So, what exactly is the Tea Party protesting? Taxes? Hmm...98% just got a tax cut last year and taxes haven't increased in 16 years. Security? Hmmm...Obama's administration has gotten two of the top Taliban leaders and foiled every terorrist plot yet, aside from the guy on the plane who burned his own johnson. Bush on the other hand, well, we all remember his first 12 months. Is it the bailouts? Hmm...well, that was a Bush plan and you people weren't in the streets then. Is it the deficit spending of Obama? Well, there aren't 3 economist on the planet who think there is another way to get out of a recession, it is basic high school economics, the very basic. Your guns? Well, nothing has even been proposed by Obama regarding your guns. Healthcare? What a horrific thought huh? Actual healthcare for everyone is a nightmarish thought right? Seriously, what are the issues other than the black guy with the scary name is now in office? Is this just a party of reactionary children in adult bodies?
So, what exactly is the Tea Party protesting? Taxes? Hmm...98% just got a tax cut last year and taxes haven't increased in 16 years. Security? Hmmm...Obama's administration has gotten two of the top Taliban leaders and foiled every terorrist plot yet, aside from the guy on the plane who burned his own johnson. Bush on the other hand, well, we all remember his first 12 months. Is it the bailouts? Hmm...well, that was a Bush plan and you people weren't in the streets then. Is it the deficit spending of Obama? Well, there aren't 3 economist on the planet who think there is another way to get out of a recession, it is basic high school economics, the very basic. Your guns? Well, nothing has even been proposed by Obama regarding your guns. Healthcare? What a horrific thought huh? Actual healthcare for everyone is a nightmarish thought right? Seriously, what are the issues other than the black guy with the scary name is now in office? Is this just a party of reactionary children in adult bodies?
A typical comment made by a socialist liberal texasbeta. The government has not been able to run any program cost effectively historically let's take a look Olberman Jr. social security-bankrupt,medicare-bankrupt,welfare-a major budgetary joke,Freddie Mac and Annie Mae, both ridden into the ground by Democratic legislation as these jerks like Raines and Barrack Obama got lavish bonuses for overseeing the disaster. Yes, good old ACORN was there too making sure that plenty unqualified applicants who would default in the first month of their mortgage, got approved. Nope pal, the scariest thing I see is the ignorance pf people like yourself that don't mind getting free health care as the nation goes into an economic nose dive. You are a typical self serving Democrat, sir.
A typical comment made by a socialist liberal texasbeta. The government has not been able to run any program cost effectively historically let's take a look Olberman Jr. social security-bankrupt,medicare-bankrupt,welfare-a major budgetary joke,Freddie Mac and Annie Mae, both ridden into the ground by Democratic legislation as these jerks like Raines and Barrack Obama got lavish bonuses for overseeing the disaster. Yes, good old ACORN was there too making sure that plenty unqualified applicants who would default in the first month of their mortgage, got approved. Nope pal, the scariest thing I see is the ignorance pf people like yourself that don't mind getting free health care as the nation goes into an economic nose dive. You are a typical self serving Democrat, sir.
Talking points and no substance...once again. To begin with, learn grammar. Even your children are required to do so. Secondly, let's take a look at each of your points. The reason social security is bankrupt is because every President since WW2 has used it has a slush fund. Get off of your ass, go to google and look it up. With no dipping into the fund to pay for other things, then we have no issue with it. Secondly, you claim that Medicare was run into the ground by Democratic legislation. Do you have a single pc of legislation to back up your claim? You mention Freddie and Fannie...apparently, you don't read or learn anything. The repeal of the Glass Steagall, the unregulation of the derivative market, were all policies by the Republicans during Clinton. Phil Gramm was the catalyst. Again, get off of your ass and read something for once. Right wingers are constantly ONLY worried about themselves, not my party. You are the people always concerned with your personal taxes and absolutely NOTHING else. You claim that Obama got a lavish bonus...well retard, Presidents don't get bonuses. Again, you have a grasp of political knowledge that rivals only my cocker spaniel. It is pathetic. Every single argument you made is flawed and incorrect. Are you aware that the Bush tax cut for the top 2% did more to our deficit than anything that followed...that is a fact, and again, you have to get off of your ass and look it up. It isn't hidden information. The one thing all the tea partiers have in commin is a lack of basic information. Try harder kiddo
Talking points and no substance...once again. To begin with, learn grammar. Even your children are required to do so. Secondly, let's take a look at each of your points. The reason social security is bankrupt is because every President since WW2 has used it has a slush fund. Get off of your ass, go to google and look it up. With no dipping into the fund to pay for other things, then we have no issue with it. Secondly, you claim that Medicare was run into the ground by Democratic legislation. Do you have a single pc of legislation to back up your claim? You mention Freddie and Fannie...apparently, you don't read or learn anything. The repeal of the Glass Steagall, the unregulation of the derivative market, were all policies by the Republicans during Clinton. Phil Gramm was the catalyst. Again, get off of your ass and read something for once. Right wingers are constantly ONLY worried about themselves, not my party. You are the people always concerned with your personal taxes and absolutely NOTHING else. You claim that Obama got a lavish bonus...well retard, Presidents don't get bonuses. Again, you have a grasp of political knowledge that rivals only my cocker spaniel. It is pathetic. Every single argument you made is flawed and incorrect. Are you aware that the Bush tax cut for the top 2% did more to our deficit than anything that followed...that is a fact, and again, you have to get off of your ass and look it up. It isn't hidden information. The one thing all the tea partiers have in commin is a lack of basic information. Try harder kiddo
texasbeta, you might want to look a little bit harder at the bush tax cut numbers. tells a little bit different story. also, since you are obviously into doing research and reading, try something by thomas sowell. then you might understand what happened with fannie and freddie. over-the-top regulation (govt forcing lower lending standards with the threat of prosecution from janet reno), the push for affordable housing (when housing already was affordable), and plain ignorance/arrogance by members of congress (both sides of the aisle, mind you) led to the collapse of the housing market.
if you think right wingers are only worried about themselves, let me ask you how i am supposed to help others if i cant first help myself. its not selfish, its reality. and just to debunk your theory, im not worried about the taxes i will have to pay as much as i am worried about the taxes the wealthy are going to have to pay. its redistribution of wealth anyway you look at it. the world needs poor people and the world needs wealthy people. thats what gives money its VALUE. "its time for them to pay their fair share" says obama upon the closing of the health care summit. maybe he should have learned that life just isnt fair sometimes. But if you ask me, using your wealth to start a corporation that employs hundreds or thousands of people sounds like paying way more than your fair share. but we need to make sure we dont offend the bottom 50% of the income earning population that pays ZERO taxes because that just wouldnt be fair......
to finish off, your "talking points and no substance....once again" claim doesnt tread any water. everything you have posted on this site can be read daily over at the huff post. next time why dont you come without the liberal talking points. and while you are at it, research how to debate a subject like an adult (although i will admit that i almost stooped to that level a few times here). being a grammar nazi and using insults really isnt helping your cause.
texasbeta, you might want to look a little bit harder at the bush tax cut numbers. tells a little bit different story. also, since you are obviously into doing research and reading, try something by thomas sowell. then you might understand what happened with fannie and freddie. over-the-top regulation (govt forcing lower lending standards with the threat of prosecution from janet reno), the push for affordable housing (when housing already was affordable), and plain ignorance/arrogance by members of congress (both sides of the aisle, mind you) led to the collapse of the housing market.
if you think right wingers are only worried about themselves, let me ask you how i am supposed to help others if i cant first help myself. its not selfish, its reality. and just to debunk your theory, im not worried about the taxes i will have to pay as much as i am worried about the taxes the wealthy are going to have to pay. its redistribution of wealth anyway you look at it. the world needs poor people and the world needs wealthy people. thats what gives money its VALUE. "its time for them to pay their fair share" says obama upon the closing of the health care summit. maybe he should have learned that life just isnt fair sometimes. But if you ask me, using your wealth to start a corporation that employs hundreds or thousands of people sounds like paying way more than your fair share. but we need to make sure we dont offend the bottom 50% of the income earning population that pays ZERO taxes because that just wouldnt be fair......
to finish off, your "talking points and no substance....once again" claim doesnt tread any water. everything you have posted on this site can be read daily over at the huff post. next time why dont you come without the liberal talking points. and while you are at it, research how to debate a subject like an adult (although i will admit that i almost stooped to that level a few times here). being a grammar nazi and using insults really isnt helping your cause.
texas beta, Hello again little fish, like all groups of thinking people we are all here for different reasons, we do not all agree on all of the reasons but the primary overarching principle is that we want the Federal government to be limited to those few purposes specifically outlined in the Constitution.
For my personal reasons you can click on my avatar to see my profile, I see you have chosen not to post one for yourself, disappointing, but not surprising.
texas beta,
Hello again little fish, like all groups of thinking people we are all here for different reasons, we do not all agree on all of the reasons but the primary overarching principle is that we want the Federal government to be limited to those few purposes specifically outlined in the Constitution.
For my personal reasons you can click on my avatar to see my profile, I see you have chosen not to post one for yourself, disappointing, but not surprising.
Let's take a look at each of your points, one by one. You stated that "what give money its VALUE" was the "world need(ing) wealthy people." I want you to take a look at that, and let's discuss it based upon its logic. Money is defined as: A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquifiable account. How money works is: It’s simple: Money is a good with a limited supply and there is a demand for it because people want it. The reason I want money is because I know other people want money, so I can use my money to others to get goods and services from them in return. They can then use that money to purchase goods and services that they want. Goods and services are what ultimately matter in the economy, and money is a way that allows people to give up goods and services which are less desirable to them, and get ones that are more so. People sell their labor (work) to acquire money now to purchase goods and services in the future. This is simple and a 5 year old can aquire the very basic information in a moment's touch. Surely, you do not want to argue with the actual definition and a juvenile explanation of its use. Now that we have established the basics, would money have value without any percentage of the people having posession of a larger majority of its supply? If you had 100 bucks and 5 people in a coffee shop, would it still be worth anything if all 5 people had $25, or does someone have to have 26$ for it to be worth any value? If there were 5 people on the planet, and the the note was still an accepted form of currency, would someone have to have $26 for money to be accepted for anything? Do you see how illogical your statement was? You are operating off of the premise that the wealthy currently pay their fair shair or more than their fair share already, based upon your statements in paragraph two and argue that Obama plans to enact policy that would take away from them and give to someone else, hence the "redistribution of wealth" statement. First, let's discuss the first point of whether or not the wealthy currently pay their "fair share." "1. Taxpayers in the group that includes only the top 1% of adjusted gross income filers pay 39.9% of the income taxes paid by all individual taxpayers; and 2. Taxpayers in the group that includes only the top 5% of adjusted gross income filers pay an astounding 60.1% of the income taxes paid by all individual taxpayers." That is quite a bit. How much of the wealth do they posess and what percentage of their income is actually taken though? "In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. " How much do the top 1% make? $348,000 a year, and average a yearly income of $12.7 million. The top 2% make $250 per year. Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the world, admitted he paid `17.7% after tax breaks, while his secretary paid 22%. The DLS claims that the average percentage of income paid by the top 1% after federal, state and local tax deductions is 9.3%. What percentage do you pay? See, the more wealth you have, the more exemptions and breaks you can take advantage of. Additionally, your wealth allows you to purchase a lobby to allow you personally to virtually write the tax laws, and this DOES happen with corporations. You stated that the bottom 50% pay 0 taxes. Let's see if that is accurate. "According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, it is true that 47 percent of "tax units" -- which can be singles, couples, or families -- are projected to have zero or negative income tax liability in 2010. About 60 percent of these households make $20,000 per year or less...
Let's take a look at each of your points, one by one. You stated that "what give money its VALUE" was the "world need(ing) wealthy people." I want you to take a look at that, and let's discuss it based upon its logic.
Money is defined as:
A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquifiable account.
How money works is:
It’s simple: Money is a good with a limited supply and there is a demand for it because people want it. The reason I want money is because I know other people want money, so I can use my money to others to get goods and services from them in return. They can then use that money to purchase goods and services that they want. Goods and services are what ultimately matter in the economy, and money is a way that allows people to give up goods and services which are less desirable to them, and get ones that are more so. People sell their labor (work) to acquire money now to purchase goods and services in the future.
This is simple and a 5 year old can aquire the very basic information in a moment's touch. Surely, you do not want to argue with the actual definition and a juvenile explanation of its use. Now that we have established the basics, would money have value without any percentage of the people having posession of a larger majority of its supply? If you had 100 bucks and 5 people in a coffee shop, would it still be worth anything if all 5 people had $25, or does someone have to have 26$ for it to be worth any value? If there were 5 people on the planet, and the the note was still an accepted form of currency, would someone have to have $26 for money to be accepted for anything? Do you see how illogical your statement was?
You are operating off of the premise that the wealthy currently pay their fair shair or more than their fair share already, based upon your statements in paragraph two and argue that Obama plans to enact policy that would take away from them and give to someone else, hence the "redistribution of wealth" statement. First, let's discuss the first point of whether or not the wealthy currently pay their "fair share." "1. Taxpayers in the group that includes only the top 1% of adjusted gross income filers pay 39.9% of the income taxes paid by all individual taxpayers; and
2. Taxpayers in the group that includes only the top 5% of adjusted gross income filers pay an astounding 60.1% of the income taxes paid by all individual taxpayers."
That is quite a bit. How much of the wealth do they posess and what percentage of their income is actually taken though? "In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. " How much do the top 1% make? $348,000 a year, and average a yearly income of $12.7 million. The top 2% make $250 per year. Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the world, admitted he paid `17.7% after tax breaks, while his secretary paid 22%. The DLS claims that the average percentage of income paid by the top 1% after federal, state and local tax deductions is 9.3%. What percentage do you pay? See, the more wealth you have, the more exemptions and breaks you can take advantage of. Additionally, your wealth allows you to purchase a lobby to allow you personally to virtually write the tax laws, and this DOES happen with corporations.
You stated that the bottom 50% pay 0 taxes. Let's see if that is accurate. "According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, it is true that 47 percent of "tax units" -- which can be singles, couples, or families -- are projected to have zero or negative income tax liability in 2010. About 60 percent of these households make $20,000 per year or less...
However, being exempt from income tax does not mean you're exempt from federal taxes. Everyone who works is liable for payroll taxes, contributions to Medicare and Social Security that come out of every paycheck. There are also excise taxes on some goods and services, most notably the 18.4 cents per gallon tax on gasoline. The Congressional Budget Office found that earners in the lowest quintile, where most of those with no income tax liability fall, shouldered 4.3 percent of the payroll tax burden in 2005 and 11.1 percent of the excise taxes. Their effective tax rate (which is calculated by dividing taxes paid by total income) in those categories, according to the CBO, was in fact significantly higher than the rate of the top quintile, although that top one-fifth of the population had a much higher effective tax rate for individual and corporate income taxes." Your first point was concerning the Bush tax cuts and my claim that they made up the largest aspect of our deficit, beyond TAARP and the "stimulus plan". President Bush’s policies -$923 billion -$918 billion Current economic downturn -$426 billion -$469 billion President Obama’s policies -$225 billion -$497 billion Financial rescues begun by President Bush -$422 billion -$123 billion All other -$302 billion -$262 billion President Bush’s policies -$923 billion -$918 billion Current economic downturn -$426 billion -$469 billion President Obama’s policies -$225 billion -$497 billion Financial rescues begun by President Bush -$422 billion -$123 billion All other -$302 billion -$262 billion That would be 16% attributed to Obama's policies and 40% for the W. As far as the percentage of the deficit with specific regards to the Bush tax cuts, I'll admit after 3 hours of scouring statistics with a calculator, I am less convinced than I originally was. I'll admit that. I think that currently, it is a lock that the precentage is beyond repute, it cannot logically be calculated based upon a snapshot of today, as it is not how the deficit and percentage of GDP is calculated, and I already have "tired-head" from reading tax statistics for 3 hours. I apologize for the long response, but the reason I am on here is not to just attack tea partiers. The other day in a news story, the ticked off liberals, fighting against corporate interests controlling the laws, abusing tax laws and actualyl writing them, shipping jobs overseas for tax breaks...ticked off that our reps, just like yours, ignore us and basically play to whichever lobbyist calls for lunch that day, while we work our tails off trying to keep the lights on (and yes, we work...those who don't work, usually don't vote - we vote, we just disagree with you sometimes), while we send troops into a country with no mission and no direction, putting their lives in peril for a goal they can't even put down on paper and not giving them the means to do the job, etc etc...usually the same things that tick you off, well, we were all linked in a story together...as if the angry, were just angry, not cohesive, and on opposing sides. I think the current tea party movement is misguided by orgs like Freedomworks who are the very people you are fighting against. Maybe a little debate and breaking down the actual facts, getting to where we disagree fundamentally and without spewing rhetoric and what Glenn Beck told you today, then we might actually, as a people, be coherant and informed enough to potentially and by the right means, take our government back. In order to get to that point, I understand that we have to muck it up a bit at the beginning.
However, being exempt from income tax does not mean you're exempt from federal taxes. Everyone who works is liable for payroll taxes, contributions to Medicare and Social Security that come out of every paycheck. There are also excise taxes on some goods and services, most notably the 18.4 cents per gallon tax on gasoline. The Congressional Budget Office found that earners in the lowest quintile, where most of those with no income tax liability fall, shouldered 4.3 percent of the payroll tax burden in 2005 and 11.1 percent of the excise taxes. Their effective tax rate (which is calculated by dividing taxes paid by total income) in those categories, according to the CBO, was in fact significantly higher than the rate of the top quintile, although that top one-fifth of the population had a much higher effective tax rate for individual and corporate income taxes."
Your first point was concerning the Bush tax cuts and my claim that they made up the largest aspect of our deficit, beyond TAARP and the "stimulus plan".
President Bush’s policies -$923 billion -$918 billion
Current economic downturn -$426 billion -$469 billion
President Obama’s policies -$225 billion -$497 billion
Financial rescues begun by President Bush -$422 billion -$123 billion
All other -$302 billion -$262 billion
President Bush’s policies -$923 billion -$918 billion
Current economic downturn -$426 billion -$469 billion
President Obama’s policies -$225 billion -$497 billion
Financial rescues begun by President Bush -$422 billion -$123 billion
All other -$302 billion -$262 billion
That would be 16% attributed to Obama's policies and 40% for the W. As far as the percentage of the deficit with specific regards to the Bush tax cuts, I'll admit after 3 hours of scouring statistics with a calculator, I am less convinced than I originally was. I'll admit that. I think that currently, it is a lock that the precentage is beyond repute, it cannot logically be calculated based upon a snapshot of today, as it is not how the deficit and percentage of GDP is calculated, and I already have "tired-head" from reading tax statistics for 3 hours.
I apologize for the long response, but the reason I am on here is not to just attack tea partiers. The other day in a news story, the ticked off liberals, fighting against corporate interests controlling the laws, abusing tax laws and actualyl writing them, shipping jobs overseas for tax breaks...ticked off that our reps, just like yours, ignore us and basically play to whichever lobbyist calls for lunch that day, while we work our tails off trying to keep the lights on (and yes, we work...those who don't work, usually don't vote - we vote, we just disagree with you sometimes), while we send troops into a country with no mission and no direction, putting their lives in peril for a goal they can't even put down on paper and not giving them the means to do the job, etc etc...usually the same things that tick you off, well, we were all linked in a story together...as if the angry, were just angry, not cohesive, and on opposing sides. I think the current tea party movement is misguided by orgs like Freedomworks who are the very people you are fighting against. Maybe a little debate and breaking down the actual facts, getting to where we disagree fundamentally and without spewing rhetoric and what Glenn Beck told you today, then we might actually, as a people, be coherant and informed enough to potentially and by the right means, take our government back. In order to get to that point, I understand that we have to muck it up a bit at the beginning.
JUSTAI- you seem like a good guy...involved for the right reasons even though we disagree. I do have an avatar though...do you not like my Palin frown picture?
JUSTAI- you seem like a good guy...involved for the right reasons even though we disagree. I do have an avatar though...do you not like my Palin frown picture?
texasbeta, What's not to like? Palin's frown looks better than Bell Pelosi's smile any day.
By the way your post above is long on talking points and short on reason. Bush cut every-one's taxes and despite the bursting of the dot com bubble and the 9/11 attacks did get the economy moving. I'm no fan of "W" and I doubt you heard anyone yesterday bragging about his budgets. I assume you are completely leaving out the policies His "O"lliness wants to pass but has not gotten, i.e. the health care scam, which combined with the wonderful socialist programs of social security and medicare will be more than enough to bankrupt us.
So, why, exactly, are you here? Do you really think it's all about "ask what your country can do for you?" In your heart of hearts do you really think government bureaucrats should be put in charge of. . . well, anything else?
You seem bright although impatient, so I will continue to hold out hope for you. But please tone down the personal attacks, polite discourse is what puts the civility in civil discourse. I would also ask that you break the larger posts up into more paragraphs as us oldsters have trouble keeping up (as I think you've alluded to in other posts).
Have a great day and enjoy the freedom, like health care, it isn't free you know.
texasbeta,
What's not to like? Palin's frown looks better than Bell Pelosi's smile any day.
By the way your post above is long on talking points and short on reason. Bush cut every-one's taxes and despite the bursting of the dot com bubble and the 9/11 attacks did get the economy moving. I'm no fan of "W" and I doubt you heard anyone yesterday bragging about his budgets. I assume you are completely leaving out the policies His "O"lliness wants to pass but has not gotten, i.e. the health care scam, which combined with the wonderful socialist programs of social security and medicare will be more than enough to bankrupt us.
So, why, exactly, are you here? Do you really think it's all about "ask what your country can do for you?" In your heart of hearts do you really think government bureaucrats should be put in charge of. . . well, anything else?
You seem bright although impatient, so I will continue to hold out hope for you. But please tone down the personal attacks, polite discourse is what puts the civility in civil discourse. I would also ask that you break the larger posts up into more paragraphs as us oldsters have trouble keeping up (as I think you've alluded to in other posts).
Have a great day and enjoy the freedom, like health care, it isn't free you know.
Wait, the Webster's Dictionary and actual labor statistics are talking points? So, clarify for me...anything that you right wingnuts don't like, you just consider talkin points? How exactly are labor statistics and IRS statistics talking points? This is actually comical. With regards to whether I think the government should run anything...I actually trust non-profits more than corporations who are legally mandated to maximize their profits over the legal limitations and betterment of the society around them, yes.
Wait, the Webster's Dictionary and actual labor statistics are talking points? So, clarify for me...anything that you right wingnuts don't like, you just consider talkin points? How exactly are labor statistics and IRS statistics talking points? This is actually comical. With regards to whether I think the government should run anything...I actually trust non-profits more than corporations who are legally mandated to maximize their profits over the legal limitations and betterment of the society around them, yes.
As far as I can tell, WE THE PEOPLE of Tea Party Patriots have experienced more government intrusions and restrictions on our personal and business freedoms than is necessary or beneficial for America and Americans. We plan to steer America back to a government conforming to and upholding The Constitution of The United States Of America. Over the past couple hundred years WE THE PEOPLE had become silent concerning most legislation, and not enough even turned out to voice their opinions by voting in elections. WE believed that those in office and elected to office would honor their oaths of office, but if they didn’t, there were supposed to be enough checks and balances provided to correct problems before they got too bad. Well, without the vigilant involvement of WE THE PEOPLE, our system has worked very poorly. To Americans advantage, our Constitution provides for the majority of WE THE PEOPLE to control our government. WE control who is in government, thus WE THE PEOPLE shall control government’s size and direction. The continued vigilance of THE PEOPLE shall be maintained as well as adherence to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. All parts of the process must be fully functional if we are to expect the best results.
As far as I can tell, WE THE PEOPLE of Tea Party Patriots have experienced more government intrusions and restrictions on our personal and business freedoms than is necessary or beneficial for America and Americans.
We plan to steer America back to a government conforming to and upholding The Constitution of The United States Of America.
Over the past couple hundred years WE THE PEOPLE had become silent concerning most legislation, and not enough even turned out to voice their opinions by voting in elections. WE believed that those in office and elected to office would honor their oaths of office, but if they didn’t, there were supposed to be enough checks and balances provided to correct problems before they got too bad. Well, without the vigilant involvement of WE THE PEOPLE, our system has worked very poorly.
To Americans advantage, our Constitution provides for the majority of WE THE PEOPLE to control our government. WE control who is in government, thus WE THE PEOPLE shall control government’s size and direction. The continued vigilance of THE PEOPLE shall be maintained as well as adherence to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. All parts of the process must be fully functional if we are to expect the best results.
United we stand;divided we fall. Let's look at what unites us- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We all want that regardless of political affiliation. Just because Republicans have historically been fiscally conservative(obviously not all Republicans, i.e. George W) does not mean that the Republican party is the "right" party to align to. We need to look for politicians whose values and morals are more important than what political party they are associated with.
United we stand;divided we fall. Let's look at what unites us- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We all want that regardless of political affiliation. Just because Republicans have historically been fiscally conservative(obviously not all Republicans, i.e. George W) does not mean that the Republican party is the "right" party to align to. We need to look for politicians whose values and morals are more important than what political party they are associated with.
If the GOP pushes Romney or another big government candidate they deserve to loose. Lincoln is not my favorite candidate, but he could turn a phrase. And as for sticking to the GOP as the "lessor of two evils." To paraphrase Lincoln, "I prefer my despotism pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy."
Well said joyful375.
If the GOP pushes Romney or another big government candidate they deserve to loose. Lincoln is not my favorite candidate, but he could turn a phrase. And as for sticking to the GOP as the "lessor of two evils." To paraphrase Lincoln, "I prefer my despotism pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy."
I am curious Joyce, as you state that historically the Republicans have been fiscally conservative. Which Republicans do you mean? Reagan tripled the national debt, tripled the size of government, and had a double digit unemployment rate 3 years into his first term. Who exactly was fiscally conservative? Who's values and morals do you value? Palin? She has quit everything she has ever started, and cares nothing about you unless you can inflate her pcoketbook. Rand Paul? So your values involve repealing the Civil Rights Act? Tell me, what exactly do you prefer?
I am curious Joyce, as you state that historically the Republicans have been fiscally conservative. Which Republicans do you mean? Reagan tripled the national debt, tripled the size of government, and had a double digit unemployment rate 3 years into his first term. Who exactly was fiscally conservative? Who's values and morals do you value? Palin? She has quit everything she has ever started, and cares nothing about you unless you can inflate her pcoketbook. Rand Paul? So your values involve repealing the Civil Rights Act? Tell me, what exactly do you prefer?
»
if you think right wingers are only worried about themselves, let me ask you how i am supposed to help others if i cant first help myself. its not selfish, its reality. and just to debunk your theory, im not worried about the taxes i will have to pay as much as i am worried about the taxes the wealthy are going to have to pay. its redistribution of wealth anyway you look at it. the world needs poor people and the world needs wealthy people. thats what gives money its VALUE. "its time for them to pay their fair share" says obama upon the closing of the health care summit. maybe he should have learned that life just isnt fair sometimes. But if you ask me, using your wealth to start a corporation that employs hundreds or thousands of people sounds like paying way more than your fair share. but we need to make sure we dont offend the bottom 50% of the income earning population that pays ZERO taxes because that just wouldnt be fair......
to finish off, your "talking points and no substance....once again" claim doesnt tread any water. everything you have posted on this site can be read daily over at the huff post. next time why dont you come without the liberal talking points. and while you are at it, research how to debate a subject like an adult (although i will admit that i almost stooped to that level a few times here). being a grammar nazi and using insults really isnt helping your cause.
Hello again little fish, like all groups of thinking people we are all here for different reasons, we do not all agree on all of the reasons but the primary overarching principle is that we want the Federal government to be limited to those few purposes specifically outlined in the Constitution.
For my personal reasons you can click on my avatar to see my profile, I see you have chosen not to post one for yourself, disappointing, but not surprising.
Money is defined as:
A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquifiable account.
How money works is:
It’s simple: Money is a good with a limited supply and there is a demand for it because people want it. The reason I want money is because I know other people want money, so I can use my money to others to get goods and services from them in return. They can then use that money to purchase goods and services that they want. Goods and services are what ultimately matter in the economy, and money is a way that allows people to give up goods and services which are less desirable to them, and get ones that are more so. People sell their labor (work) to acquire money now to purchase goods and services in the future.
This is simple and a 5 year old can aquire the very basic information in a moment's touch. Surely, you do not want to argue with the actual definition and a juvenile explanation of its use. Now that we have established the basics, would money have value without any percentage of the people having posession of a larger majority of its supply? If you had 100 bucks and 5 people in a coffee shop, would it still be worth anything if all 5 people had $25, or does someone have to have 26$ for it to be worth any value? If there were 5 people on the planet, and the the note was still an accepted form of currency, would someone have to have $26 for money to be accepted for anything? Do you see how illogical your statement was?
You are operating off of the premise that the wealthy currently pay their fair shair or more than their fair share already, based upon your statements in paragraph two and argue that Obama plans to enact policy that would take away from them and give to someone else, hence the "redistribution of wealth" statement. First, let's discuss the first point of whether or not the wealthy currently pay their "fair share." "1. Taxpayers in the group that includes only the top 1% of adjusted gross income filers pay 39.9% of the income taxes paid by all individual taxpayers; and
2. Taxpayers in the group that includes only the top 5% of adjusted gross income filers pay an astounding 60.1% of the income taxes paid by all individual taxpayers."
That is quite a bit. How much of the wealth do they posess and what percentage of their income is actually taken though? "In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. " How much do the top 1% make? $348,000 a year, and average a yearly income of $12.7 million. The top 2% make $250 per year. Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the world, admitted he paid `17.7% after tax breaks, while his secretary paid 22%. The DLS claims that the average percentage of income paid by the top 1% after federal, state and local tax deductions is 9.3%. What percentage do you pay? See, the more wealth you have, the more exemptions and breaks you can take advantage of. Additionally, your wealth allows you to purchase a lobby to allow you personally to virtually write the tax laws, and this DOES happen with corporations.
You stated that the bottom 50% pay 0 taxes. Let's see if that is accurate. "According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, it is true that 47 percent of "tax units" -- which can be singles, couples, or families -- are projected to have zero or negative income tax liability in 2010. About 60 percent of these households make $20,000 per year or less...
Your first point was concerning the Bush tax cuts and my claim that they made up the largest aspect of our deficit, beyond TAARP and the "stimulus plan".
President Bush’s policies -$923 billion -$918 billion
Current economic downturn -$426 billion -$469 billion
President Obama’s policies -$225 billion -$497 billion
Financial rescues begun by President Bush -$422 billion -$123 billion
All other -$302 billion -$262 billion
President Bush’s policies -$923 billion -$918 billion
Current economic downturn -$426 billion -$469 billion
President Obama’s policies -$225 billion -$497 billion
Financial rescues begun by President Bush -$422 billion -$123 billion
All other -$302 billion -$262 billion
That would be 16% attributed to Obama's policies and 40% for the W. As far as the percentage of the deficit with specific regards to the Bush tax cuts, I'll admit after 3 hours of scouring statistics with a calculator, I am less convinced than I originally was. I'll admit that. I think that currently, it is a lock that the precentage is beyond repute, it cannot logically be calculated based upon a snapshot of today, as it is not how the deficit and percentage of GDP is calculated, and I already have "tired-head" from reading tax statistics for 3 hours.
I apologize for the long response, but the reason I am on here is not to just attack tea partiers. The other day in a news story, the ticked off liberals, fighting against corporate interests controlling the laws, abusing tax laws and actualyl writing them, shipping jobs overseas for tax breaks...ticked off that our reps, just like yours, ignore us and basically play to whichever lobbyist calls for lunch that day, while we work our tails off trying to keep the lights on (and yes, we work...those who don't work, usually don't vote - we vote, we just disagree with you sometimes), while we send troops into a country with no mission and no direction, putting their lives in peril for a goal they can't even put down on paper and not giving them the means to do the job, etc etc...usually the same things that tick you off, well, we were all linked in a story together...as if the angry, were just angry, not cohesive, and on opposing sides. I think the current tea party movement is misguided by orgs like Freedomworks who are the very people you are fighting against. Maybe a little debate and breaking down the actual facts, getting to where we disagree fundamentally and without spewing rhetoric and what Glenn Beck told you today, then we might actually, as a people, be coherant and informed enough to potentially and by the right means, take our government back. In order to get to that point, I understand that we have to muck it up a bit at the beginning.
What's not to like? Palin's frown looks better than Bell Pelosi's smile any day.
By the way your post above is long on talking points and short on reason. Bush cut every-one's taxes and despite the bursting of the dot com bubble and the 9/11 attacks did get the economy moving. I'm no fan of "W" and I doubt you heard anyone yesterday bragging about his budgets. I assume you are completely leaving out the policies His "O"lliness wants to pass but has not gotten, i.e. the health care scam, which combined with the wonderful socialist programs of social security and medicare will be more than enough to bankrupt us.
So, why, exactly, are you here? Do you really think it's all about "ask what your country can do for you?" In your heart of hearts do you really think government bureaucrats should be put in charge of. . . well, anything else?
You seem bright although impatient, so I will continue to hold out hope for you. But please tone down the personal attacks, polite discourse is what puts the civility in civil discourse. I would also ask that you break the larger posts up into more paragraphs as us oldsters have trouble keeping up (as I think you've alluded to in other posts).
Have a great day and enjoy the freedom, like health care, it isn't free you know.
We plan to steer America back to a government conforming to and upholding The Constitution of The United States Of America.
Over the past couple hundred years WE THE PEOPLE had become silent concerning most legislation, and not enough even turned out to voice their opinions by voting in elections. WE believed that those in office and elected to office would honor their oaths of office, but if they didn’t, there were supposed to be enough checks and balances provided to correct problems before they got too bad. Well, without the vigilant involvement of WE THE PEOPLE, our system has worked very poorly.
To Americans advantage, our Constitution provides for the majority of WE THE PEOPLE to control our government. WE control who is in government, thus WE THE PEOPLE shall control government’s size and direction. The continued vigilance of THE PEOPLE shall be maintained as well as adherence to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. All parts of the process must be fully functional if we are to expect the best results.
If the GOP pushes Romney or another big government candidate they deserve to loose. Lincoln is not my favorite candidate, but he could turn a phrase. And as for sticking to the GOP as the "lessor of two evils." To paraphrase Lincoln, "I prefer my despotism pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy."