Teabagger Contract

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Teabagger Contract

Postby clintonius » Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:41 am UTC

Sounds like something you have to sign when you enroll in college.

Anyways, the Tea Party has released what it is calling a "Contract from America." It consists of 10 points, the texts of which are spoilered below.

Spoiler:
"(1) Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03 percent).

"(2) Reject Cap & Trade: Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumers prices, and weaken the nation's global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures (72.20 percent).

"(3) Demand a Balanced Budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69 percent)

"(4) Enact Fundamental Tax Reform: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words -- the length of the original Constitution. (64.90 percent).

"(5) Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the U.S. Constitution's meaning. (63.37 percent)

"(6) End Runaway Government Spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57 percent).

"(7) Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care: Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn't restricted by state boundaries. (56.39 percent).

"(8) Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51 percent).

"(9) Stop the Pork: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47 percent).

"(10) Stop the Tax Hikes: Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38 percent)."
Cleary we need to balance the budget by eliminating taxes.

Morons.
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Vaniver » Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:54 am UTC

clintonius wrote:Cleary we need to balance the budget by eliminating taxes.

Morons.
They're using a new strategy called 'starve the beast'- if you lower tax revenues, they'll have to cut government programs. [/joke]
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:55 am UTC

One item conspicuously absent from the list is term limits.

Back in February, when ABC News first reported that the contract was in development, Hecker pointed to congressional term limits as the type of proposal that Tea Party activists would likely put in their contract that established politicians would not include in the official Republican Party agenda that is being developed by Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.

"It actually didn't make the top 10 in voting," Hecker told ABC News. "It placed 11th. I can't explain why it didn't make it. I'm guessing that it was a more divisive issue than others on the voting list. While my personal top 10 list had term limits, we obviously have to follow the vote."

Well why don't you just make a new list, and Defund, Repeal, and Replace the old number 10 with term limits?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Aetius » Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:05 am UTC

They're right in the fact that the deficit/national debt is the vicious bloodthirsty T-Rex in the room that no one wants to talk about. Obviously I question the ability to deal with that adequately by slashing taxes, but something absolutely needs to be done to address it.

User avatar
Krong
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:49 am UTC
Location: Charleston, South Cackalacky

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Krong » Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:20 am UTC

clintonius wrote:Cleary we need to balance the budget by eliminating taxes.

Morons.

Ummm... nowhere in the spoilered text did I read a desire to eliminate taxes, with the exception of the item for repealing the health care bill and thus the taxes that go along with it. I guess it's arguable whether extending the Bush tax cuts counts as lowering taxes or avoiding a tax increase, but either way they're asking for the current rates to continue, not for lower rates.
The answer to the question "What’s wrong with the world?" is just two words: "I am." -- G. K. Chesterton (attributed)

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Garm » Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:26 am UTC

Aetius wrote:They're right in the fact that the deficit/national debt is the vicious bloodthirsty T-Rex in the room that no one wants to talk about. Obviously I question the ability to deal with that adequately by slashing taxes, but something absolutely needs to be done to address it.


Except the fact that we just talked about the deficit cuz we passed Health Care Reform which will lower the long term deficit. That little detail got lost in the river of lies that's been pouring out of the GOP for the past year or so. Letting Bush's tax cuts will also help address the deficit. Stopping the two wars that we've got going like Obama promised he would (I'll believe it when I see it)... you guessed it... also lower the deficit.

Also, I'd just like to say regarding the "contract with Amurica": Bwahahahahahahahaha. What a bunch of idiots.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Griffin » Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:33 am UTC

I got to say, most of them don't seem to be that bad, in concept. The devil, of course, being in the details.

For example, I've always thought a transparent, open, results based free market health care system would be the best alternative, but for someone reason I very much doubt these people have any ideas on what we should do to go about pulling something like that off.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

Bright Shadows
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:56 pm UTC

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Bright Shadows » Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:57 am UTC

Krong wrote:
clintonius wrote:Cleary we need to balance the budget by eliminating taxes.

Morons.

Ummm... nowhere in the spoilered text did I read a desire to eliminate taxes, with the exception of the item for repealing the health care bill and thus the taxes that go along with it. I guess it's arguable whether extending the Bush tax cuts counts as lowering taxes or avoiding a tax increase, but either way they're asking for the current rates to continue, not for lower rates.

I don't know if 4 really counts as a lowering of taxes... It's more like changing them, but we're probably not going to get as much revenue.
Image

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Jahoclave » Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:30 am UTC

Seems kind of communist if you ask me. What, with workers control of the economic stimulation and government and all.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby SummerGlauFan » Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:45 am UTC

Bright Shadows wrote:
Krong wrote:
clintonius wrote:Cleary we need to balance the budget by eliminating taxes.

Morons.

Ummm... nowhere in the spoilered text did I read a desire to eliminate taxes, with the exception of the item for repealing the health care bill and thus the taxes that go along with it. I guess it's arguable whether extending the Bush tax cuts counts as lowering taxes or avoiding a tax increase, but either way they're asking for the current rates to continue, not for lower rates.

I don't know if 4 really counts as a lowering of taxes... It's more like changing them, but we're probably not going to get as much revenue.


4 was my favorite. It started out great, and quickly nosedived into the hellish depths of insanity.

Because, ya know, limiting a bill or code to the number of words in the Constitution somehow makes it magically better.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Aetius » Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:19 am UTC

Garm wrote:Except the fact that we just talked about the deficit cuz we passed Health Care Reform which will lower the long term deficit. That little detail got lost in the river of lies that's been pouring out of the GOP for the past year or so. Letting Bush's tax cuts will also help address the deficit. Stopping the two wars that we've got going like Obama promised he would (I'll believe it when I see it)... you guessed it... also lower the deficit.


Even if the CBO estimates are valid, it's a drop in the bucket.

User avatar
BoomFrog
Posts: 1070
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby BoomFrog » Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:49 am UTC

I'd rather try to empty the bucket with an eyedropper then to pee in it.

(In this analogy a near full and an empty bucket are very similar but an overflowing bucket means economic ruin and we don't know exactly how tall the bucket is.)
"Everything I need to know about parenting I learned from cooking. Don't be afraid to experiment, and eat your mistakes." - Cronos

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby cephalopod9 » Fri Apr 16, 2010 12:07 pm UTC

6. seems like a good reason to end the occupation of Iraq.

1 and 3 seem to be pretty strongly in contradiction; protect the constitution and amend the constitution. So I guess we can throw those out.

7. we could start something new and call it "government run health care" and then get rid of it to make them happy.

8 could easily be drawn on for discussion about solar energy, wind farming, and energy efficiency. I wonder if it would just freak them out if Obama brought it up.

I don't see why more reasonable people don't do more in the way of playing their ill informed, knee jerk-reactionary frenzy towards goals more productive than hating everything and carrying guns. The president could be like, "If you don't stop me, I'm going to decrease funding for public schools" and the the pea tarty people could get all worked up and increase funding for public schools. Then he could go "Well, looks like you foiled my socialist plot, darn" because none of the teeople who are angry about socialism seem to have that great a grasp of what it is "Now to make like a foreign person, and let big companies get away with paying less taxes than citizens" and then they'd either move on to that, or else loose their corporate sponsorship and dissipate.
Image

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Malice » Fri Apr 16, 2010 12:18 pm UTC

Given the fact that the largest determining factor for someone who identifies with the Tea Party is that they watch Glenn Beck (article here), I'd be curious to see how these items match up with Fox News talking points. I need somebody else to figure it out for me, though, because otherwise I'd have to watch Fox News. And apparently that shit is contagious.
Image

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Diadem » Fri Apr 16, 2010 12:36 pm UTC

The first point on the list though might actually be a good idea. For each bill that is passed, let them explain why they have the right the pass it. Sounds like a good principle.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby frezik » Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:49 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:The first point on the list though might actually be a good idea. For each bill that is passed, let them explain why they have the right the pass it. Sounds like a good principle.


I'd have to think more about the possible consequences, but at first glance, that does sound like a good idea. It'd probably need a Constitutional amendment to work. It could be something attached to rules of procedure for the House and Senate, but the courts probably wouldn't use it in making judgments for or against a law; it'd have no teeth to it.

One possible hiccup (assuming a full amendment is ratified) is if the law was not justified by the stated section x, but was justified by section y (which wasn't listed at the time of passage), would it still be struck down?

(5) Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the U.S. Constitution's meaning. (63.37 percent)


I'm not sure that this task force, in itself, would be constitutional. The Constitution gives the judicial branch the authority to judge constitutional matters, but the judicial branch doesn't create tasks forces to actively seek out offending parts of government like this. So the task force's first job would be to eliminate itself.

At least, that's what would happen if we're going by the extremely literal interpretations of the Constitution that the Tea Party tends to put out. That is, when they're not just making up new sections.

While we're at it, how about pushing ratification of Article the First? You'd even create a whole bunch of new jobs for building the sports stadium-sized building needed to hold the House of Representatives after it goes through. The long term results would be to give more even representation in Congress, make gerrymandering almost irrelevant (districts are too small to work with), and the effectiveness of lobbyists would be crippled in the House (too many people to buy off). (They'd probably refocus their efforts on the Senate, though).
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Diadem » Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:39 pm UTC

frezik wrote:While we're at it, how about pushing ratification of Article the First?

Does that even do anything? It would put the minimum number of seats in the US congress at 200, and the maximum number at around 7000 or so. If I'm not mistaken there are 435 seats now. More than the minimum, less than the maximum. The amendment thus wouldn't change anything.

Unless a nuclear war would drop the population of the US below 21,750,000 :)
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:19 pm UTC

Malice wrote:Given the fact that the largest determining factor for someone who identifies with the Tea Party is that they watch Glenn Beck (article here), I'd be curious to see how these items match up with Fox News talking points. I need somebody else to figure it out for me, though, because otherwise I'd have to watch Fox News. And apparently that shit is contagious.

I like FiveThirtyEight, but I think he's reaching here. The poll doesn't tell us that half of tea partiers watch Glenn Beck. It tells us that half of Glenn Beck fans are tea partiers. The trick here is that if there were only 5 Glenn Beck fans, and 3 of them identified as tea partiers, you'd see this "strong correlation." Also, it only identifies those with a "favorable opinion" which doesn't necessarily mean they're regular watchers of Fox or listeners to his show, but just that they like the guy.

Basically, it boils down to:
10% of Americans are Tea Partiers and like Glenn Beck.
8% of Americans are Tea Partiers and do not like Glenn Beck.
8% of Americans are not Tea Partiers and like Glenn Beck.

You'd probably get a stronger correlation if you asked about the issues, instead of asking about who you like and whose fault the economy is.

Re: Thread title. I know that it's fun to say "teabag" if you're 12 or Anderson Cooper, but can we refrain from using pejoratives to describe large groups of people?

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Le1bn1z » Fri Apr 16, 2010 3:48 pm UTC

Point number three is asking for trouble. During the "good times" a bunch of provinces (B.C., Ontario and Nova Scotia prominent among them) passed mandatory balanced budget laws.

Of course, the second the recession hit there were...ah...problematic. And quickly thrown out the window. Even the most hard-bitten Teabagger would have to understand that there are occassions which require deficits. For example, during a (real) war.

And since the right is forever infatuated with how great businesses are (the incompetence of America's leading businesses in the recent past not-withstanding), they might recall that businesses sometimes run deficits as part of prudent business strategy. It makes no sense to demand that government run itself more like a business and then pass laws to say it can't run itself like a business.

Point number 4 is a recipe for higher and dumber taxes. An awful lot of the extra "weight" on the books come from exemptions from taxation for Americans and American companies, from limits on enforcement and from attempts to make foreign companies pay their fair share.

So, if you're in favour of higher taxes for small-businesses, struggling or high-competition sectors and working families, and lower taxes for foreigners operating in America and off-shore account holders (mostly the hypocritical elite from both sides of the spectrum and nominally despised by the Teapartiers), then by all means, bring in Point 4.

Brilliant.

Number nine seems to be the only well thought-out point. Too bad neither the dems or repubs would ever support it. Nor the Teabaggers, for that matter, once the details come out. It would mean the end of a lot of ad-hoc farm-subsidies, transfers to middle America and backing for "jobs for the boys" in factories and arms-manufacture.
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby frezik » Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:20 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
frezik wrote:While we're at it, how about pushing ratification of Article the First?

Does that even do anything? It would put the minimum number of seats in the US congress at 200, and the maximum number at around 7000 or so. If I'm not mistaken there are 435 seats now. More than the minimum, less than the maximum. The amendment thus wouldn't change anything.


You're right, I read the summary too quickly. As written, it doesn't mandate there being 1 Rep per 50k people (which was the original intent), just establish that as a minimum district size; districts could still be bigger.

Congress can still set the size of the House, though. They just haven't since 1911 and people have forgotten that they are even allowed to do this.

The other effect is to make the electoral college more representative. The number of electors for each state is set as 1 for each congresscritter (so 2 Senators + number of Reps). Gore would have almost certainly won under this system, and Obama would be guaranteed a second term just for his ability to quickly adapt his campaign strategy to the new political reality. Gingrich is probably smart enough to be competitive, but perhaps not quickly enough, and he has other problems as a candidate.

The GOP likely knows those facts and would no doubt oppose the effort, despite the fact that it's hard to argue against it without looking small-D anti-democratic.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby clintonius » Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:33 pm UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:hard-bitten Teabagger

I'm really having trouble focusing on issues with phrases like this cropping up in the discussion.

@Krong: you're right, and I was being hyperbolic. But they are proposing sweeping changes to the tax system, and the repealing of all tax hikes set to take effect in 2011 likely sets the stage for further repeals to things like the estate tax.

Another funny thing: note the language in 4, which seems to advocate for a flat tax. Recall that Sarah Palin is the mouthpiece for this group. Recall Sarah Palin's fear of the Russkies during the campaign. Anybody care to guess the largest country in the world with a flat tax system?
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Telchar » Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:37 pm UTC

Krong wrote:Ummm... nowhere in the spoilered text did I read a desire to eliminate taxes, with the exception of the item for repealing the health care bill and thus the taxes that go along with it. I guess it's arguable whether extending the Bush tax cuts counts as lowering taxes or avoiding a tax increase, but either way they're asking for the current rates to continue, not for lower rates.



"(4) Enact Fundamental Tax Reform: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words -- the length of the original Constitution. (64.90 percent).


That's gotta be about the dumbest thing if you understand the way a flat tax would work. You can't remain revenue neutral with a flat tax without increasing the burden on the middle and lower class. Assuming that they are tea partiers, so they don't want to pay more taxes, so it won't be revenue neutral.

And the "Hur hur...words in the constitution" part is nationalistic pandering.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:59 pm UTC

clintonius wrote:Another funny thing: note the language in 4, which seems to advocate for a flat tax.

Shit, you're right. At first read I thought they meant the Fair Tax or some other simplification, but that "Single-Rate" if applied to income would mean a flat tax.

The words of the Constitution is dumb, but they're trying to illustrate that the tax code is too complex for the average citizen to understand. That leads to a situation where only the rich can afford to take advantage of every loophole and tax haven. I think aiming for a tax code which is easy to understand is a noble enough goal, as long as it doesn't result in something stupid like the flat tax.

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby frezik » Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:44 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I think aiming for a tax code which is easy to understand is a noble enough goal, as long as it doesn't result in something stupid like the flat tax.


Thing is, the current tax code is the result of decades of feeping creaturism. It's tempting to overhauling situations like that, but is often a trap. The current system often solves more problems then anyone realizes, and the disruptive effects of a new system are hard to predict. Further, the new system will inevitably fall to its own feeping creaturism, given enough time. Anything you do to force it otherwise would either have loopholes or would shackle the government's ability to solve real problems.

It's preferable to reform the system piecemeal into something more like you want.

(This may negate some of my earlier arguments about increasing the size of the House to solve congressional and electoral representation issues, but I feel those are well-contained problems, whereas the tax code obviously isn't.)
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby aleflamedyud » Fri Apr 16, 2010 7:32 pm UTC

Do these people not realize that all of this "require two-thirds majority to pass things we teabaggers don't like" crap is unconstitutional, right?
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Apr 16, 2010 8:06 pm UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:Do these people not realize that all of this "require two-thirds majority to pass things we teabaggers don't like" crap is unconstitutional, right?

Well, (3) states that they want to actually amend the Constitution to limit tax hikes to a 2/3 majority, which is mind-boggling even to a crazy fiscal conservative like me.
The thing about earmarks could conceivably be Constitutional, since the House and Senate can set their own rules. They'd have to institute rules limiting discretionary spending, and it might not be a total ban, but I think they could amend the rules to make that work.

User avatar
Amora
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:28 pm UTC
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Contact:

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Amora » Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:11 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
One item conspicuously absent from the list is term limits.

Back in February, when ABC News first reported that the contract was in development, Hecker pointed to congressional term limits as the type of proposal that Tea Party activists would likely put in their contract that established politicians would not include in the official Republican Party agenda that is being developed by Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.

"It actually didn't make the top 10 in voting," Hecker told ABC News. "It placed 11th. I can't explain why it didn't make it. I'm guessing that it was a more divisive issue than others on the voting list. While my personal top 10 list had term limits, we obviously have to follow the vote."

Well why don't you just make a new list, and Defund, Repeal, and Replace the old number 10 with term limits?


Or why not make a list with 11 items? What's so special about 10?
Bloody Orange lover.

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby frezik » Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:20 am UTC

Amora wrote:Or why not make a list with 11 items? What's so special about 10?


Grow me an 11th finger, then.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Malice » Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:08 am UTC

The economic policies here are ludicrous. It's like they looked at California and said, "We want us some of that." What do they think will happen when you make it virtually impossible to raise taxes and illegal to spend more than you tax, in a country where people want the government to spend money? Christ.
Image

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby jestingrabbit » Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:22 am UTC

4 is just so stupid. If they hadn't had the word "constitution" in there is would have scored a lot worse I'll wager.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby netcrusher88 » Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:37 am UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:Point number three is asking for trouble. During the "good times" a bunch of provinces (B.C., Ontario and Nova Scotia prominent among them) passed mandatory balanced budget laws.

This is happening to a number of US states too, though more accurately I think it's that the states can't go into debt. California in particular is getting screwed hard by a combination of 2/3 majority in the state congress required to enact any new or higher tax thus ensuring that taxes will basically never be raised again (but of course only 50% required to lower taxes), a recession (thus lack of income), and a Republican governor.

jestingrabbit wrote:4 is just so stupid. If they hadn't had the word "constitution" in there is would have scored a lot worse I'll wager.

There is no such thing as a "fair single-rate tax". Period.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Diadem » Sat Apr 17, 2010 9:05 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:4 is just so stupid. If they hadn't had the word "constitution" in there is would have scored a lot worse I'll wager.

There is no such thing as a "fair single-rate tax". Period.

Well we all know that in politics 'fair' is pretty much a meaningless modifier.

But a flat-tax doesn't have to be such a bad idea. In Eastern-Europe they are quite succesful. You put a big incentive on working more, which is never a bad thing. But there's more to it than that.

I don't know about the US, but in the Netherlands it turns out that while rich people pay significantly more taxes, they also get significantly more from it. Mainly because of the home mortgage interest deduction and child daycare, but they also profit more from public services such as education, roads, police, etc. I don't know if it entirely compensates, probably not, but it's clear that a lot of money is just being pumped around within income groups, instead of being redistributed.

So if you couple a flat-tax with a major overhaul taxes and tax-reductions, you do not necessarily get a system in which the rich get richer and the poor get fucked. But you do get a system that is significantly simpler and stimulates the economy more.

Though I don't doubt in the tea-partiers' ability to completely fuck up such a reform :)
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Hawknc » Sat Apr 17, 2010 9:35 am UTC

Of course, mentioning that it's done successfully in Europe is pretty much a guaranteed way of getting any idea written off as socialist...

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Telchar » Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:15 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:But a flat-tax doesn't have to be such a bad idea. In Eastern-Europe they are quite succesful. You put a big incentive on working more, which is never a bad thing. But there's more to it than that.

I don't know about the US, but in the Netherlands it turns out that while rich people pay significantly more taxes, they also get significantly more from it. Mainly because of the home mortgage interest deduction and child daycare, but they also profit more from public services such as education, roads, police, etc. I don't know if it entirely compensates, probably not, but it's clear that a lot of money is just being pumped around within income groups, instead of being redistributed.

So if you couple a flat-tax with a major overhaul taxes and tax-reductions, you do not necessarily get a system in which the rich get richer and the poor get fucked. But you do get a system that is significantly simpler and stimulates the economy more.

Though I don't doubt in the tea-partiers' ability to completely fuck up such a reform :)


It might be able to work in smaller economies, and even then I really don't know how, but if you have the top 20% paying over 80% of your tax burden, you can't make a flat tax revenue neutral without hiking up the rate on the lower class, otherwise your government is going to have to run on significantly less cash.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby netcrusher88 » Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:26 pm UTC

The fact that something functions in limited environments (a handful of countries, sales taxes which typically exempt food items (and thus aren't really flat), etc) does not mean it works well or that it is fair. Flat taxes are inherently regressive, a word that doesn't fit any sensible definition of "fair".
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26819
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Apr 17, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Amora wrote:Or why not make a list with 11 items? What's so special about 10?

Only Spinal Tap can go to 11.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Vaniver » Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:21 pm UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:The fact that something functions in limited environments (a handful of countries, sales taxes which typically exempt food items (and thus aren't really flat), etc) does not mean it works well or that it is fair. Flat taxes are inherently regressive, a word that doesn't fit any sensible definition of "fair".
What? You mean sales taxes are inherently regressive- flat taxes are, by nature, flat. Regardless, there are sensible arguments for calling either measure fair (though I agree that consumption-only taxes, while they have desirable effects on shifting behavior, have other, larger problems, mostly due to enforcement, but also being regressive).
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Diadem » Sat Apr 17, 2010 9:50 pm UTC

Actually, a flat tax is technically still progressive. Since you don't pay taxes over the first x thousand euros / dollars of your income, higher incomes will still pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, even in a flat-tax system.

Anyway I don't see what being progressive or regressive have to do with 'fair'. The latter is an entirely subjective term, that can - and is - used in many different ways. Not so many centuries ago it was considered entirely fair that the poor pay more taxes than the rich - after all that's how god wants it.

Or I could argue that fair means that two different people pay the same for the same product. Both a rich and a poor man pay the same for a bottle of milk. That's fair. So they should also pay the same for membership of country X. So taxes should be a fixed sum. That's the only fair system.

For the record, I don't agree with the above. I'm just trying to illustrate that it wouldn't be fair to promote your own view of what is fair to be the only universally valid one.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Kayangelus
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:37 am UTC

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Kayangelus » Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:36 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:For the record, I don't agree with the above. I'm just trying to illustrate that it wouldn't be fair to promote your own view of what is fair to be the only universally valid one.


Just out of curiosity, was using fair there (and thereby doing what you claim to be unfair) on purpose, or by accident. Agree with the rest of your post, but found that word... ill timed

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Teabagger Contract

Postby Diadem » Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:51 pm UTC

Kayangelus wrote:
Diadem wrote:For the record, I don't agree with the above. I'm just trying to illustrate that it wouldn't be fair to promote your own view of what is fair to be the only universally valid one.


Just out of curiosity, was using fair there (and thereby doing what you claim to be unfair) on purpose, or by accident. Agree with the rest of your post, but found that word... ill timed

It was on purpose. I was trying to bring a bit of humor into my post. Maybe that wasn't entirely clear :)
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests