cordycord

iTrader: (2)

The best way to "repay" America is to be successful. Be rich. Hire people and improve their quality of life. Repaying is not about redistribution.

As I'm sure you know, we are a nation of laws, not of men. The immigrant from South Korea or Korea can come here and flourish under our laws. Keeping our essential freedoms for ourselves and our kids is the key factor. That's pretty much all those damn obstructionist Tea Partiers want--a return to our Constitutional principles of personal freedom and liberty and a strengthening of the negative liberties afforded us. "Negative" as in laws that prevent the government from interfering in our pursuit of happiness, life and liberty.

I think even the "liberal" Founding Fathers would be considered to the right of Ron Paul nowadays.

dk wolf

So this isn't the first time I've read the term obstructionist tea partier on this site. Haven't come across it before. Would anyone mind familiarizing the term to me?

As for liberalism, I've always looked at myself more conservative. Especially my views on life and politics. But politically, I find myself more and more logically leaning towards liberalism. (NOTE: politically) such as letting people decide for themselves on issues (abortion, gay rights, weed, blah blah blah). And should be managed at the state level.
I don't understand if this makes me a liberal or not. But my views are conservative, I'm against gay marriage (not against gays, they coo'), I'm against drug legalization, and all that jazz.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Obstructionist tea partier is a worn out meme meaning House members who were elected partially by tea party members in 2010 expect their elected officials to obstruct the great and wonderful feats of Obama. At least those that he couldn't arrange in his first two years with majorities in the executive and legislative branches, or (of course) by executive fiat or by specially-appointed czars.

Which brings me to my next point; it's no longer about liberal or conservative. It's about having a government that's so big that it really doesn't matter what beliefs you have--the Federal government rules from on high, at the expense of the States rights and individual rights. The Federal government was a lowly 3% of GDP during most of America's greatest expansion. During the World Wars it crept up and has been 18%-19% of GDP for the past 30 years or so. Now government is 25% of GDP and rising, and they're showing no signs of slowing down.

Another question may be are you a "Statist" or an "Individualist"?

dk wolf

I want to begin by saying your statement regarding the federal government is something I completely agree with.

As per your last question, I don't believe they are appropriate choices. I could be wrong in my interpretation of both terms (english is not my primary language, although I try to excel at it as much as possible) but from what I understand;
Statists are those who believe the government should be making decisions as opposed to the burdening the peoples themselves with those specific responsibilities.
But my issue with this term is the lack of clarification on "government" I feel there should most certainly be government control. Should it be as intrusive as ours? No. But I do heavily believe in a stronger local government. I feel that we no longer place such an important on the local government and everyone has eyes on senators, representatives, governors, in their national playing field instead of bringing in state issues to the wide attention of the state itself.

As for Individualists. I believe that more rights and freedoms should be granted to individuals. Should there be absolute freedom? Most certainly not. I feel our race necessitates structure in order to be civilized. I feel many of our rights would heavily be abused, especially for personal gain at the expense of others.
And I constantly bring this up as evidence that "too much free speech has massive negative consequences" if any of you are aware (I know there's a couple network nerds on this forum) take a gander in the "deep-net" the sub-internet network that can't be accessed by your regular browser or traditional surfing means. You need a specifically designed browser such as Tor to experience what the world turns up in true free speech. There are the most atrocious things you could possibly find. It's not all like that, but there's enough horror to justify a regulation on that very freedom.


So to answer your question, I am a mix of both. More statist than individualist.
Find me a large population that has a high majority of educationally potent, politically aware, and morally aligned; then I might justify the individualist mentality.

People are dumb, selfish, easily manipulated and very violent.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

But they dont employ as many people, so it's smaller.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Don't sweat it too much. Braineack tends to only speak in overwrought hyperbole, cartoons and copy-pasta'd quotes from Breitbart sites.


That is probably more of a moral argument as opposed to an operational argument but I think it is predicated on one important common misconception: that taxes are needed to fund the government. I'll send you a PM with more info on that as most of the posters in this thread have read my points on the subject before.

I would make a distinction between "investors" and "traders." Your redefining of long-term gains from 12 months to 6 years seems to indicate you are on that path. You might also consider that, if you are going to raise taxes on investment gains... Should you also alter the handling of investment losses?

It's also important to understand that a lot of companies benefit from investors handing them their capital: it allows for expansions, R&D, capital expenditures, etc. Those things can have benefits for the employees as well.

My numbers included the upcoming "Obamacare tax" that is included in addition to the lapsing of the Bush tax cuts on investment income and capital gains.


I'll skip the stuff on the Fed until you've had a chance to look at the links I will PM you.

The idea is that some people that others label as "tea partiers" espouse ideas like balanced budgets and massive deficit reduction but don't want any sort of tax increases. That leaves it to spending cuts alone to accomplish those goals, but they don't want to cut spending on things they like.... for example, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending, etc.

So, they are: against increasing spending (i.e. for fiscal stimulus), against raising taxes (including eliminating "loopholes" they like such as mortgage interest deduction), against cutting spending on the programs that have the most significant impact on future budgets, etc.

Kudos on taking a "neither black nor white, but some shade of grey" approach.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Scrappy said, "The idea is that some people that others label as "tea partiers" espouse ideas like balanced budgets and massive deficit reduction but don't want any sort of tax increases. That leaves it to spending cuts alone to accomplish those goals, but they don't want to cut spending on things they like.... for example, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending, etc.

So, they are: against increasing spending (i.e. for fiscal stimulus), against raising taxes (including eliminating "loopholes" they like such as mortgage interest deduction), against cutting spending on the programs that have the most significant impact on future budgets, etc."

But he neglects to mention how Reagan and Bush, and Kennedy (before being killed by that Commie) for that matter solved the problem--they grew our economy into prosperity. Imagine if we didn't have high unemployment, didn't have the largest amount of people on food stamps or below the poverty level. What if these people were working and growing the economy? First of all, it would mean less government outlay and more tax dollars coming into the system.

Under Romney's plan (or just plain common sense), we'd also focus on domestic energy. That would mean more good-paying jobs, lower energy costs, more competitiveness for U.S. goods and services world wide (lower prices) and a reduction or reversal of our trade deficit. How do you suppose that would affect our economy?

All of that can be accomplished with a smaller government, and all government would be doing is getting out of the way. This is not a new Tea Party thing, but a return to the founding principles.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Let's assume a balanced budget was something we all wanted.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Couldn't agree more. I no longer call myself a Republican, because they're also part of the problem, albeit a much smaller slice than Reid, Pelosi et al.

Government is too big, and the default way to get re-elected is to promise more entitlements. Few ever get elected by saying "I'll give you less.", and yet that's what we need--less government.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

What's the point of a surplus if we don't pay down debt? and how can it be called a surplus?

bbundy

What is this a graph of?

bbundy

I’m finding this is true. Fukin scary

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Sorry, didn't realize the image itself wasn't labeled.

The annual Federal budget displayed as deficits and surpluses, in billions of dollars, not inflation adjusted.

bbundy

To be honest it would be nice to see the up to date story with that graph with the disaster that was the Bush W administration on it and the slope of the disaster improving back towards fiscal sanity now even though we have been unable to undo the Bush disaster.

I don’t see how anybody that thinks balanced budgets are important can idolize the Reagan years.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

As Mark rightly points out, neither Reagan, Bush or Kennedy legitimately attempted or even claimed to attempt (as I recall) to prioritize a small fiscal deficit or fiscal surplus (while running a moderate trade deficit). Nor did Reagan, Bush or Kennedy drastically cut Federal spending.

Also, Reagan, Bush and Kennedy all used fiscal stimulus (typically via tax reductions but from higher than current levels).

In other words, none of what you mentioned has anything to do with the idea of a Tea Party Obstructionist.

Because most people have no understanding of the history of Federal budgets, let alone how a surplus or balanced fiscal budget (while running a trade deficit) actually affects reality?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

If you have a surplus, and the debt still increases each following year, what's the point?

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

Go to google images and search "completely wrong".

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

A rare moment captured in time.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

$5.8 Mil