Sadler vs. Cruz - where does GMG stand on this one?

Mean Green Scrappy · October 22, 2012

You are wrong in your description of the Tea Party. They want to balance a budget with only cuts in programming and no increased revenue, and that is a ridiculous theory to have. A true "balanced" budget will have both cuts in programming and increased revenue. The Tea Party has brought the democratic process to a scretching halt not only at the federal and state levels, but also at the local levels in places where these geniuses have been elected.

Harry Reid has single-handedly brought the democratic process to a halt by not letting anything be discussed or debated or brought up for vote in the Senate. Where is the Senate democrat's budget proposal so we can at least take a look at it and talk about it? They haven't put one out in years. To me its a ridiculous theory to raise taxes. Lets give the politicians in D.C. more money to waste and spend on programs that do not accomplish what they are suppose to accomplish. Not to mention it is kind of hard to keep raising taxes on your tax base when all it does is put them out of work or make them want to fold up their companies if they are owners. What the other side doesn't see is lower taxes = more jobs = more people making money by working = larger tax base so you end up with more revenue but at a lower tax rate. Win win for all, and you can do that along with cuts and then you can achieve a true "balanced" budget.

Thanks for the advice, UNT90. Actually, I do try to think for myself. I also try to gather my own information. I've talked to lots of folk who consider themselves Tea Partiers. They are a remarkably homogeneous group. Not only do they favor a balanced budget - everyone I've talked to wants to balance that budget by smaller government - drastically smaller government - increased taxes cannot be part of the discussion.

Every Tea Partier I talked too wants to reduce government regulation - again drastically. Every Tea Partier I've talked to wants to shut down the border. Every Tea Partier I've talked to distrusts the science of climate change. Most favor English as the official language. Most want creationism taught in public schools. Most want public display of religious (read Christian) symbols. Most want to drill baby drill everywhere.

So no - the Tea Party isn't just a group of well-meaning old folks who only share an understandable desire to reduce the deficit. These are die-hard extreme conservatives. Their reputation isn't a fabrication of the librul media. They really are on the extreme right of the Republican Party. Nothing wrong with that - unless you try to sell them as something they're not - moderate.

People who don't want a drastically smaller government, talk about increasing taxes, don't want to reduce government regulation, don't want to close the border and bring control to it, believes in climate change, doesn't want English as our official language, doesn't acknowledge that this is a Christian nation built on Christian principals, doesn't want to drill on our own land and are okay with buying their oil from the Middle East are die-hard extreme liberals to me.

See it can work both ways and I bet you don't like being called extreme.

Thank God we can at least all agree that the Mean Green is the team to support.

Mean Green Scrappy · October 22, 2012

Well, we have a "Git Sum Presidentin'" thread, and now we are Gittin' Sum Senatorin' (proposed new name for this thread). When do we Git Sum Representativin'?

My favorite quote from Congressman Burgess is please don't call me Congressman, call me Doctor, doctor's have more respect.

UNT90 · October 22, 2012

You are wrong in your description of the Tea Party. They want to balance a budget with only cuts in programming and no increased revenue, and that is a ridiculous theory to have. A true "balanced" budget will have both cuts in programming and increased revenue. The Tea Party has brought the democratic process to a scretching halt not only at the federal and state levels, but also at the local levels in places where these geniuses have been elected.

If by democratic process, you mean spending beyond your means, then you are right.

Let me ask you this. Let's say you are in debt, and going further in debt every day with your personal spending habits. Is your solution to that problem to go to your boss and tell him "hey, I really can't manage my money, so I have put myself in a huge hole of debt, which means I need you to give me more money to mismanage." Do you really think ANY boss in his right mind would give you a raise because you are in debt? That is what you are saying here.

It's interesting that you say "Increased revenues" and not tax increases. Why are you afraid to say what you really mean?

And Wisconsin disagrees with you... twice...

EDIT: Oh, and you have yet to mention one policy of Ted Cruz's that you find extreme. NOT ONE. Come on, man, you gotta bring something to the table here...

Edited October 22, 2012 by UNT90

glick1980 · October 22, 2012

Harry Reid has single-handedly brought the democratic process to a halt by not letting anything be discussed or debated or brought up for vote in the Senate. Where is the Senate democrat's budget proposal so we can at least take a look at it and talk about it? They haven't put one out in years. To me its a ridiculous theory to raise taxes. Lets give the politicians in D.C. more money to waste and spend on programs that do not accomplish what they are suppose to accomplish. Not to mention it is kind of hard to keep raising taxes on your tax base when all it does is put them out of work or make them want to fold up their companies if they are owners. What the other side doesn't see is lower taxes = more jobs = more people making money by working = larger tax base so you end up with more revenue but at a lower tax rate. Win win for all, and you can do that along with cuts and then you can achieve a true "balanced" budget.

Trickle down economics is what you are describing and it has never worked and will never work because of greed. So let's get this straight, don't give your tax dollars to the goverment because they don't know what to do with it, give your tax dollars to big businesses in the form of tax cuts in the hope that they will give you a job, instead of just pocketing the money like they have always done and will always do. The only president to use trickle down economics was Reagan, and he promptly tripled the national debt in his time in office, all while doubling taxes on the middle class and reducing taxes on the rich. Oh yeah, all those rich people that were going to be giving out all those jobs under Reagan didn't, and there was an unemployment rate of 7.5% during his presidency, a 1.1% increase in joblessness from Jimmy Carter....

glick1980 · October 22, 2012

If by democratic process, you mean spending beyond your means, then you are right.

Let me ask you this. Let's say you are in debt, and going further in debt every day with your personal spending habits. Is your solution to that problem to go to your boss and tell him "hey, I really can't manage my money, so I have put myself in a huge hole of debt, which means I need you to give me more money to mismanage." Do you really think ANY boss in his right mind would give you a raise because you are in debt? That is what you are saying here.

It's interesting that you say "Increased revenues" and not tax increases. Why are you afraid to say what you really mean?

And Wisconsin disagrees with you... twice...

EDIT: Oh, and you have yet to mention one policy of Ted Cruz's that you find extreme. NOT ONE. Come on, man, you gotta bring something to the table here...

I never said Cruz was extreme, I think you are referring to someone else. He does however speak at Tea Party functions...

GTWT · October 22, 2012

People who don't want a drastically smaller government, talk about increasing taxes, don't want to reduce government regulation, don't want to close the border and bring control to it, believes in climate change, doesn't want English as our official language, doesn't acknowledge that this is a Christian nation built on Christian principals, doesn't want to drill on our own land and are okay with buying their oil from the Middle East are die-hard extreme liberals to me.

See it can work both ways and I bet you don't like being called extreme.

Thank God we can at least all agree that the Mean Green is the team to support.

You're right, Scrappy. We're on opposite sides of the political extreme. Like you, I want a balanced budget BUT I want a tax system where the rich pay their fair share. I want a government that is empowered to do the things I want government to do. I want immigration reform - not xenophobia. I want science to inform our policy & I'm not comfortable with science-denial. I don't think having an 'official language' is anything other than a manisfestation of xenophobia. I certainly don't want a Christian version of Sharia law. I don't want to drill on our most precious public land so that Exxon can make a bigger profit & so that you can pay a nickle less for gas for your guzzler.

If that makes me an extreme librul, so be it.

I do agree with you about the Mean Green.

Edited October 22, 2012 by GTWT

Christopher Walker · October 22, 2012

What the other side doesn't see is lower taxes = more jobs = more people making money by working = larger tax base so you end up with more revenue but at a lower tax rate. Win win for all, and you can do that along with cuts and then you can achieve a true "balanced" budget.

In the 1920s, income tax was drastically reduced to its lowest levels, and is widely considered a major contributing factor to the vast income inequality (sound familiar?) and then eventual collapse of our economy in the The Great Depression (also sounding close to recent history...). Afterwards, government reinstated the tax code in slightly different metrics, and over the course of the 50s, 60s, and some of the 70s, we roared back and became the world super power.

Cut to recent history: after Reagan cuts taxes, we suddenly can't meet our commitments, deficit increases. Bush Sr. realizes this to a point and increases taxes a little, to much chastisement from his party. Clinton however, greatly increases and broadens the tax base mixed with balanced budgeting and boom. Surplus. Lots of economic growth. The greatest increase in private jobs ever.

Dubya comes in and promises to vanquish all these new pesky taxes, implements his own set of cuts back to low levels. The results (also coupled with the deregulation of banks and housing lending - which did happen under Clinton, and caught up in '08) led to the Great Recession, spinning into joblessness and putting the country back into double digits of trillions in debt.

History. And just as the Great Depression was not bested in even a decade, you are not going to see an immediate reversal of the recent damage done in four or five years. But! Obama's economic policies have certainly put a shift in the right direction towards recovery.

Now, all that being said: of course there is a lot of government that needs to be cut, but there is a lot revenue lost from tax cuts that needs to come back as well.

TL;DR summary: History does not support the notion that lower taxes equates to better jobs market or economy. In fact, the truth is in the opposite.

Mean Green Scrappy · October 22, 2012

Trickle down economics is what you are describing and it has never worked and will never work because of greed. So let's get this straight, don't give your tax dollars to the goverment because they don't know what to do with it, give your tax dollars to big businesses in the form of tax cuts in the hope that they will give you a job, instead of just pocketing the money like they have always done and will always do. The only president to use trickle down economics was Reagan, and he promptly tripled the national debt in his time in office, all while doubling taxes on the middle class and reducing taxes on the rich. Oh yeah, all those rich people that were going to be giving out all those jobs under Reagan didn't, and there was an unemployment rate of 7.5% during his presidency, a 1.1% increase in joblessness from Jimmy Carter....

So you've misused and misunderstood some numbers during the Reagan years, but that is ok cause most liberals have. I'll just try to help get this straight for you. And yes, by the way I would rather give my money to companies then to the government with less restrictions on those companies.

To understand the national debt you need to look at GDP and understander how the two relate. Most often people just look at one or the other which doesn't give you the complete picture. In 1980 when Reagan took office our GDP was $2.79 trillion and the debt was 32.6% of the GDP. In his final year of office, 1988, the GDP was $5.1 trillion and the debt was 51% of the GDP. GDP increased by 82% in 8 years under Reagan. So while the debt did increase from 32.6% to 51% during the same 8 years it actually only increased 59% relative to the whole economy, not 300% as you stated. So while liberals love to throw that number out there it is technically wrong. Yes the debt went from $909 billion to $2.857 trillion but when you look at the whole picture it was only a 59% increase, again not a 300% increase. And even though that is still a high increase we need to look at why that happen. Military spending went up for a little something called the Cold War, which we won under Reagan. Democrats were still in power in Congress. Even though they promised not to spend more money they still did, going on a wild spending spree by going over President Reagan.

Unemployment... Reagan came in and in January 1981 it was 7.5% then peeked to 10.8% in December 1982. Reagan's policies started taking place and since December 1982 it went down almost every single month until he left office and it was 5.4%. it continued to decrease even after he left. Sorry but you need to find a better stat to throw out there.

I hope I have helped straighten it out for you and now for fun I offer up this video.

http://youtu.be/3h8O7V-WxWQ

Edited October 22, 2012 by Mean Green Scrappy

Mean Green Scrappy · October 22, 2012

You're right, Scrappy. We're on opposite sides of the political extreme. Like you, I want a balanced budget BUT I want a tax system where the rich pay their fair share. I want a government that is empowered to do the things I want government to do. I want immigration reform - not xenophobia. I want science to inform our policy & I'm not comfortable with science-denial. I don't think having an 'official language' is anything other than a manisfestation of xenophobia. I certainly don't want a Christian version of Sharia law. I don't want to drill on our most precious public land so that Exxon can make a bigger profit & so that you can pay a nickle less for gas for your guzzler.

If that makes me an extreme librul, so be it.

I do agree with you about the Mean Green.

We are opposite indeed politically, but you are invited to my tailgate for a beer, or whiskey and coke if you prefer, and a game of washers or beer pong or both. People can disagree and still be friends. That's a message that doesn't get taught enough. :bbq:

Christopher Walker · October 22, 2012

This is hilarious.

Mean Green Scrappy · October 22, 2012

In the 1920s, income tax was drastically reduced to its lowest levels, and is widely considered a major contributing factor to the vast income inequality (sound familiar?) and then eventual collapse of our economy in the The Great Depression (also sounding close to recent history...). Afterwards, government reinstated the tax code in slightly different metrics, and over the course of the 50s, 60s, and some of the 70s, we roared back and became the world super power.

Cut to recent history: after Reagan cuts taxes, we suddenly can't meet our commitments, deficit increases. Bush Sr. realizes this to a point and increases taxes a little, to much chastisement from his party. Clinton however, greatly increases and broadens the tax base mixed with balanced budgeting and boom. Surplus. Lots of economic growth. The greatest increase in private jobs ever.

Dubya comes in and promises to vanquish all these new pesky taxes, implements his own set of cuts back to low levels. The results (also coupled with the deregulation of banks and housing lending - which did happen under Clinton, and caught up in '08) led to the Great Recession, spinning into joblessness and putting the country back into double digits of trillions in debt.

History. And just as the Great Depression was not bested in even a decade, you are not going to see an immediate reversal of the recent damage done in four or five years. But! Obama's economic policies have certainly put a shift in the right direction towards recovery.

Now, all that being said: of course there is a lot of government that needs to be cut, but there is a lot revenue lost from tax cuts that needs to come back as well.

TL;DR summary: History does not support the notion that lower taxes equates to better jobs market or economy. In fact, the truth is in the opposite.

Lets just say I disagree but you too are invited over for tailgate fun.

Christopher Walker · October 22, 2012

Lets just say I disagree but you too are invited over for tailgate fun.

If and when I get to steal away from the Alumni Pavilion on game days, sure thing. :thumbsu:

Mean Green Scrappy · October 22, 2012

If and when I get to steal away from the Alumni Pavilion on game days, sure thing.

I always try to stop in before games so one way or another a beer will be shared.

oldguystudent · October 23, 2012

Oh dear lord. I just discovered that I went to high school with Ted Cruz's wife. That poor bastard. That woman would step on the writhing corpse of her own mother in a stiletto to get half a rung higher up on the ladder. May God have mercy on his soul.

Edit: Her brother, on the other hand, who showed even more ambition as a teenager, became a doctor, moved to the Dominican Republic, and doles out free health care to poor people and lives on next to nothing. He went to Haiti immediately after the earthquake and saved hundreds of lives. This, of course, has nothing to do with anything except how some people never change, and others change completely.

Edited October 23, 2012 by oldguystudent

oldguystudent · October 23, 2012

For anybody who feels like reading a little over 800 pages of legalese, here's the 1986 tax reform. In a nutshell, it's pretty similar to what Romney is proposing -- fewer tax brackets at lower rates and fewer available deductions. Then come back and tell me exactly how many tax years it was in practice as written, unabridged by congressional proposed regs fueled by lobbyists.

The point of this isn't to opine on the merits of the 1986 tax reform act, but rather to point out that a simple code will never exist. There are waaaaay too many special interests on both sides of the aisle who will make sure that never happens.

KRAM1 · October 23, 2012

Oh dear lord. I just discovered that I went to high school with Ted Cruz's wife. That poor bastard. That woman would step on the writhing corpse of her own mother in a stiletto to get half a rung higher up on the ladder. May God have mercy on his soul.

Edit: Her brother, on the other hand, who showed even more ambition as a teenager, became a doctor, moved to the Dominican Republic, and doles out free health care to poor people and lives on next to nothing. He went to Haiti immediately after the earthquake and saved hundreds of lives. This, of course, has nothing to do with anything except how some people never change, and others change completely.

I guess this means she turned you down for a date to the prom or something.

oldguystudent · October 23, 2012

I guess this means she turned you down for a date to the prom or something.

I would rather have had my eyes gouged out with a coat hanger, and I assure you the feeling was mutual.

KRAM1 · October 23, 2012

I would rather have had my eyes gouged out with a coat hanger, and I assure you the feeling was mutual.

So, I get it...having a little fun with you warrants a -1. Typical Liberal..no humor...I get it..thanks. Ha! Maybe that's why she turned you down..no sense of humor...or didn't get it! Let me point out...just having fun with you.....relax!

oldguystudent · October 23, 2012

So, I get it...having a little fun with you warrants a -1. Typical Liberal..no humor...I get it..thanks. Ha! Maybe that's why she turned you down..no sense of humor...or didn't get it! Let me point out...just having fun with you.....relax!

Oh, you're fine. Several of us actually had a good laugh about it. This girl went farther than any of us could have imagined. Reported directly to Condaleeza Rice. Regional Vice President of investment banking for Goldman Sachs, and now wife to a US senator. It's an absolutely perfect story for her.

Our rivalry had nothing to do with liberal conservative. Well, maybe it did. Besides my being the dirt poor kid and her being the daughter of a man who climbed Everest for fun, we were fundamentally against each other on the concept of content vs never enough.

We were the top two in our class. I knew an A was an A, and was happy to take my 90%. She would relentlessly argue a 99 up to a 101, but also would demand other students' work be reviewed for possible missed errors. She didn't just want to be the best. She actively sought to push others down in the process.

Edited October 23, 2012 by oldguystudent

UNT90 · October 23, 2012

Oh dear lord. I just discovered that I went to high school with Ted Cruz's wife. That poor bastard. That woman would step on the writhing corpse of her own mother in a stiletto to get half a rung higher up on the ladder. May God have mercy on his soul.

Edit: Her brother, on the other hand, who showed even more ambition as a teenager, became a doctor, moved to the Dominican Republic, and doles out free health care to poor people and lives on next to nothing. He went to Haiti immediately after the earthquake and saved hundreds of lives. This, of course, has nothing to do with anything except how some people never change, and others change completely.

I wonder what she would say about you and your high school days...

I think we all know we aren't the same person that we were in high school. Well, those of us over 30, anyway.

Edited October 23, 2012 by UNT90

UNT90 · October 23, 2012

Thanks for the advice, UNT90. Actually, I do try to think for myself. I also try to gather my own information. I've talked to lots of folk who consider themselves Tea Partiers. They are a remarkably homogeneous group. Not only do they favor a balanced budget - everyone I've talked to wants to balance that budget by smaller government - drastically smaller government - increased taxes cannot be part of the discussion.

Every Tea Partier I talked too wants to reduce government regulation - again drastically. Every Tea Partier I've talked to wants to shut down the border. Every Tea Partier I've talked to distrusts the science of climate change. Most favor English as the official language. Most want creationism taught in public schools. Most want public display of religious (read Christian) symbols. Most want to drill baby drill everywhere.

So no - the Tea Party isn't just a group of well-meaning old folks who only share an understandable desire to reduce the deficit. These are die-hard extreme conservatives. Their reputation isn't a fabrication of the librul media. They really are on the extreme right of the Republican Party. Nothing wrong with that - unless you try to sell them as something they're not - moderate.

Because you don't agree with them, they are extreme, right?

Why won't you answer the question? Explain why Ted Cruz is "radical". Give me one policy of his with which you disagree, specifically. Or have you just said, "Oh, he's tea party, and I hear they are ultra-conservative on TV, so I'm against him."

By the highlighted, I assume you are young? 20s or 30s? Maybe these people have more life experience than you?

No one is trying to sell Ted Cruz as a Rhino (THANK GOD), but to say he is the next coming of Pat Robertson is completely laughable.

Then again, maybe to you anyone who has conservatives beliefs is "Extreme."

UNT90 · October 23, 2012

I never said Cruz was extreme, I think you are referring to someone else. He does however speak at Tea Party functions...

Hope everyone sees what you do here. You won't give one policy of his that you disagree with, but you absolutely call him extreme, and in a very cowardly way. You simply link him to the tea party, which you have already said over and over again is an extreme movement. Judging groups is a dangerous thing, my friend.

Trickle down economics is what you are describing and it has never worked and will never work because of greed. So let's get this straight, don't give your tax dollars to the goverment because they don't know what to do with it, give your tax dollars to big businesses in the form of tax cuts in the hope that they will give you a job, instead of just pocketing the money like they have always done and will always do. The only president to use trickle down economics was Reagan, and he promptly tripled the national debt in his time in office, all while doubling taxes on the middle class and reducing taxes on the rich. Oh yeah, all those rich people that were going to be giving out all those jobs under Reagan didn't, and there was an unemployment rate of 7.5% during his presidency, a 1.1% increase in joblessness from Jimmy Carter....

WOW. Just outright lie when you don't have the facts, right?

glick1980 · October 23, 2012

WOW. Just outright lie when you don't have the facts, right?

The average unemployment rate under Reagan was 7.5% how is tha a lie? The national debt tripled under Reagan, increased from 26% of GDP to 41% of GDP, and the annual budget defecit more than quadrupled under Reagan from $56M to $237M. GDP did grow .27% more than under Carter, Ford, or Nixon. Reagan spent more, 22.4% of GDP, than the average of the last 40 years, 20.4%.

GTWT · October 23, 2012

Because you don't agree with them, they are extreme, right?

Why won't you answer the question? Explain why Ted Cruz is "radical". Give me one policy of his with which you disagree, specifically. Or have you just said, "Oh, he's tea party, and I hear they are ultra-conservative on TV, so I'm against him."

By the highlighted, I assume you are young? 20s or 30s? Maybe these people have more life experience than you?

No one is trying to sell Ted Cruz as a Rhino (THANK GOD), but to say he is the next coming of Pat Robertson is completely laughable.

Then again, maybe to you anyone who has conservatives beliefs is "Extreme."

Just one?

Cruz signed the Contract From America
The Contract from America, clause 2. Reject Cap & Trade:
Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation's global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.

The link - http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Ted_Cruz_Energy_+_Oil.htm

People who argue that climate change isn't real, or that man isn't a contributor, or that the cost of ameliorating climate change is too high nearly always are motivated not by science, but by economics, ideology, or politics. Science denial is a conservative trait.

You want more?

As for my age, I'm 61. I still can recognize that most of the folks at the Tea Party get-together I attended were 'old folks'. That's an observation, something you suggested I do, not an indictment.

Oh! Scrappy - I'm looking forward to that beer.

FirefightnRick · October 23, 2012

The Cinton Surplus Myth.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/craigsteiner/2011/08/22/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full/

.."Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:..."

Rick