate you attempting to answer my question.

I think it's sad that those that came in here and praised the tea parties couldn't do the same, I think it just goes to show the failure of these tea parties.

It will be interesting to see what history says about them, my guess is history will call them a joke, but we'll see...:shrug:
 
It will be interesting to see what history says about them, my guess is history will call them a joke, but we'll see...:shrug:

Understand that most liberals and conservatives are not specialists. I'm different because I believe that curiosity is important for people to have good reasons for voting and that we rely so much on other experts that it's important to compare and have my own opinion. I'm sure most of the tea partiers feel the deficit is getting too large and it will continue to do so in the future so they feel the tax pinch is coming. This is where politicians from both the left and right use demagoguery to advance their own interests. I feel many of the tea partiers are right without actually knowing why. It's true that many conservatives aren't taking the leadership plunge just yet because they want Obama to do the screw ups and then they can criticize afterwards. After all that's what they do all the time so the public needs to have their own solid opinions because politicians change with the wind.
 
I feel many of the tea partiers are right without actually knowing why.
How can you say that when you just laid out an imaginary plan that went against what they are apparently protesting? You baffle me...

It's true that many conservatives aren't taking the leadership plunge just yet because they want Obama to do the screw ups and then they can criticize afterwards.

Well I think they are hoping Obama screws up so they can criticize later...
This is exaclty why this whole thing is a joke. Conservatives aren't stepping up because right now, all they have is theory, and it's a theory that would probably fail in this current environment and I think many secretly know this. There is no one in their right mind that would just sit back in this current environment and allow the market to just heal itself, even your plan acknowledges that... That's why these tea parties weren't really about spending or bail outs, they were a conservative bitch fest. Nothing more, nothing less...
 
How can you say that when you just laid out an imaginary plan that went against what they are apparently protesting? You baffle me...

Well I think they are hoping Obama screws up so they can criticize later...
This is exaclty why this whole thing is a joke. Conservatives aren't stepping up because right now, all they have is theory, and it's a theory that would probably fail in this current environment and I think many secretly know this. There is no one in their right mind that would just sit back in this current environment and allow the market to just heal itself, even your plan acknowledges that... That's why these tea parties weren't really about spending or bail outs, they were a conservative bitch fest. Nothing more, nothing less...

Remember lots of the spending (health-care, earmarks, construction projects happening after the recession is over and auto-bailouts) have nothing to do with the banking system. Plus green initiatives will just create higher energy prices because nothing is cheaper than coal and oil right now. There's plenty for conservatives to bitch about.

The only green energy that might revolutionize things is a prototype coming in around 20 years:

Department of Energy - Fusion Energy
 
By William M. Welch, USA TODAY
LOS ANGELES — Voters in California on Tuesday slapped down a slew of tax hikes and borrowing measures that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said were needed to solve the state's fiscal dilemma.
Four out of five measures dealing with higher taxes had failed by nearly 2-to-1, and the fifth was trailing badly. The only measure to pass was one that banned pay raises for elected officials in deficit years.

Among those going to the polls was Kerrie Von Korper, a grocery worker said she voted "no on everything. "We all have to live within our means, and that includes the state," she said.

"No more taxes," Karen McCune, a retiree from Long Beach, said as she exited her polling place.

President Obama, the chuckleheads at MSNBC, and Colin Powell Republicans -- go ahead, keep mocking.
 
President Obama, the chuckleheads at MSNBC, and Colin Powell Republicans -- go ahead, keep mocking.

Has almost nothing to do with the tea parties though...

Like I asked the tea partiers early, and which none were able to answer...

What is the non-Colin Powell Republican plan for this state? How is a bankrupt state going to pay for a decent fire fighting team when the next big wild fire strikes? Just let the homes heal themselves? It's one thing to stand up against taxes, but where is the Republican plan? You probably wouldn't be mocked as much if you all actually had an alternative, but you don't...
 
Has almost nothing to do with the tea parties though...

Like I asked the tea partiers early, and which none were able to answer...

What is the non-Colin Powell Republican plan for this state? How is a bankrupt state going to pay for a decent fire fighting team when the next big wild fire strikes? Just let the homes heal themselves? It's one thing to stand up against taxes, but where is the Republican plan? You probably wouldn't be mocked as much if you all actually had an alternative, but you don't...

:yes: I'd really like some of the GOP to give some plans instead of complaining.
 
1) STOP SPENDING SO MUCH. To quote a famous ex-California governor, “It's time we reduced the government's budget and left the family budget alone.”

2) STOP driving businesses and "the rich" out of your state with steeply progressive taxes. It's not good for your tax base, although Oregon and Nevada thank you.

3) STOP expecting your citizens to pay for healthcare, education and other services for illegal residents.

4) Your public-employee pensions are apparently outrageously lavish. Maybe fix that.

5) STOP being envirowienies and start collecting oil revenues by allowing offshore drilling.

6) STOP electing muscleheads that can't even pronounce the name of your state as governor and start electing drop-dead gorgeous beauty queens with solid traditional values.

That's where I'd start anyway.
 
I responded to your previous post in the bold lettering...

1) STOP SPENDING SO MUCH. To quote a famous ex-California governor, “It's time we reduced the government's budget and left the family budget alone.”

and what is your alternative to investing money in the economy by government spending... ?? and dont say "tax cuts" because those will not work in the economy we are in right now. Most economist agree that the stimulus package was the best thing we could have done

2) STOP driving businesses and "the rich" out of your state with steeply progressive taxes. It's not good for your tax base, although Oregon and Nevada thank you.

I dont know if you are aware but we have had a progressive tax code throughout almost all of american history. Reagan's taxes for the wealthy were much higher than Obama's...but no one calls him socialist? not only that...but a progressive tax code works. Here is why: http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/interesting-e-mail-that-was-sent-to-me-197697.html

3) STOP expecting your citizens to pay for healthcare, education and other services for illegal residents.

Parts of congress and Obama actually have some good ideas for helping to minimize the amound of illegal residents in this country...but still in what way would we be able to do what you are proposing?

4) Your public-employee pensions are apparently outrageously lavish. Maybe fix that.

There are way more important issues than this

5) STOP being envirowienies and start collecting oil revenues by allowing offshore drilling.

Ok...offshore drilling does not even pale in comparison to the amount of money we could make off of investing in new technologies, the new "energy-cores" (which I doubt you know about), and other programs to help reduce energy- obama made a great step the other day with the car regulations


6) STOP electing muscleheads that can't even pronounce the name of your state as governor and start electing drop-dead gorgeous beauty queens with solid traditional values.


WHAT!?! Beauty queens with traditional values? What is traditional values? its a made up term to describe something that the right-wing wants. Traditional values are not found in the bible, and being against gay marriage is unfathomable in my mind...but ok...


That's where I'd start anyway. :doh:

all i can say is thank god we have obama now instead of the guy in your avatar.
 
1) STOP SPENDING SO MUCH. To quote a famous ex-California governor, “It's time we reduced the government's budget and left the family budget alone.”
It's a great platitude, it's too bad no one ever comes up with specifics as to where to cut...

2) STOP driving businesses and "the rich" out of your state with steeply progressive taxes. It's not good for your tax base, although Oregon and Nevada thank you.
How many businesses have migrated out of California in the last year? Do you have numbers, or is this speculation?

3) STOP expecting your citizens to pay for healthcare, education and other services for illegal residents.
Would you rather have the state pay for the gathering up and deportation of the brownies?

4) Your public-employee pensions are apparently outrageously lavish. Maybe fix that.
Apparently outrageous? Well are they or aren't they? Should we just get rid of pensions altogether?

5) STOP being envirowienies and start collecting oil revenues by allowing offshore drilling.
Yeah, I'm a conservative, I don't need science. I don't care what the planet will be like in 100 years I won't be here. Who needs to see the mountain tops in LA anyway? Let's use up what we got, we'll come up with an alternative when we run out. Screw those sandal wearing, long hair, earth loving, love your enemy, non money seeking hippies!!! Why can't they be more like supply side/ NRA Jesus...
 
I responded to your previous post in the bold lettering...

1) STOP SPENDING SO MUCH. To quote a famous ex-California governor, “It's time we reduced the government's budget and left the family budget alone.”

and what is your alternative to investing money in the economy by government spending... ?? and dont say "tax cuts" because those will not work in the economy we are in right now. Most economist agree that the stimulus package was the best thing we could have done


California government spending, that's what we're addressing, has doubled over the last decade. Their deficit is projected to be $21.3 billion. Sorry but you can't spend (even if you call it a stimulas package) or borrow your way out of a deficit. That used to be common sense.
2) STOP driving businesses and "the rich" out of your state with steeply progressive taxes. It's not good for your tax base, although Oregon and Nevada thank you.

I dont know if you are aware but we have had a progressive tax code throughout almost all of american history. Reagan's taxes for the wealthy were much higher than Obama's...but no one calls him socialist? not only that...but a progressive tax code works. Here is why: http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/interesting-e-mail-that-was-sent-to-me-197697.html

California, specifically what we are talking about, has the highest income tax (something like 10% on all income over 50K), the highest sales tax, the highest gas tax, and one of the highest business taxes in the union. When your neighboring states have much lower rates guess what starts to happen?

3) STOP expecting your citizens to pay for healthcare, education and other services for illegal residents.
Parts of congress and Obama actually have some good ideas for helping to minimize the amound of illegal residents in this country...but still in what way would we be able to do what you are proposing?
Cut off all services. California residents voted to do this but... and stop me if you've heard this one before, the California courts overturned the will of the people. You can't have open borders and a welfare state. California proves this as illegal immigration costs CA taxpayers an estimated 10.5 billion a year. That's half the deficit right there.

4) Your public-employee pensions are apparently outrageously lavish. Maybe fix that.

There are way more important issues than this
90% pay after 30 years of service seems a little generous to me, but would be a matter between the state and its employees except for the fact that it's billions in the red already. So it isn't working.
5) STOP being envirowienies and start collecting oil revenues by allowing offshore drilling.

Ok...offshore drilling does not even pale in comparison to the amount of money we could make off of investing in new technologies, the new "energy-cores" (which I doubt you know about), and other programs to help reduce energy- obama made a great step the other day with the car regulations
There's a great song by The Mamas And the Papas called 'California Dreaming.'

Offshore drilling = money into the treasury.
"Investment" = spending out of the treasury.
And reducing energy = lower standard of living == less tax revenues. Bad idea when you're already spending way more than you collect.

Build some nuclear power plants if you're worried about oil spills or greenhouse gas emissions. No, that would make too much sense.

6) STOP electing muscleheads that can't even pronounce the name of your state as governor and start electing drop-dead gorgeous beauty queens with solid traditional values.


WHAT!?! Beauty queens with traditional values? What is traditional values? its a made up term to describe something that the right-wing wants. Traditional values are not found in the bible, and being against gay marriage is unfathomable in my mind...but ok...

Well you're in the minority, even in California, and you're even at odds with President Obama who you seem to believe has all the answers.
That's where I'd start anyway. :doh:

all i can say is thank god we have obama now instead of the guy in your avatar.

Is everything George Bush's fault? He completely failed to control illegal immigration true, but California is to blame for most of California's woes.
 
Back
Top Bottom