Tea Party less popular than atheists and Muslims

[Sofiyya 1,687]

How about this.

I would say that angry people shouting and yelling and believing they've got Absolute Truth on their side, and that those who are not in their camp have no truth on their side, and who are not willing to listen to another point of view, are bad.

It's my perception that this statement applies to many, if not a majority, of the Tea Party members.

It's my perception that it applies to a minority of Muslims.

Lots of us see Christians that way, which is probably why the Tea Party is polling so low. It's perceived to be made up of mostly Christians.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Sofiyya

[Robert&Karen 264]

It's not "Or spend less". It's "And spend less". We need to do both.

That would be a "meet in the middle" option. I am all for a balanced budget amendment. And if we want so many freebies that we are taxed at 50% and we are happy about it then no problem. But right now you can tax all people making $250k or more at 100% and we'd still not be balanced. That simply shows no one is really focusing on the problem.

As to donations, they're fine. And you'll appreciate that the particulars of my financial decisions are not your beeswax, yes?

I don't need details, I just wanted to know if you practice what you preach. Your reply infers your answer.

Besides, we have a national problem in which all of our society participates. If I have a criticism of Obama or Buffett's calls for taxes on the wealthy, it's only because we need to broaden the base and include everyone. You or me or even Buffett donating his $40B on an individual basis to the Treasury isn't going to solve the problem. Reforming our tax code, broadening it to include everyone, simplifying it, closing the loopholes, and raising revenue , is the correct approach, in my view. Along with reducing expenditures even on the sacred cows - military and entitlement spending.

Only 50% of the tax age population pays federal taxes. I'm all for helping the poor but 50%? How about 97% of the US pays taxes. The poorest 3% get a break. Still though, at the current rate it will hardly make a dent.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

It's not "Or spend less". It's "And spend less". We need to do both.

As to donations, they're fine. And you'll appreciate that the particulars of my financial decisions are not your beeswax, yes?

Besides, we have a national problem in which all of our society participates. If I have a criticism of Obama or Buffett's calls for taxes on the wealthy, it's only because we need to broaden the base and include everyone. You or me or even Buffett donating his $40B on an individual basis to the Treasury isn't going to solve the problem. Reforming our tax code, broadening it to include everyone, simplifying it, closing the loopholes, and raising revenue , is the correct approach, in my view. Along with reducing expenditures even on the sacred cows - military and entitlement spending.

Hat, cattle, pfeh.

They just don't get it. Never will. God Bless their hearts.

[scandal 951]

That would be a "meet in the middle" option. I am all for a balanced budget amendment. And if we want so many freebies that we are taxed at 50% and we are happy about it then no problem. But right now you can tax all people making $250k or more at 100% and we'd still not be balanced. That simply shows no one is really focusing on the problem.

I don't need details, I just wanted to know if you practice what you preach. Your reply infers your answer.

Only 50% of the tax age population pays federal taxes. I'm all for helping the poor but 50%? How about 97% of the US pays taxes. The poorest 3% get a break. Still though, at the current rate it will hardly make a dent.

Do you like inventing statistics? Fun, isn't it?

Why do you want a Balanced Budget Amendment? To force Congress to do the job it was elected to do? Why can't they just do that job? Do you need a Constitutional Amendment in order to do your job?

Oh, and there are people focused on the problem. We've had Simpson-Bowles. We've had Rivlin-Domenici. We've had the Gang of Six. We're about to get the Super Committee, god bless 'em. Outside of government, there's no shortage of focus on it. I can tell you the bond market focuses on it pretty intently.

We know the answers. They're going to be painful, but they're not rocket science to come up with. Here's a broad outline.

-Re-index SS to wage growth rather than CPI. Benefits kick in progressively at ages 70 and higher. Benefits clawed back for higher income earners. Income subject to payroll tax raised progressively from $106K on an inflation-indexed basis.

- Similar adjustments to Medicare, Medicaid.

- Proportionate reductions to Pentagon budget.

- Roll back tax rates to pre-Bush era. Income as well as capital gains and dividend rates. Do away with the egregious loopholes and corporate tax shelters. Simplify, widen, flatten.

Do those things and we'll be well on the way to balanced budgets.

Do those things in a way that also invests in infrastructure and shows problem solving ability in Washington, and you'll see resumed consumer and business confidence. Which will result in growth. Which will create jobs, raise revenues further and allow us to start talking about the SURPLUSES we'll need if we ever want to pare down the accumulated debt, not just reduce the annual deficits.

And look - no balanced budget amendment needed. Just take Simpson-Bowles out of the drawer, dust it off, and get cracking.

[Robert&Karen 264]

Do you like inventing statistics? Fun, isn't it?

REFERENCE?

Why do you want a Balanced Budget Amendment? To force Congress to do the job it was elected to do? Why can't they just do that job? Do you need a Constitutional Amendment in order to do your job?

NO, I DO MY JOB BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO BE FIRED. NO ONE IS FIRING THESE DOLTS.

Oh, and there are people focused on the problem. We've had Simpson-Bowles. We've had Rivlin-Domenici. We've had the Gang of Six. We're about to get the Super Committee, god bless 'em. Outside of government, there's no shortage of focus on it. I can tell you the bond market focuses on it pretty intently.

ALL THEY ARE FOCUSED ON IS BUYING VOTED BY MAKING UNFULFILLABLE PROMISES.

We know the answers. They're going to be painful, but they're not rocket science to come up with.

YUP.

Here's a broad outline.

-Re-index SS to wage growth rather than CPI. Benefits kick in progressively at ages 70 and higher. Benefits clawed back for higher income earners. Income subject to payroll tax raised progressively from $106K on an inflation-indexed basis.

WHY HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY AT ALL? I DO NOT PAY INTO SS, I MANAGE MY OWN RETIREMENT AND PLAN ON A SIX FIGURE RETIREMENT INCOME. WHY SHOULD I TRUST THE GOVERNMENT WITH MY MONEY?

- Similar adjustments to Medicare, Medicaid.

FOR THOSE WHO HAVE PAID INTO IT, YES. MAKE IT OPTIONAL FOR THE KIDS.

- Proportionate reductions to Pentagon budget.

HOW ABOUT ALL BUDGETS.

- Roll back tax rates to pre-Bush era. Income as well as capital gains and dividend rates. Do away with the egregious loopholes and corporate tax shelters. Simplify, widen, flatten.

YES, THAT WOULD BE THE 'REAL' TAX RATE. THEN IF PEOPLE HATE IT, THEY CAN SPEND LESS.

Do those things and we'll be well on the way to balanced budgets.

WHO WILL START IT?

Do those things in a way that also invests in infrastructure and shows problem solving ability in Washington, and you'll see resumed consumer and business confidence. Which will result in growth. Which will create jobs, raise revenues further and allow us to start talking about the SURPLUSES we'll need if we ever want to pare down the accumulated debt, not just reduce the annual deficits.

YUP.

And look - no balanced budget amendment needed. Just take Simpson-Bowles out of the drawer, dust it off, and get cracking.

WOW YOU ARE A TEA PARTY MEMBER AFTER ALL.

[mawilson 2,133]

I'm with AJ on this. I deliberately used the phrase "It's my perception", not "I know".

Ok, but what experiences is your perception based on?

It's not a trick question, I'd really like to know.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So either you are for them or think you ought to pay more taxes.

W? Is that you?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Only 50% of the tax age population pays federal taxes.

Bullshite. You need to tune out Rush and Faux and get yourself access to a few actual facts from time to time. You come to better judgement that way.

[Robert&Karen 264]

Bullshite. You need to tune out Rush and Faux and get yourself access to a few actual facts from time to time. You come to better judgement that way.

Instead of attacking me, why don't you support your statement with facts? I see 43.4%.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4945874.shtml

http://money.msn.com/tax-tips/post.aspx?post=292d620a-6459-4381-a22b-f3b59dc64ff8

And I do not listen to Rush nor watch TV.

Edited August 18, 2011 by aorobert

[Robert&Karen 264]

51% here: http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2011/05/05/51-of-american-households-pay-zero-tax-share-of-government-funding-by-the-rich-increases/

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I'm on record as saying that I think I ought to pay more taxes. So should all of us. We have a deficit problem, or hadn't you noticed.

and yet, anyone who has a different opinion is maligned.

[웃 910]

Lots of us see Christians that way, which is probably why the Tea Party is polling so low. It's perceived to be made up of mostly Christians.

Most Christians are hypocrites. You had a name for it, "an official term", what was it again?

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

and yet, anyone who has a different opinion is maligned.

Not true. Playing the victim card, i.e. THE BIG BAD GOVERNMENT is coming to rob millionaires and billionaires, better stock up on ammo, is the modus operandi. The casus belli is that because the tax code MIGHT affect some of the wealthiest Americans, we should leave them alone since they run the country.

[웃 910]

I'm all for helping the poor but 50%? How about 97% of the US pays taxes. The poorest 3% get a break. Still though, at the current rate it will hardly make a dent.

Problem is 1/2 the country is tied for poorest 3%, if that makes any sense.

[Robert&Karen 264]

The wealthier Americans may have businesses that will shut if you raise their taxes. it's not all going into offshore accounts. Much is reinvested.