My Tea Party Platform

1. 60

   FatLibertarianposted 13 years ago

   After watching various Tea Party candidates struggling to name what they'd cut, I decided to come up with a plan that can unite both sides.  We cut both the welfare and warfare state and greatly restructure our economic system to create more peace, freedom and wealth.  You want change?
   
   What Is The Tea Party Movement?
   
   The fiscal nightmare our country faces has only gotten worse under both President Bush and Obama. We're faced with two simultaneous problems which make it difficult, without major changes, to directly resolve either of them. Because of the growing defect the Federal Government requires more tax revenue. However, because of the recession, income is already strained and raising taxes may not raise more federal income and will only further hurt the already ailing economy. Something must and can be done. Below are some ideas I'd have to change the course of our country and break the death spiral.
   
   1. The Economy
   
   In order to stimulate the economy we must fundamentally change the economic situation for all Americans. And to do so in a way which will allow them to pay off debt, rebuild savings and spend more money. What better way to do that than to suspend the income tax for two years and let the young people opt out of social security? Doing so will almost double some people's income on every paycheck. Think about what that would do to the ability of Americans to pay down debt and stimulate the economy. In an economy based on spending this would create an economic boom, perhaps never seen before. And it's something everyone would see immediately.
   
   2. Jobs
   
   We must work to remove onerous rules and regulations surrounding hiring employees. A commission should be put together to determine the most onerous job killing regulations and then get rid of them entirely. We should also end the minimum wage. Getting rid of the minimum wage will go a long way toward maximizing employment and because there would be no income tax and young people can opt out of social security withholding, they'll probably make more in this system than they would in the one currently have irrespective of minimum wage.
   
   3. Deficit
   
   There's no doubt that suspending the income tax for two years will (by itself) hurt the already massive budget. In order to help with that we'd have to; Bring our troops home from around the world and end the empire which would save anywhere from $500 billion to $1 trillion a year, which is more than we get from the income tax. We get around $150 billion a year from the income tax. We must also end the departments of, energy, agriculture, education, homeland security, commerce, labor and the interior. Put together a commission who looks at the best ones to end first and how to end them. Ending those programs and the warfare empire would go a large way toward shrinking government and the deficit.  Then finally we either use a very small, temporary national sales tax or tariffs to help pay off the debt while we suspend the income tax.  Either method is better than the immoral and economically stifling income tax.
   
   In Closing
   
   The reason you've never heard this kind of solution is because it would work. It would work for the people, but not for the banking system or federal government. It would cut government and its influence drastically. The $800 billion dollar bailout is much more expensive than suspending the income tax for two years, not to mention the complete wasted stimulus plan.  Suspending the income tax would have 100 times the positive effect on the economy.
   
   To Summarize
   
   Here's a quick summary of my Tea Party plan to actually reduce government debt, create jobs and grow personal wealth.
   
       * Suspend the income tax for two years.
       * Eliminate minimum wage.
       * Let young people opt out of social security.
       * Reduce job killing regulations.
       * Bring the warfare state to an end.
       * End useless federal departments.
       * Institute a temporary national sales tax or tariffs.
   
   Doing these things would create long lasting wealth, reduce government and help to pay off the national debt.This Tea Party plan should be the first major step toward a future based on the principles of freedom, peace and prosperity.  Please comment below.
   
   - Robert Timsah, the Fat Libertarian.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Not likely to fly.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I like it.  Even though I would disagree with some of the defense policy suggestion.  It makes enormous sense to compel wealthy European countries and Middle Eastern countries, whose populations despise us, to defend themselves. 
      
      As to the silly notion that banks are sitting on money(not your notion - Logar's) and that is why businesses aren't growing - this suggests a complete ignorance of what money is, who holds it, how it moves, why it moves, what it does, etc....  Economics is the most maligned and misunderstood science.

      replyreport
   3. 71

      RodEcclesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      There are flaws in your system.  Mainly the sales tax.  I cannot understand why anyone would think that is "fair".  First of all Canada has a national sales tax and it devastated that nations economy for years and years and they are still not out of the woods yet (no pun intended) up there.
      
      You want to balance the budget and reduce or eliminate the debt.
      
      1 Constitutional amendment that gets rid of the IRS for ever.
      2 Reduce Federal Government back to its Constitutional limits (yea even the FDA, FBI and FCC would have to go)
      3 Pure flat tax of 10% NO deductions at all.  Only applied to income which is anything that is not direct investment returns.
      4 Teach basic economics in school so kids grow up with fiscal knowledge so this kind of thing does not get repeated.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Awesome response.  I like it.  Check out the "Fair Tax" plan.  It is more than the typical consumption tax.  Though complicated it is less complicated than the byzantine labyrinth of the current tax system.

         replyreport
   4. 68

      imjustmusingposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Excellent post, I may not agree with all of it, but well said.

      replyreport
   5. 60

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I'll vote for you but if you're going to institute a VAT tax you're going to have eliminate the income tax. Also, institute TERM LIMITS, and a balanced budget amendment.

      replyreport
2. 76

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   Very well thought-out and positive solutions, FL.
   As Ralph said, not likely to fly -- although I can see bits and pieces of your plan being implemented.
   Will be very interested to read hubber reaction to your proposal!
   MM

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I disagree entirely. I do not think they are well thought out at all. How many people are employed by the government? How does the government get money? How are you going to pay those employees when there is no income from income taxes? This is logic a 6 yr old gets and that was only his first few sentences. Really read this a little more and come back and tell me it is well thought out.

      replyreport
3. 60

   Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years ago

   Some of these ideas have real merit, (especially the cessation of empire building), but would hurt special interest groups who have very powerful lobbyists - thus no dice.
   
   I don't think you can make the broad statement "Doing these things would create long lasting health, etc."  What works in theory has an odd way of morphing into something totally unexpected, sometimes catastrophic.
   
   Letting people opt out of social security has a lot of problems. In theory, the payroll deductions of each worker are supposed to be paid out in benefits during retirement.  The reality is however, that current workers' deductions are used to support those already retired.  If younger people opt out, the money for benefits still has to come from somewhere.  Another issue is that many people who opt out will manage their money poorly and end up unable to support themselves as seniors.  It's easy to say in the abstract, "sorry, you should have been smarter; not my problem" but would we actually let them starve if it came to that?

   replyreport
4. 76

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   I think some people WOULD advocate letting old people starve. If you haven't managed to save $1million plus needed to fully support your own retirement by age 65, you have no one to blame but yourself.
   Oh -- and don't forget the extra set-aside to fund your own health care. As Medicare would obviously have to be jettisoned along with SS.
   
   On the plus side, eliminating our warfare state would solve once and for all the "don't ask don't tell problem." With no active service there's no need to worry about the (homo)sexuality of your bunkmate. And those military chaplains who are apparently having a moral dilemma about counseling "out" gays would no longer have that dilemma because we would no longer need military chaplains!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      These statements are shameful. You should be ashamed. You have children too. Wow. So, if people don't have the ability to save 1 million dollars then they deserve to die? That is one of the most harsh statements I have ever heard, and one of which only comes from someone who is a bad human.
      
      Secondly, you are advocating eliminating the military, eliminating regulation, eliminating income tax, and entirely opening the markets. Hey lady - GO TO SOMALIA! That is what they have...how is that working.
      
      You are ridiculous.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I believe that her statement was sarcasm, putting in her words what the OP seems to believe.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            My mistake entirely....hopefully.

            replyreport
5. 69

   Valentine Logarposted 13 years ago

   Here are the problems you didn't consider and would have to address prior to enacting any of these solutions:
   
   Banking regulation - currently all money is held by the banks and none is being circulated. Business both small and large has no access and thus can not expand, this includes hiring.
   
   Imports - there are no tariffs on imports and we are in a post-industrial decline. This means there are no manufacturing jobs in the US. Nearly all jobs in manufacturing, everything from automobiles to paper products that were once manufactured here are now off-shore and we collect no income from the imports.
   
   Service Jobs - what should have made up for job losses in manufacturing was also sent off-shore, yes that is right there are few remaining jobs in the service industry even low paying jobs are being sent to countries that pay even less and do not have the added cost of benefits such as employer paid health care or matching retirement funds.
   
   Trade Imbalance - we don't make anything, we don't protect the one thing that remains, our Intellectual Capital. We have an enormous Trade Imbalance which continues to widen every quarter. Unless we begin to shrink this we will continue to have to borrow money from countries such as China and our national debt will continue to grow, your idea of tax cessation would further increase the debt.
   
   Temporary Worker Program - the other side of the off-shore issue is the H1B and H2B programs that imports legal cheap labor into the country to replace white collar workers in industry roles such as IT, Banking, Service, Medical, Science, and others where they can be paid far less than an American with the same skills.
   
   The list goes on, shall I? It is critical to address root cause issues not just the feel good issues of the day. Taxes are not the root cause. Twenty-five years of deregulation and dismantling of the middle-class through legislation that served one purpose and one purpose only is the root cause. The sooner America wakes up to the real cause of our demise the better off we will be.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      pylos26posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Valentine wrote:  “for one purpose and one purpose only”
      
      Valentine, I really don’t expect a response from someone that has only made three posts in over two years, …but pretty please, what’s the one purpose?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Pylos - I am not sure you can get snarky about the frequency of posts with a writer whose hubscore is higher than yours (and mine). She writes clearly with an organized style and if your question is appropriate, your tone needs some work.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Valentine Logarposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks for the defense.

            replyreport
         2. 68

            pylos26posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Doug since I like your style I’ll go with your suggestion of working on tone. Thanks for the advice…although I intended no disrespect to ms. Logar.

            replyreport
      2. 69

         Valentine Logarposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I am more than happy to respond, despite the tone.
         
         The purpose is clear, to dismantle the cornerstone of the economy which has been up till now the working middle-class. Today the gap between the "have" and the "have-not" is wider than it has been in nearly 100 years and it is getting wider. The cost of everything is increasing and the cost of critical opportunities to improve futures, such as education is rapidly becoming out of reach for the common person. We, as a nation are moving from one that rewards based on merit and hard work and instead rewards based on DNA, that is sperm luck.
         
         Citizen United finished off the voice of the people making corporations people and money speech. Price of the House is still being calculated, however this mid-term was close to $4billion with 67% of the super-pac money going to Republicans.
         
         To revitalize the economy and the nation we must agree to real standards rather than worship false idols. We are a nation of individuals and that is our greatest strength. We have to stop falling to our knees in fear every time some loud mouthed hack screams fire, or family values, or death panel, or taxes. We have to start looking for real cause and effect and solving real problems. We have to stop fighting wars in foreign lands for no reason, stop believing lies, stop allowing our sons and daughters to die there and here simply for the egos of professional politicians. We must start demanding accountability from Washington and our State legislatures. We must stop drawing party lines and start drawing human and humane lines.
         
         So despite whether I post two times or a hundred times I do so because I find I had something to add to the conversation. I try always to have manners when I join a conversation, I am sorry that you were offended by my lack of clarity. In the future I will make every attempt to be more clear.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I thought that was pretty damn clear. Unfortunately, far too many voters think wearing a 3-cornered hat gives you the wisdom of the founding fathers who thought with one united mind which Sarah Palin channels with complete historical accuracy - right down to the you betcha.
            
            When these people take off the hat, they sometimes discover that there were as many divergent opinions about the meaning of the Constitution  then as  now - but there was in colonial times a willingness to work together and compromise for the common good which is absent today.
            
            It's all about making the rich richer now.

            replyreport
6. 59

   Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

   Let's look at the list.
   
       * Suspend the income tax for two years.
       * Eliminate minimum wage.
       * Let young people opt out of social security.
       * Reduce job killing regulations.
       * Bring the warfare state to an end.
       * End useless federal departments.
       * Institute a temporary national sales tax or tariffs.
   
   On the first, how do you propose that government conduct the business they are obligated by LAW to conduct without the revenue from income tax. It makes as much sense as telling an unemployed person to hang out in Tahiti until the US economy improves. They are unemployed - they need money. DUH.
   
   Number two - Eliminate the minimum wage actually means - allow employers to CUT pay of the most needy citizens. At minimum wage a full time person earns just $15K per year. And you propose to allow employers to REDUCE that? Why not bring back slavery?
   
   Number Three - We agree. A strong national defense does not require bases all over the world and a military budget greater than the rest of the world COMBINED.
   
   Number Four - IMO, libertarians have always been opposed to SS and Medicare as socialistic. They are both popular programs with the mainstay of the teabagger movement - old people. SO to sabotage SS & Medicare, you need to employ a trojan horse strategy. Let young people opt out which will destabilize the payment structure - causing even MORE people to quit. When the program 'fails', kill it off without ever admitting it was your goal and intent to commit murder.
   
   Number Five - Depends what regulations. Ron Paul addressed Massey Energy recently. Massey owned the mine where 29 miners died in an explosion. Massey is notorious for disabling safety equipment and it's quite possible that management killed those miners with their disregard for safety. Ron Paul told Massey he is opposed to the federal government writing safety regulations and enforcing workplace safety. If  mine is unsafe, he said, miners won't work there and the company will improve. So my reply to Number five is - WHAT regulations?
   
   Number Six - Who decides what departments are 'useless'? I happen to approve of the US Dept of Education because I have seen how bad public education can run under 'local' control. I also approve of the EPA - there are companies who would poisin the public for a little more profit. We would all like the federal government to be more efficient - but that's done with a scalpel - not the chain saw the Tea Party wants to use.
   
   Number Seven - A lot of people don't understand the graduated income tax. It's fair. If you make five million a year because daddy built a beer distribution network and owns the rights to a territory, you SHOULD pay more - not only in dollars but as a percent of income.
   
   Example - Replace income tax with a sales tax. If you only spend one million per year of the five million you 'earned' - the four million you invest to make you even richer - is tax-free. The poor schmuck loading the beer truck at less than minimum wage - cause you repealed that - is paying four times the tax rate of the business owner who never breaks a sweat. The working bloke has to spend and pay tax - on 100% of what he earns just to survive.
   
   We agreed on one item. Overall and true to form, libertarian thinking is designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor. And it's hostile to the non-rich elderly.  A lot of teabaggers rolling around on electric scooters bought by Medicare don't realize that the Randian philosophy behind the movement would leave them without Social Security and Medicare The  Randian concept for seniors is that you have to be rich before you retire - or plan on dying soon and badly when you can no longer work.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Pcunixposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Doug, thank you for saving me the time and effort and for doing a far better job at it than I could have.
      
      I live in an over 55 community.  Too many of the fools here babble the same sort of Tea Party  line but happily collect their SS  checks.  They also gleefully pass on the latest email nonsense no matter how many of their previous bleatings have been exposed as misunderstandings or outright fabrications.
      
      What is the Tea Party?  I can't say for fear of banning, but I have no respect at all for any of them.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Reality Bytesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Darn it that those ethics of civility are in effect.  Oooooh I could just imagine the consequences

         replyreport
7. 68

   Jed Fisherposted 13 years ago

   I drink a lot of tea, iced tea in the summer and hot tea in the winter. Anyway, "socialism" is when the Gub'ment budget exceeds half the nation's GDP. We have a ways to go, so that's not yet an issue. Social Security is essential. Because... it encourages entreprenurial risk-taking. I know that no matter what, however bad I screw up taking chances in life, in investments, in relationships, in artisic endeavours, in sefl-publishing perhaps, whatever, I know Social Security provides a backstop. And then Medicare, providing health coverage when I will need it most. Now if these programs were gone, my risk-taking appetite would dissappear, and I might just take my money and dissappear too, to another country, like Tahiti or the Philippines. Without a certain amount of risk-taking, the US economy would wither on the vine and die.

   replyreport
8. 59

   Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

   "What better way to do that than to suspend the income tax for two years and let the young people opt out of social security? Doing so will almost double some people's income on every paycheck."
   
   I can't let that go unchallenged - because it's ridiculous.
   
   Suppose I'm above average for the example  - Combined family weekly take-home pay - $1000.  For that take-home pay to double by eliminating income tax, the income tax withholding has to be $52,000 per year. And this files as reasonable among libertarians - which does not surprise me - and went right by everyone who read the post and nodded without thinking.

   replyreport
9. 59

   EPmanposted 13 years ago

   A note on Social Security...
   
   People should absolutely be able to opt out. If you want to manage your money towards your retirement as you see fit then so be it. Similarly, if you want to pay into a government system for government checks down the line, then let it be.
   
   Government does not set aside money to be given back to Social Security recipients. It consumes this money as soon as the dollars are sucked from your paychecks. Even the Social Security Trust Fund contains trillions in IOUs. Regardless of how many are paying into the system, the people who receive the checks are still cashing in on a borrowed dollar.
   
   Recipient-to-worker ratio and opt-outs wouldn't matter if the government kept the tax money in a lock-box. This is too much to be asking of Washington, though.

   replyreport