Any cons here going teabagging?

[wind_magic]

Craigimass,

In answer to your question "why now ?", the obvious answer is because people's budgets are getting tighter so it matters a lot more now. When times were great people were more willing to turn a blind eye, but now that people are having trouble putting food on the table they are looking for anywhere they can save money - and taxes are a huge percentage of their check. Of course they are going to look at their expenses and say "We can cut this, we can't cut that ... and what about this HUGE TAX WE PAY, what can we do about that ?". That's why most people are upset.

Here where I live (and probably everywhere else too) there is a HUGE uproar about property taxes this year because everyone is paying boom taxes on bust real estate and it is pissing people off.

People see their local governments trying to cut back, I know around where I live the local government now has a hiring freeze, people have to clean their own offices now, no more government cars, etc, and they wonder why the federal government isn't doing the same thing. Federal spending is going UP, not down, and you have people in government talking about funding a bunch of new stuff, it's madness.

[sck5]

Its not madness. Its economics. Stimulus got us out of the Great Depression and it can get us out of this depression too. You are channelling Herbert Hoover when you scream about balancing the budget as the economy heads into a tailspin. Hoover was wrong then and it is wrong now. You are correct that both Dems and Repubs spend but there IS a difference. Dems believe in paying for our spending NOW rather than making our kids do it in the future as the Repubs do. But there are times (and this is one) where a stimulus (thats a deficit, yes, red ink on purpose) is the only medicine that will work.

Good luck politically with refusing to help people who need it through no fault of their own. That is what large parts of the stimulus are for (and would be even a bigger share, but the Repubs they needed refused to vote for it). Thank God the repubs arent in charge right now or they would bring us to the same place Herbert Hoover did - 1932

[PBzeer]

sck - go back and read your history books. Hoover instituted the most massive growth in Federal spending that the country had seen until that point.

But, more than that, what windy is referring to is not the so-called stimulus, but the spending to come on expanding government. We're not talking temporary spending here, we're talking spending that even Obama's budget says will result in annual $700 billion deficits in 10 years.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by sck5

Its not madness. Its economics. Stimulus got us out of the Great Depression and it can get us out of this depression too. You are channelling Herbert Hoover when you scream about balancing the budget as the economy heads into a tailspin. Hoover was wrong then and it is wrong now. You are correct that both Dems and Repubs spend but there IS a difference. Dems believe in paying for our spending NOW rather than making our kids do it in the future as the Repubs do. But there are times (and this is one) where a stimulus (thats a deficit, yes, red ink on purpose) is the only medicine that will work.

Good luck politically with refusing to help people who need it through no fault of their own. That is what large parts of the stimulus are for (and would be even a bigger share, but the Repubs they needed refused to vote for it). Thank God the repubs arent in charge right now or they would bring us to the same place Herbert Hoover did - 1932

Of course what you are saying is a valid point of view, and stimulus in general is being hotly debated everywhere right now because of that - it may help, but it may also lead to the kind of inflation we had in the late 30's, or worse. The real concern though is the spending. The success of government spending as stimulus is by no means as much of a certainty as you represent in your post, and your version of the history of Great Depression is not shared by everyone, and not by me. But whatever you think of the stimulus, you are going to have to deal with the simple fact that there are a lot of tax payers out there who DO NOT agree with it - you have to deal with that basic fact the same way that Republicans had to deal with the fact that a lot of people disagreed with them about Iraq. All the talking in the world isn't going to convince some people that higher spending is the answer, they know higher spending in their own house isn't the answer and it isn't at all a given that it is going to help if the federal government does it either. I don't think it is okay for every Democrat to follow Craigimass's dismissive lead about tax payer concerns, tax payers who want lower taxes have a valid point of view just like you do, and they shouldn't be written off with cheap comedy and sarcasm just because they think we are going in the wrong direction.

I also disagree with some of the Republican approaches, I totally disagree with increasing military spending right now, in fact I would like to see cuts both in our military spending and in our deployment of forces, I would like to see us get rid of a few of our overseas bases for example. But I would also like to see other things cut in addition to military spending, and that would include some of the Democrats beloved programs.

Like I said, nobody is looking out for the American tax payer in all of this - not Democrats, not Republicans, not anybody. The tax payer is just supposed to nod their head in agreement and pull out their checkbook, and it is completely natural that some folks are angry about it.

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by wind_magic

In answer to your question "why now ?", the obvious answer is because people's budgets are getting tighter so it matters a lot more now. When times were great people were more willing to turn a blind eye, but now that people are having trouble putting food on the table they are looking for anywhere they can save money - and taxes are a huge percentage of their check.

OK, so you are saying that millions have lost their jobs, and that is why Governors like Sanford (SC) are rallying against taking the federal stim. money - which INLCUDES EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT FOR THOSE MILLIONS WHO LOST THEIR JOBS.

I knew we were a charitable people, but at the same time cannot imagine people without jobs protesting against unemployment or against highway and bridge and infrastructure which would give them jobs.

It seems counter-productive.

IMHO, it is actually just talking points and manipulation by the media (FNC), etc. to try and whip up a scapegoat.

The Boston Tea Party, BTW, was an act AGAINST the biggest multi-national corporation in the world, the East India Company.

A better parallel to that today might be to have a demonstration against Wal-Mart (destroying American jobs), or FOR many other similar actions.

I guess it might pay to mention:
"The protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes"

Well, sooner of later, the cons will figure out BOTH what teabagging means along with what they should be protesting about.

"Colonial merchants, some of them smugglers, played a significant role in the protests. Because the Tea Act made legally imported tea cheaper, it threatened to put smugglers of Dutch tea out of business"

Hmm, maybe the teabagging is about them not wanting to make pot legal because it would then be cheaper - and maybe FNC is a major importer of weed...

In any case, my "marketing" side needs a better reason.........maybe you "baggers" should have simply done it about the new Cig tax.

[PBzeer]

Are you at all aware of Sanford and other Governors reasons for refusing stimulus money craig? It comes with strings that impact far beyond the end of the infusion of cash. Strings that negatively affect their state budgets in the long term. But of course, that's just political posturing, right?

[craigimass]

They have only one reason for their refusal.....the three that refused are all considering a run for your parties nomination.

Oh, and they decided to take it anyway........

Or, we could use your logic and say....that is was a 100% coincidence that ONLY the 3 GOP governors who were considering strongly a run for Prez......made a stink about it. Of course, all three backed off.

I suppose you are now going to tell me that is NOT political posturing???

My parents have a place in coastal SC and last time I was down there a person I met at tennis tried to put the kabosh on me (get me to invest in something) by telling me that "Sanford was involved and was 100% behind it" .......

Ah, he's in Real Estate:
"Sanford founded Norton and Sanford Real Estate Investment, a leasing and brokerage company, in 1992. He still owns the company."

The lady gave me all the wink wink nod nods about how it was all in the bag......and she was, of course, surprised to hear I was not coming to their local GOP get together. Heck, this is more than politics - this is enriching oneself using the power of office......

She still would have taken my money, though........

[therapy23]

Originally Posted by US27inKS

Bush's budget was not acceptable, which is why I support Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

Fair Tax has many benefits, and far fewer negatives than our current system. If we all saw how much our government spends every time we make a purchase, we would all be fighting for lower taxes and lower spending.

I normally stay out of politics but...........

Fair Tax is the best answer I have seen. It is the only thing that will completely level the playing field. It is wonderful.

And on another note:

Everyone must remember that when talking about govt. jobs and the stimulus being used for infrastructure repairs etc etc. that "the govt" does not have any money, nor does "it" provide a service for which it gets paid on merit. Only taxpayers have money and they give it to the govt (or have it taken - however you want to look at it) That is the only money the govt has. Every penny of it's "income" is from you and me. If there really are any "investments" then it is surely "chicken feed"!!

What do you all think will happen when I decide I can't afford to work because it costs too much? Ever heard of childcare costs that the wife (usually) got a job to pay and the net was so low it was not worth it? Huh, have you? I have.

[PBzeer]

More half truths, assumptions and anecdotes. I suppose the VA Assembly rejected unemployment funds from the stimulus because they are all running for the GOP nomination too, eh?

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by therapy23

I normally stay out of politics but...........

Fair Tax is the best answer I have seen. It is the only thing that will completely level the playing field. It is wonderful.

Which is why it'll never happen.

There is some precedence for it - there are a few eastern European countries that have a flat tax, I think they are running 6-10% year-over-year growth too, but that was before all of the recent ugliness.