Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad

neptunechimney wrote: "You know what they say; one man's terrorist is another man's democratically elected congressman."......................................."
If you're wondering why these elected officials, representing their constituents within the system, are the equivalent of terrorists, a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania bores to the heart of the matter: "This small group of terrorists," Mike Doyle explained, "have made it impossible to spend any money."

Well, damn near impossible. Washington will have to squeeze by on $43,900,000,000,000 over the next decade while wrestling with real cuts that are likely to rise to zero -- or maybe less. If we can't spend money, who are we as a people?

http://townhall.com/columnists/davidhar ... s_have_won

I don't agree with Mike Doyle, I am all for the spending cuts, what the Tea Party has done is make it impossible to raise revenue to pay down our debt faster. This one sided approach will bring our financial house down.....we can't cut enough to solve our deficit problem without sending our fragile economy into a tail spin....which I think we are seeing already with the dropping stock market. Adding revenue to the mix allows us to put more money towards the deficit/debt and get out of the hole we have dig before it collapses in on us.

archer wrote: I don't agree with Mike Doyle, I am all for the spending cuts, what the Tea Party has done is make it impossible to raise revenue to pay down our debt faster. This one sided approach will bring our financial house down.....we can't cut enough to solve our deficit problem without sending our fragile economy into a tail spin....which I think we are seeing already with the dropping stock market. Adding revenue to the mix allows us to put more money towards the deficit/debt and get out of the hole we have dig before it collapses in on us.

Realistically, we all know that revenue increases will come about eventually anyway. This is the Federal Government we're discussing. Of course they're going to find a way to get more money out of our wallets. Watch for things like cuts in the FCC's budget followed by a buck or two increase in the fees charged on cell phones. Cuts in the National Park Service budget followed by a few bucks more to drive from Estes Park to Grand Lake.

Watch for cuts to the office budgets of DC politicians... Ok, I just made that one up - we know that'll never happen.

They'll get their money, the fiscal conservatives have just forced them to be sneaky about it rather than to blatantly raise taxes.

Nobody that matters wrote: They'll get their money, the fiscal conservatives have just forced them to be sneaky about it rather than to blatantly raise taxes.

The best thing we could do right now is blatantly raise taxes.....the deficit is real....it is huge.....and it needs to shrink fast, not slowly as we nickle and dime it to death with a spending cut here and a spending cut there......Only by raising revenue any way we can.......raising taxes, closing loopholes, cutting subsidies, going after overseas accounts....whatever it takes. Once the deficit is brought down to a reasonable level, and no.....I don't know what that would be, and we have a balanced budget....only then can this nation revisit tax cuts.

archer wrote: only then can this nation revisit tax cuts.

and increased freebies like federally funded healthcare.

The leftist have just found somebody to BLAME for OVER SPENDing, now that they releize how dumb it sounds to still blame Bush. If more of these leftist would actually KNOW what the "TEA PARTY" wants, Some would agree. But like always anybody that is a RIGHT-THINKER gets LABELED (from the party that Nevre labels anybody) part of the Tea Party. WE have had a FRICK'in Budget since the messiah has taken over the reins, Which IS the houses JOB, they haven't been doing they're jobs (the damns haven't done it and I'm not seeing the new House doing it, because they have to Fight with the messiah so he HOPES he can get (PLEASE GOD FORBID) another term. When will the leftist finally say "LOUD and CLEAR we screwed up!"

The revenue increase is already set to happen in January of 2013 when the current tax rates will go up. Now, that increase will be touched on, and hopefully defeated, in the next battle scheduled to be fought in Congress, the 2012 budget, but as of this moment there is a tax hike scheduled to occur, like the next debt limit increase, after the 2012 presidential elections.

All of us realize, or at least I hope we do, that the current baseline formula has us scheduled for an additional $7 - $12 Trillion dollars in new debt over the next decade that will have to be added to the current limit of $16.5 Trillion, right? And we all realize, or at least we should, that this obscene amount of money can't be raised simply by doing away with a few of the current deductions and levying an additional tax on only a small segment of the population. We all realize that DC spending, not revenue, is the problem driving this engine of destruction, don't we?

Actual spending, not just the rate of increase, has to come down from year to year before we can have a hope of putting any money towards paying down the principle amount of the debt. DC has to limit the amount of money it spends to 18% or less of the national annual production before there is even a glimmer of a hope that the deficit hole will stop getting deeper. Tossing in $200 Billion or so worth of dirt while excavating an additional $1.5 Trillion worth of dirt from the hole each year isn't going to allow us to put any money towards reducing the current amount of the deficit. Additional revenue will only help once the spending drops below 18% of GDP since that is the historical tax capacity of the nation. It should actually drop to 16% or less during economic downturns since this is the historical level of revenue realized when the economy slows or falls. As long as DC demands 24% plus of the national production every year to support their spending addiction, the deficit hole is only going to get deeper every year. No amount of additional revenue is going to stop that from happening unless we are willing to suffer under a tax burden that is double what the current one is. No one, not even the looniest left wing Democrat, is willing to impose that burden on the citizens of the states; and rightly so, the current DC government would be altered or abolished if they tried.

PrintSmith wrote: No one, not even the looniest left wing Democrat, is willing to impose that burden on the citizens of the states; and rightly so, the current DC government would be altered or abolished if they tried.

I would not bet on that. After all six months ago would you have made a bet at any odds that they would have become islamophobic?

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/oped ... r-1213596/


............"And in the wake of Jared Loughner's January rampage, The Times lamented the "Bloodshed and Invective in Arizona": Although Loughner did not fit any neat ideological category, The Times argued that he was "very much a part of a widespread squall of fear, anger, and intolerance. … It is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger" that set the nation "on edge," the anti-hate paper said.

The paper's "Learning Network" blog advised teachers to "discuss the role of inflammatory political rhetoric" in the Arizona shooting. "Have students … read about current debates over the role of inflammatory and threatening rhetoric in contemporary American politics."

Any bets on whether or not they repeat that call in the wake of publishing the sentiments expressed by their columnist? I don't think even the looniest left-wingnut Democrat would take that bet.

PrintSmith wrote: Any bets on whether or not they repeat that call in the wake of publishing the sentiments expressed by their columnist? I don't think even the looniest left-wingnut Democrat would take that bet.

I would. They believe in new speak. There are no tax increases, only revenue enhancements on "millionaires and billionaires".