When do the Tea Party go after military spending, agricultural subsidies, etc?

go head cut defense and put more people on welfare and unemployement do not even address the biggest problem.


the question should be "when will the democrats admit hey the government is feeding too many mouths"

Originally posted by croweboy

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I support cuts to everything. So has everyone else I've heard talk about. Who has told you otherwise? Liberal news?

Really? The how come NONE of those 'tea party candidates' have offered ANY substantive cuts to the Military budget?

The 'liberal media' are to blame for these guys not makign the cuts they claimed they would make?

The problem with Military spending, it is one of the few things constitutionally provided for. There is way too many other things to go after rather than something the government is supposed to be doing. Perhaps your question should be, "Why can't the Tea Party be hypocritical?", which I would respond the Liberals already have locked down.

The Constitution obligates the federal government to protect us. Pearl Harbor? Troops landing in Alaska? Those were the last constitutional reasons we had to send anybody anywhere. And it still turned out horrible.

All we are doing is endangering more American lives than we are defending. You think bombing nations is great for PR? You truly think all this American-sponsored terrorism is in our best interests?

Originally posted by neo96


go head cut defense and put more people on welfare and unemployement do not even address the biggest problem.


the question should be "when will the democrats admit hey the government is feeding too many mouths"

LOL. Yea, as usual, the social conservatives want to pretend that welfare moms are bankrupting our country, while we spend TRILLIONS on illegal foreign wars.

Yes, 'welfare' is also a problem. But I tend to think the REAL 'welfare' the the Military Industrial Complex, in addition to things like pork subsidies for big Ag, Pharma, etc, are FAR more costly than someone on social assistance (which all economists acknowledge is always inserted directly back into the economy).

But keep banging your GOP mantra while pretending to be vehemently fiscally conservative. Its entertaining and telling.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

Really? The how come NONE of those 'tea party candidates' have offered ANY substantive cuts to the Military budget?

The 'liberal media' are to blame for these guys not makign the cuts they claimed they would make?

We have not fastened the recall chain around their neck... YET
RecallTheRogues.org

reply to post by crimvelvet


Tanks for that. But I'll remain incredibly skeptical that any significant portion of those who voted for these frauds actually see through it.

I know a *few* legitimate 'tea party' folks who are truly small government, anti-war Ron Paul types. But to pretend that they are in the majority, or that these mouth-breathing social conservative tools in Congress and the House calling themselves 'tea party' are actually going to make significant cuts in spending seems foolish.

IF the tea party were serous about their alleged aims, they would have broken AWAY from the pro-war GOP, not tried to 'reform' it from the inside.

reply to post by Cuervo

The Constitution obligates the federal government to protect us. Pearl Harbor? Troops landing in Alaska? Those were the last constitutional reasons we had to send anybody anywhere. And it still turned out horrible.

All we are doing is endangering more American lives than we are defending. You think bombing nations is great for PR? You truly think all this American-sponsored terrorism is in our best interests?

Pearl Harbor was RIGGED to get us into war (WWII) as was the sinking of the Lusitania (WWI) See Days of Infamy

The bankers are behind most wars because they make lots of money lending fiat currency to governments and Corporations.

That is why RON PAUL is against all the wars.

Do not equate the Bankster bought politicians with the majority of the tea Party.

The objective is to blacken the name of a grassroots organization and kill off any possible real opposition to the Bankster bought politicians in coming elections.

If we get away from the banker owned US media we find in the UK Guardian:

Tea Party declares war on military spending

....What had been a relatively low-grade domestic dispute between the Republican party establishment and the libertarian-minded Tea Party movement boiled over into the public arena during this week's CPAC conference in Washington – an annual gathering of conservative political groups. Supporters of the newly-elected US Senator Rand Paul – a Tea Party favourite and son of the erstwhile libertarian and prospective 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul – jeered and booed the former defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, as he was presented with a "defender of the constitution" award by former Vice-President Dick Cheney. Amid shouts of "Where's Bin Laden?" Paul's supporters staged a walkout during Rumsfeld's acceptance speech for a prize that, for Republicans, is akin to the lifetime achievement award handed out each year at the Oscars.

And the reason for all this vitriol? It is not only leftwing liberals who see the 2003 invasion of Iraq as an illegal act: Rumsfeld – as a key proponent and architect of the war – is seen by some Tea Party supporters as a flagrant violator (rather than a defender) of their beloved constitution. Furthermore, the supporters of both Pauls, junior and senior, are avowedly non-interventionist in matters of foreign policy and decry the ubiquitous presence of US troops overseas, which Rumsfeld championed during his two terms as secretary of defence....

SURE sounds different than what I am hearing here on ATS by the liberals and by the banker owned media. I am actually floored that the Guardian printed this since they are a "Liberal paper"



WHO owns the MEDIA:
U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917: J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America's leading newspapers, and inserted their own editors, in order to control the media. www.mindfully.org...

JP Morgan: Our next big media player? (April 13, 2010) JP Morgan controls 54 U.S. daily newspapers,and owns 31 television stations. www.newsandtech.com...

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership: www.globalissues.org...

Who controls the media www.nowfoundation.org...

Interlocking Directorates
Media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety of other large corporations, including banks, investment companies, oil companies, health care and pharmaceutical companies and technology companies. This list shows board interlocks for the following major media interests:
www.fair.org...

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by croweboy

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I support cuts to everything. So has everyone else I've heard talk about. Who has told you otherwise? Liberal news?

Really? The how come NONE of those 'tea party candidates' have offered ANY substantive cuts to the Military budget?

The 'liberal media' are to blame for these guys not makign the cuts they claimed they would make?

The problem with Military spending, it is one of the few things constitutionally provided for. There is way too many other things to go after rather than something the government is supposed to be doing. Perhaps your question should be, "Why can't the Tea Party be hypocritical?", which I would respond the Liberals already have locked down.

The Constitution obligates the federal government to protect us. Pearl Harbor? Troops landing in Alaska? Those were the last constitutional reasons we had to send anybody anywhere. And it still turned out horrible.

All we are doing is endangering more American lives than we are defending. You think bombing nations is great for PR? You truly think all this American-sponsored terrorism is in our best interests?

I don't disagree with you.

How would one go about winning an argument with the Commander in Chief if he took the stance that he was protecting us by bombing Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or any other faction, before they took action against us (terrorism)? You couldn't, especially if they have the support of Congress. I don't agree with aggressive military action, but the constitution provides for it, as long as the proper steps are taken. Until I find cause to find it against the Constitution, or a president openly says he is invading a country to be a dick, I can't oppose it.

I'm more worried about all the other spending, the constitution DOES NOT provide for, which should be left to the states. The stuff that congress passes, only to assure they get re-elected.

Originally posted by crimvelvet


Do not equate the Bankster bought politicians with the majority of the tea Party.

The objective is to blacken the name of a grassroots organization and kill off any possible real opposition to the Bankster bought politicians in coming elections.

I agree that the so-called 'tea party' has been co-opted by the GOP. But to pretend that there is a 'real fiscal conservative majority inside the 'tea party' seems incredibly naive to me.

Yes, the 'tea party' started out as a legitimate movement against the pro-war, pro-big business, pro-banksters in BOTH parties. But once it was co-opted by FreedomWorks WITHIN THE FIRST FEW WEEKS OF THE 2008 ELECTION, it immediately lost all legitimacy.

We've had long-term social conservative ideologues in the GOP co-opting the movement for so long, with nary a PEEP from the ACTUAL conservatives, that they HAVE successfully subverted the movement.

The reality is the movement is watered down and filled with hypocrites. Until the few remaining legitimate members are willing to admit this, and aggressively PURGE these social conservatives form their ranks, the rest of us will remain incredulous, at best. As it stands, it appears to me that the handful of actual libertarian-minded fiscal conservatives in the movement have, at best, turned a blind eye to this hypocrisy in favor of appreciating the swelling ranks. Until they call out such hypocrisy, it only demeans the roots of the 'movement'.

Military AND entitlement spending both have to be drastically slashed for any meaningful answer to our problem. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't looked at the numbers. They constitute 60% of our budget. Almost 10% is tied up in interest payments that have to be paid first by law. So we're down to 30% among all the rest of the spending. At Obama's 2011 budget proposal we are spending 150% of our money right now (2.57 trillion in revenue: 3.83 trillion in spending). So without touching military or entitlements, we have to slash 80% of our budget -- but we only have 30% left after military and entitlement spending. It is impossible. to reach without touching entitlement or defense spending. Nor will the economy grow, nor would we be able to increase taxes enough to close a meaningful gap (though I'm all for closing tax loopholes particularly for corporations).

Obama's budget with increased revenues (that means 'taxes') below.:


The Republican budget is not much better, because they are proposing "Massive" 100 billion in cuts and no increase in revenue.
1,270,000,000,000$ deficit
100,000,000,000$ spending cuts
----------------------------------------------
1,170,000,000,000$ deficit

It's spit in a bucket.

reply to post by neo96

go head cut defense and put more people on welfare and unemployement do not even address the biggest problem.

Classic hypocrisy from the right-wing living in denial. You bitch moan and complain about Social Security and Welfare as "entitlement" programs, but then claim that if we cut defense spending, it will put people out of work - defense spending itself (at it's current ridiculous levels) is an entitlement program designed to keep defense contractors rolling in the dough and earning fat paychecks. So we're locked into a corporate welfare program supporting the defense industries with our tax dollars, even when we've grown so far beyond any real need for these programs (of course they'll toss us a few false-flag ops just to make us feel we need them and the endless trillion dollar wars they spawn).

The government actually subsidizes the oil industry, an industry which makes billions in profit EACH MONTH. We subsidize Big Ag, we extend massive tax breaks to major corporations because they threatened they'll take their jobs elsewhere if we don't, yet as demonstrated by GE the more breaks they get the fewer they hire. GE pays a corporate tax rate of just 7%, which has steadily been decreasing every year, yet every year they employ fewer and fewer people, sending those jobs to overseas subsidiaries. Boeing hasn't paid ANY corporate tax in the last 3 years yet earned over 10 billion in pre-tax profit. This article goes on to list how many corporation avoid paying taxes yet are on the receiving end of generous tax breaks.

You won't see the tea party mention any of this because the TP as it exists today is nothing more than a political mouth piece of the corporations and the party they control, the GOP.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

IF the tea party were serous about their alleged aims, they would have broken AWAY from the pro-war GOP, not tried to 'reform' it from the inside.

What can I say, I am an independent

I HATE BOTH parties so I have to agree with you.

You will also notice I am Anti-war, Pro small government (easier to keep watch over) and VERY Anti-bankster. I also think we should stop telling people what to do with their bodies or lives. Legalize drugs, gambling and prostitution (Tax th heck out of it)

Get our noses OUT of other countries business. They do not WANT us there and mostly USAID is all about promoting Bankster/Cororate imperialism with MY MONEY.

Get us OUT of the Free Trade Agreements, it again is all about the international cartels raping other countries as well as the rank and file USA workers.

The reason we have the "Social problems" we have is BECAUSE the bankers and corporations created them in the first place as a control method.

Secrets of the Federal Reserve and OpEdNews: History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job give a good picture of the manipulation of our country by the bankers.

The really interesting thing about the "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" was the book was financed by Ezra Pound while he was under indictment for treason against the United States, and confined to a hospital in Washington, D.C. after being declared insane.

Read "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" and then the article on History News Ezra Pound --- Traitor/Poet By Derek Alger

Seems Ezra was not quite as "insane" as he was made out to be.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


finance.yahoo.com...

www.usatoday.com...

www.cbsnews.com...

money.cnn.com...

www.usdebtclock.org...

800 billion on medicaid and medicare
700 billion on social security

25 million unemployed
65 million on ss
45 million on welfare

tell me another story

reply to post by _Del_

Military AND entitlement spending both have to be drastically slashed for any meaningful answer to our problem. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't looked at the numbers. They constitute 60% of our budget.....

A realist, FINALLY.

Unfortunately the Democrats and Republicans both have vested interests in "protecting turf"

reply to post by neo96


So you don't think the trillions the US taxpayers pays to the military needs to be addressed whatsoever? We can go n spending on all these wars as long as we cut social security and welfare for single moms?

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


the purpose of that particular entity you are responding to is to entrench any potentially dangerous dialogue into petty partisan squabbling.

Dont believe the hype. Americans want REAL substantive cuts, not petty social conservative talking points that decimate our social infrastructure while ignoring the trillion dollar handouts to Agriculture, Pharama, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.

reply to post by _Del_


Agreed, wholeheartedly. We have to cut spending on wasteful programs. But the point of this thread was to ask when these so-called fiscal conservatives in the GOP, hiding under the 'tea party' banner will discuss making substantive cuts to the military, instead of pandering to the social conservatives about 'welfare queens' and the like.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

....Dont believe the hype. Americans want REAL substantive cuts, not petty social conservative talking points that decimate our social infrastructure while ignoring the trillion dollar handouts to Agriculture, Pharama, the Military Industrial Complex, etc.

Although I do not agree with some of Ron Paul's stands I do agree with a lot of them. Here is a selection that I think "define" his stance.

Neocons believe in secrecy, deceit, & imperialism. (Jul 2003) (that is for the libs out their, he agrees with you

)

BUDGET & ECONOMY
# Wall Street is dumping its trouble onto Main Street. (Sep 2008)
# Live within our means and start paying down the deficit now. (Feb 2008)
# All bets are off if a cataclysmic dollar devaluation occurs. (Feb 2008)
# We owe foreigners $2.7 trillion and more printing won’t do. (Feb 2008)
# The people, not government, are supposed to run the economy. (Jan 2008)
# Federal Reserve creates money and prints it out of thin air. (Jan 2008)
# Give up American empire; that reduces debt without sacrifice. (Dec 2007)
#[get] Government out of regulating economy & out of our bedrooms. (Jan 2007)

Civil Rights
# Protect all voluntary associations; don’t define marriage. (Oct 2007)
# No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)
# No affirmative action for any group. (Sep 2007)
# First Amendment was written for controversial speech. (Sep 2007)
# Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups. (Dec 1987)
# Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
# Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
# Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

CORPORATIONS
# Big business demand for easy money causes inflation. (Dec 1981)

CRIME
# Opposes death penalty at state and federal level. (Jan 2008)
# Not appropriate to prosecute all illegal adult pornography. (Sep 2007)
# Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
# Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)

DRUGS
# War on drugs is out of control; revert control to states. (Dec 2007)
# Repeal most federal drug laws; blacks are treated unfairly. (Sep 2007)
# Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs. (Sep 2007)
# Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
# Drug War fosters violence at home & breeds resentment abroad. (Oct 2001)
# Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
# War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights . (Dec 2000)
# Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)

EDUCATION
# School prayer is not a federal issue. (Apr 2008)
# Private funds for arts work better than government funds. (Apr 2008)
# Close Dept. of Education, but don’t dismantle public schools. (Dec 2007)
# Encourage homeschooling & private school via tax writeoff. (Dec 2007)

ENVIRONMENT
# Neglected property rights during the industrial revolution. (Jan 2008)
# Property rights are the foundation of all rights. (Sep 2007)
[Paul is talking about "Criminal Trespass" law suits for polluters - I saw it used in 1972 to good effect]

FOREIGN POLICY
# We invested $70B in Mubarak; stop spending on puppets. (Feb 2011)
# Exceptionalism shouldn't mean using force around the world. (Feb 2011)
# We spend $1 trillion a year overseas; it’s needed at home. (Sep 2008)
# Can’t spread our goodness through the barrel of a gun. (Feb 2008)
# We tax people to blow up bridges overseas then rebuild them. (Jan 2008)
# Get out of South Korea and let two Koreas unify. (Dec 2007)
# US must obey treaties human rights abroad. (Dec 2007)
# Stop interfering with Latin America; talk & trade instead. (Dec 2007)
# Empires usually end by spending too much to maintain empire. (Dec 2007)
# No constitutional or moral authority for US action in Darfur. (Sep 2007)
# Interventionism perpetuated by politician’s false patriotism. (Jun 2007)

FREE TRADE
# Free trade agreements threaten national sovereignty. (Apr 2008)
# FactCheck: NAFTA Superhighway not a conspiracy; it’s I-35. (Feb 2008)
# China trade not contingent on human rights & product safety. (Sep 2007)
# IMF empowers politicians by causing inflation. (Dec 1981)

GOVERNMENT REFORM
# Constitution defines much smaller government. (Feb 2008)
# Received the most campaign contributions from the military. (Feb 2008)
# Dismantle agencies that have no Constitutional role. (Dec 2007)
# End government secrecy; restore openness of information. (Aug 2007)
# With neocon philosophy, Cheney is more powerful than Bush. (Aug 2007)
# Signing statements erode constitutional balance. (Jul 2007)
# Conservatives support big government war policies. (Jun 2007)
# Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security. (May 2007)
# Judges have become legislators by de-emphasizing juries. (Dec 1987)
# Our government routinely lies to us. (Dec 1987)

HOMELAND SECURITY
# We can't keep troops in 135 countries & 900 bases forever. (Feb 2011)
# Conscription is unconstitutional--including National Service. (Apr 2008)
# FactCheck: US spends $572B on foreign operations, not $1T. (Feb 2008)
# We’re broke and we just can’t continue to police the world. (Feb 2008)
# We don’t need any troops abroad--they don’t help our defense. (Dec 2007)
# Stop policing the world and we can get rid of income tax. (Dec 2007)
# Bring all troops home from abroad & save $100B’s every year. (Dec 2007)
Suicide terrorism stops when we stop intervening abroad. (Dec 2007)

SOCIAL SECURITY
# Abolish Social Security, but not overnight. (Jan 2008)
[Ron Paul is well aware that people depend on SS and you can not just jerk the rug out from under them without getting rid of the leeches called the FED that is impoverishing us. Get rid of the FED and then SS becomes less important over time because people have more wealth. cv]
# Let people get out of Social Security; it’s a failure. (Jan 2008)
# Never voted to spend one penny of Social Security money. (Dec 2007)
# Allow young people to get out of the system. (Oct 2007)
# Personal retirement accounts allow investing in one’s future. (Sep 2007)
# Federal government won’t keep its entitlement promises. (Mar 2007)
# Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
# Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
# Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
# Create personal retirement accounts within Social Security. (Jul 2000)

OTHER
Right to organize; but no special benefits for unions. (Oct 2007)
Just about everything Congress does is unconstitutional. (Jul 2009)
# Reagan ran on limited government, but increased its size. (Dec 2007)
# Called Bush a “bum”; didn’t vote for Bush. (Dec 2007)
# All political action’s goal should be to preserve liberty. (Dec 2007)

www.ontheissues.org...

I am putting this up so we have a better idea of where Ron Paul at least stands since he is supposedly the "Father of the TEA PARTY"

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by neo96

 

So you don't think the trillions the US taxpayers pays to the military needs to be addressed whatsoever? We can go n spending on all these wars as long as we cut social security and welfare for single moms?

go ahead and put millions of americans out of work go ahead make your "Real substantial cuts"

cut the soldiers pay and beneifts and all those people who depend on them spending and buying and then those people who depend on those people.

and the business and financial aspects of it now that people cant pay for their homes their kids and everyone else that depends on them.

not to mention the loss in revenue those companies that provide the military with goods and services and the people who depend on that income.

that snowballs into millions unemployed and trillions in lost revenue that effect every single person in this country.

as opposed to getting people off welfare and start generating their own wealth instead of their existence depending on others and hey guess what that money comes from the very people your putting out of work.

the purpose of that particular entity you are responding to is to entrench any potentially dangerous dialogue into petty partisan squabbling.

and what was the title of this thread and its purpose there mr california?

reply to post by neo96


Fascinating. Your defense of not making substantial cuts to the military budget is that 'people will lose their jobs'??

Don't you call yourself a 'conservative'?

Originally posted by crimvelvet


I am putting this up so we have a better idea of where Ron Paul at least stands since he is supposedly the "Father of the TEA PARTY"

People only site Ron Paul and his gloriously consistent ideals because it is the only credibility the so called 'tea party' ever had.

I'm still waiting for all those tea party types to march on Washington and demand that the 'tea party caucus uphold the standards they claim to have.