the rumors of my death are a bit premature

[CuteOldGuy]

If we elect a new batch of "Tea Partiers" and they behave the way the last bunch of "Tea Partiers" have, we will be no better off. For the most part, they have been compliant with the establishment. We don't need any more of that.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If we elect a new batch of "Tea Partiers" and they behave the way the last bunch of "Tea Partiers" have, we will be no better off. For the most part, they have been compliant with the establishment. We don't need any more of that.

That last batch was instant Tea. Add a tad bit of bank donors to them and they taste just like the rest of congress! Of course JD thinks you just need more Tea...that is what is wrong with the first batch. They do not lust for power. LOL Poor JD is going to be so dissappointed.

[Texas Contrarian]

I don't think anyone is predicting the imminent "death" of the tea party (however you may define it). A fairly sizable minority of the electorate are probably simpatico with what are generally considered "tea party" views. In fact, I wish we had chosen a somewhat more conservative/libertarian path long ago, but we didn't. It would also have been nice to see every household save and invest something like 15% of its net income, but that obviously didn't happen either.

So here we are. Large numbers of people in the huge population bulge known as the "baby boom" are beginning to retire, and the number of new retirees will swell every year for the rest of this decade. Very few have significant levels of net worth and retirement security, and most will be heavily dependent on Medicare and other programs. And they vote! When someone even starts talking about reforms, the public gets treated to images of elderly grandmothers in wheelchairs being pushed off cliffs. When people become ensconced in office, they generally have a way of showing that they have little appetite for being landslided out of office.

And what happens when anyone tries to trim the defense budget? It's obviously not an accident that defense contractors are spread across many dozens of congressional districts. It seems almost impossible to trim or eliminate programs generally considered unnecessary. Various congresspersons will make almost any sort of deal in order to avoid the loss of dollars flowing into their districts. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why we need so many bases and troops located in wealthy countries that can easily afford to pay for their own security.

So the question I would pose to anyone considering a run for congress on a "tea party" platform is simply this:

Where and what would you cut? Please be specific. It isn't good enough just to say "waste and fraud", although we obviously should cut as much of that as possible. But it won't be nearly enough.

Various tax cuts and other benefits, such as subsidies for public-sector unions, were handed out via the 2009 "stimulus package." On top of that, we added a two percentage point "temporary" payroll tax cut in 2010. And once favored constituencies get "stimulated", they like to stay stimulated.

We obviously will not be able to keep up the money-printing and debt monetization practices forever. There is a piper who is going to insist on being paid sooner or later.

Politicians need to have the balls to deliver the following message to the public: Absent politically impracticable (and huge) spending cuts, you'd better get ready for large tax increases within the next few years.

The alternative -- running very large budget deficits for as long as we can get away with it -- is not likely end very well.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Lets see 10 out of 55 congressman accepting money from banking concerns. That is significantly less than 20 % which is pretty damn good considering the old timers are about 90%.

Let see how many continue when their support dries up. Did you really think that any thing in politics is 100%? Naive doesn't even begin to cover it.

As for Lugar, he was supported by the Washington establishment until Sarah Palin opposed them. Boy, they couldn't run away fast enough. Tell me another fairy tale about the Tea Party not having an affect.

18.18% is significantly less than 20%? That's less than one person in the equation. So it's not possible and 20% is the correct answer.

Where does the 90% figure come from?

Let me guess. You made it up. Again.

[JD Barleycorn]

Perception is reality. Bet you haven't heard that before.

[Texas Contrarian]

I see that JD moved blithely on, choosing not to attempt to address any of the questions I asked in my previous post. But it seems to me that anyone running for office on a "tea party" platform better be ready for all of them.

Posturing is fine when you're attending a rally, writing a blog, or campaigning for office. But when it comes time to actually govern, you will be called upon to be clear and specific on all these questions and more.

So how about it, folks?

Does anyone who supports a "tea party" platform care to take a stab at answering the questions?

Or perhaps you'd rather just tacitly admit that the "tea party", as a viable governing philosophy, is going nowhere.

[JD Barleycorn]

You make claims yourself but don't look at the facts. I posted a little dig 2 hours after you posted your "questions". I haven't been back to this thread since. So I never read your post and considering some of your other post (that I have read since) you are not really serious.
Number One, I am not running for Congress and don't have a group of people who dig up these things like Solyndra and the GSA. I have to rely on the media just like you. So anything I say is a generality. In principal I want all waste to stop and I want judgement to be much better. Did you really think it was a good idea to spend on the money on a Vegas junket? Really? I need you to hand in your resignation for being an idiot. How about you? Weren't you told that you couldn't buy that system but you did it anyway because your brother in law sells those systems? So you spent 3.5 million tax payer dollars on a system that still sits in a room some place unopened...your fired! Why are there 700 cars sitting in this parking garage not being used? This is the way you've always done it... tell that to them on your next job. B-bye. Congressman, I see you dropped in a ear mark for 125 million dollars to build a bridge in your district for approximately 245 people to use. I wish I could fire you but I can't. The only thing I can do is try to do the right thing on the behalf of my constituents. It is up to your people to hold you accountable for your crimes.

I hate waste, I hate fraud, I hate abuse, I hate it when the military is forced to buy a system that they don't want because some politician is going to "create" 50 jobs by doing so. I don't like it when a politician takes advantage of secret knowledge to put money in their pockets. I would like to get govenment out of the business of selecting winners and losers but we need to change the guy in the White House. If I were a congressman I would spend money, lots of money but I would like to think that it was not for lining my pockets or for paying off friends. I know I would catch hell for wanting to buy new ships and new tanks because you can't please everyone.

[CuteOldGuy]

I am not a Tea Partier, however, I would close the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, HHS, and a couple others I forgot right now. I would close nearly all of our foreign bases and bring our servicemen home. I would end foreign aid to countries that hate us, and probably end it for countries that pretend to like us. I would repeal Obamacare. I would repeal the income tax. I would close the Federal Reserve. I would overhaul our welfare state and turn it into a true safety net, rather than a lifestyle.

On my second day, I would pick up where I left off.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You make claims yourself but don't look at the facts.

Really?

Please point to a claim I've made that doesn't square with the facts. (Note: Opinions with which you disagree don't count.)

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I never read your post and considering some of your other post (that I have read since) you are not really serious.

Serious about what? Espousing every tenet of a full-bore tea party agenda? I would prefer a more conservative/libertarian path than the one we've chosen, but a different course was set long ago.

All the things you listed -- including the Las Vegas junket, Solyndra, wasteful pork, etc., was obviously egregious behavior. Everyone responsible should be voted out of office, fired, or even prosecuted if it's discovered that laws were broken. But they amount to only a tiny fraction of 1% of federal spending.

You completely ignored the major drivers of our deficit trajectory, the primary one being Medicare. Are you going to suggest that tea party politicians tell everyone that they can keep all their tax cuts and enjoy the full range of benefits upon which they've been told they can rely?

I believe that Medicare should be means-tested and that everyone other than the poor should be required to pay for their coverage, or at least pay for much more of it than they do now. Social Security was originally intended, as I understand it, to be a safety net to prevent elderly widows from becoming destitute -- not a poorly-conceived, low-return forced saving plan. I think it should be means-tested, too. It's ridiculous that we're paying hundreds of billions of dollars every year to people who don't really need the benefits.

But try telling that to older voters, who go to the polls in very large numbers. That's why I don't think the tea party is going anywhere.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

If I were a congressman I would spend money, lots of money but I would like to think that it was not for lining my pockets or for paying off friends. I know I would catch hell for wanting to buy new ships and new tanks because you can't please everyone.

So, in essence, you would tell voters, "Sorry, we can't give you much in the way of Medicare and other health care benefits, since we need the money to spend even more on defense."

Good luck with that.

The only point I wanted to make is that it simply isn't realistic to expect that the enactment of anything resembling a "tea party" agenda is anything more than a remote possibity. American voters have spoken over a period of several decades, and it's clear that they want at least a certain level of social democracy. Not quite the level in a country like France, for instance, but still a pretty far-reaching agenda. Tea party politicians are not going to reverse that.

A whole lot of things can be said about older folks, but one of the most obvious is that they vote in large numbers.

[JD Barleycorn]

Did you see where I said I would "even more money"? Didn't happen did it. I said I would spend money and I have my priorities as established by the US Constitution. Number one; defense

I've got a little time right now so lets go down the laundry list;
Reduce the size of the EPA
Eliminate the Education Department
Take away union protection from the TSA
Means test Social Security and Medicare
Raise the age for Social Security
Have women register for the draft (you want equality)
Privatize Social Security including personal accounts
Privatize airport security
Change (create?) an energy policy with the clear mission to obtain cheap, plentiful energy
Bring back the manned space program
Increase the size of the navy to 400 ships
Build the fence across the border
Use the National Guard to keep the violence in Mexico and out of the USA
Reopen the Gulf of Mexico to American drilling
Open up Anwr for drilling
Sell off 50% of all federally owned land and all money goes to retiring the debt
Raise the voting age to 21 years of age except for military personnel
Eliminate all federal taxes on active duty military pay
Term limit senators and congressmen to 12 years and 8 years respectively
Eliminate pensions for senators and congressmen
Have all senators and congressmen receive their pay checks and office budgets from their home state and not the federal government.
Start an agency that will be ruthless in routing out poor fiscal judgement and wasteful spending by firing people
Pass an amendment that all states are responsible for their own debts and poorly run states cannot pass their debt onto well run states or the federal government.
Investigate Media Matters and George Soros for tax evasion

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I am not a Tea Partier, however, I would close the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, HHS, and a couple others I forgot right now. I would close nearly all of our foreign bases and bring our servicemen home. I would end foreign aid to countries that hate us, and probably end it for countries that pretend to like us. I would repeal Obamacare. I would repeal the income tax. I would close the Federal Reserve. I would overhaul our welfare state and turn it into a true safety net, rather than a lifestyle.

On my second day, I would pick up where I left off.

It may be different than when protesters were trying to get Bush to close bases and bring troops home.The answer then was the country's where we have troops stationed pay us to have troops there,and if we bring them home the taxpayers will have to pay.

[CuteOldGuy]

What countries are those, Ekim?

[Texas Contrarian]

JD, I agree with a lot of the items you listed, and was glad to see that you finally put some "meat on the bones."

It's just that I don't really think much of that is politically practicble, particulary with regards to means-testing Medicare and Social Security. Isn't that just tilting at windmills? (Old people and soon-to-become old people vote in large numbers.)

I'm also curious what tea party supporters recommend in the way of tax reform. I think everybody realizes that revenues need to be increased substantially, else politicians will be forced to take an axe, not a scalpel, to just about everything. (In which case, you'd better be prepared for rioting in the streets -- like in Greece.) The financial system and the world's credit markets are not going to let us get away indefinitely with anything remotely close to the current level of deficit spending.

[CuteOldGuy]

Again, not a Tea Partier, but we will never get out of this mess with our current tax code. We need to repeal the 16th amendment, abolish the income tax, and adopt the FairTax. It is as simple as that.

[yaddayadda]

I am conservative but not political. When YOUR federal government is borrowing (which means you are borrowing) 40% out of every dollar spent (it will be over 16 Trillion very soon) the only way to pay the check is to lessen the value of the dollar. You can't raise taxes on the rich to get that kind of money and the poor don't have it....there is no middle class anymore. Corporations do not pay taxes, they collect them from you and me....so what happens?

All your savings will mean nothing and your social security check will buy you a loaf of bread, maybe.

All I hear in compromise, but how do you compromise with STOP spending? Both parties have never presented a budget that CUTS spending, only stops the RATE of increase in spending. They are all crooks and liars....the end is coming and it ain't gonna be pretty. Obama is lost in the woods and Romney is another Bush Republican....is there one honest man in Washinton D.C? If there is please turn out the lights when you leave.....Good God people.