What do you think of this Tea Party business?

[TheTman]

From what I understand this was started by a group of individuals that were Taxed Enough Already, hence TEA. And was formed by ordinary citizens tired of not having a voice in Washington DC. From what I understand they want to get this country back on track and follow the Constitution. I believe they are very pro 2nd admendment, as well as suppporting all of the Bill of Rights. They want an end to this crazy spending that is going on and balance the budget and get rid of a lot of the socialist crap that has happened to us in recent years. I guess several candidates ran on their platform and were elected. I think Rand Paul is their darling and a good example of the type of people they are backing. From what I've seen on Rand Paul, I agree with a majority of his views and really like some of the things he is doing.
Plus any movement that can get Maxine Waters panties in a bunch I just have to admire. That and the Dems have sicced their attack dogs on the movement, with the media right in step with them. They've done some very underhanded things, like planting stooges in the Tea Party Rallies then having them interviewed by the networks where they come off as raving loonatics or ultra right wing nut jobs. One thing I read about them really struck me as to what kind of people attend their rallies. At the site of a big rally, the Park was left just as clean as when the rally began, while after a Lib/Socialist Rally at another location the place was left in shambles, with trash eveywhere. I find this very ironic as the Libs are always talking about the environment, yet they don't take care of the places they congregate.
I'm just wondering what others here think of them, are they a flash in the pan movement that will go away in a few years? Are they a force to be reckoned with? Will they become a legitimite party, or sub party of the GOP? Are they dangerous to our freedoms? Let me know your thoughts if you don't mind. I'm just curious as how they come across to people like us, i figure are generally conservative and not happy with the way the country is headed right now.

[Bawanna]

Well I've type out 3 long meaningful responses to this post and every one of them flew away into cyberspace when I hit the post button. I better go talk to the boss. This has been happening to me. I thought maybe I was having a bad day and hit the wrong button.

Testing.

[Bawanna]

Sure, now it works. I'm gonna go smash my thumb with a ball peen hammer.

[TheTman]

I hate when that happens, and I'm a fast typer. But then again I can't post a line or two, has to be a book or longer.

[ripley16]

The best thing to happen to American politics since the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps it will inspire us to go back to a Constitutional government lead by elected statesmen of honesty and honor.

[Bawanna]

Well 5 attempts, 5 full pages, and only my trivial comments went thru. The meaningful stuff gets kicked. Maybe there are sensors from the current regime watching our post. I kid you not. 5 attempts, 5 failures.

I don't know about you but I'm putting on my tin foil hat and scanning the horizon for black helicopters. I can't believe this............

[slowpoke]

A force to be reckoned with.

The Tea Party is still in it’s infancy. I think in the years to come as more of the various factions merge in to one “more” meaningful voice they could in fact bring us to a more constitutional government. They showed there teeth last election but I think they will evolve into a more powerful way of dealing with a run-a-way out of control government. One of the first things that needs to be addressed is the ability of “all” states to recall there congressmen and senators when they renege on there campaign promises.

[JohnInFlorida]

I think we're going to see the Republican party go the way of the dodo bird. Dems are left, "Establishment" Reps are left (just slightly less so). Both are big government oriented and power hungry. Is the Tea Party the solution? I don't know, but I know that I'm not being represented by either the Dems or the Establishment Reps. Tea Party types will be working within the Rep party this cycle, but if the party doesn't move hard right in the process, they're going to be left behind. Can you say "Whig"?

[ltxi]

I believe the Tea Party, writ large, is rather dangerous at this point.....although not to our freedoms. I agree with at least most of their views and goals, but not with the extremist, no compromise idealism. That can only lead to tears....being taken advantage of by political opportunists, political damage to the US on the global stage, and eventual destruction by the more reasoned opposition.

If you want an idea how I think the Tea Party should work, take a look at how the Free State Project does business. Conservatives may not agree with all the FSP's libertarian views but I think their working model is more sound....infiltrate while pissing off as few of the voters as possible.

[georgepittenger]

The best thing to happen to American politics since the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps it will inspire us to go back to a Constitutional government lead by elected statesmen of honesty and honor.

Well I don't know if "since the D of I" , but it is the only thing standing between us and " the same ol s*** " .

I just hope ( and pray ) it will have some staying power .

They represent the common man a heck of a lot more than the traditional Repub party .

The media seeks to portray them as wackos and I do think that it is having an effect .

[hotpig]

They lost a lot of credibility with their attacks on the middle class in WI and several other states. I'm not sure they can ever regain it.

[pm9fan]

From my exposure to the Tea Party folks, you might call them the folks that have read the Constitution plus Declaration of Independence and believe the government should follow the documents.

The Tea Party is not similar to any political party as there is no elected chief of the concept of limited government. That is what the founders wrote specifically to prevent what is occurring today.

My summary of the concepts in the above documents plus the Federalist Papers is each line of the Constitution was written to address a historical evil. People ceded their God given rights to the federal government as specifically stated in the Constitution. All other rights were retained to the states and if not specified in state constitutions, were retained by the individual.

The Tea Party is a group attempting to regain the rights taken outside the limits set in the Constitution. It's a restoration movement to regain freedoms lost.

Tough to contain the concept of freedom given in the Constitution.

[slowpoke]

From my exposure to the Tea Party folks, you might call them the folks that have read the Constitution plus Declaration of Independence and believe the government should follow the documents.

The Tea Party is not similar to any political party as there is no elected chief of the concept of limited government. That is what the founders wrote specifically to prevent what is occurring today.

My summary of the concepts in the above documents plus the Federalist Papers is each line of the Constitution was written to address a historical evil. People ceded their God given rights to the federal government as specifically stated in the Constitution. All other rights were retained to the states and if not specified in state constitutions, were retained by the individual.

The Tea Party is a group attempting to regain the rights taken outside the limits set in the Constitution. It's a restoration movement to regain freedoms lost.

Tough to contain the concept of freedom given in the Constitution.

http://kahrtalk.com/picture.php?albumid=74&pictureid=535

[TheTman]

Hotpig, do you mean the Wisconsin protests against the Labor Unions? The majority of Tea Party members are middle class and I don't see how they would protest against themselves. I happened to agree with the protesters, I don't believe you should have to join a union to work at a job, but also believe if you're not in the union, you shouldn't benefit from the benefits they gain by going on strike. Perhaps make non-union members more like contract labor or something like that. It's not fair that they get the same reward as the people that stood out on the strike line.
I believe in secret ballots and not having a union representative watching over your shoulder when you make your choice to join or not.
Unions have done a lot of great things in the past, like getting decent wages, and much better working hours, and safer and better conditions, but I think that now the higher ups take advantage of the working man, driving around in Mercedes Benzes and Caddillacs and living the high life, living off of other people's hard work. A big gripe of mine concerning unions is how much money they give the Democratic party without any input from the workers. I know people that have gone against their beliefs in abortion, 2nd admendment rights, and other hot button issues, and voted Democrat because of the union.
Boeing in Wichita has/had a very strong union, and I've seen some union strong arm tactics used that disgusted me, beatings and vandalism and other acts of terror. I was in a particularly hated class of workers, contract labor. I was brought in to update the computer systems for the Y2K deal, and was terminated shortly after I completed my assignment. I don't think I could have joined a union if I had wanted too. I had friends I had known for a long time that wouldn't speak to me on the job, because I was contract labor. Off the job, things were just fine, but they didn't want to be seen talking with scum like me on the job. I think unions were one of the biggest reason Boeing sold most of the Wichita plant to Spirit, and a lot of people got screwed out of their pensions and other things they had worked hard bargaining for, and their wages dropped considerably. I think a lot of people also take advantage of being in the union a long time by doing the bare minimum to get by, and letting others do most of the work. I know one guy, got paid close to $40 an hour to pop rivets into predrilled holes, just because he had many years in the union. I had another good friend that was a union rep, and he just rode around in a golf cart all day to resolve issues between workers and management, must be nice. They all got screwed over just like everyone else when Spirit took over. I know other union members that worked their tail off. Just like anywhere else, you got your hard workers and your goof offs that take advantage of the work others do.
I imagine this post will not make me very popular with many of you, but that's just how me and many others feel. It's a lot like religion, and politics, two subjects that often end up in a heated debate. I'd probably feel different if it wasn't for the strong arm tactics I've seen happen. If you were a scab you sure drove your oldest vehicle to work, cause you knew a nice car would get torn up. Didn't matter if you were out of money and had to work to feed the family and pay the bills, you crossed the line and now you're a scab POS.

[Bawanna]

The days of the need for unions are really over. They are great for the give me give me folks who want job security without working.
I was in union warehouse and even shop steward. Company wanted to pay me more money cause I produced and was reliable. Union wouldn't let them do that.
They offered to match and set up a in house program and let us keep our union dues with better benefits but the other guys were so afraid they'd be fired the minute we signed they wouldn't do it. Company even promised no terminations for 2 years. Raises based on merit. Would have been sweet.

I'm ok being a scab myself. Actually that's a bald faced lie, I'm in the union at the department. Association of office pukes and girly men I think. Only cause they make me of course. I've delivered enough stuff to Boeing in Seattle years ago to see that throwing a 100 guys at a 10 man job isn't the answer.

[slowpoke]

Back in the 70s I was a Cummins mechanic in a heavy duty truck dealer in LA. Every time I spilled something on the floor I was expected to call a janitor to clean it up before I started working again.
If I was to just wipe it up myself I was in danger of getting a grievance filed against me.
Teamsters 495

[zaaa]

The days of the need for unions are really over. They are great for the give me give me folks who want job security without working.

I'm not so sure about that. How many people do you know that still have a job that have been required to 9 hour days instead of 8, 10, 11? I know many many people that have been saddled with extra responsibility, extra hours, and extra stress with not only no pay raise, but often a pay cut.

The need for employee protections has never been higher. Corporations are taking advantage of the job market to constantly squeeze more and more out of people while giving less and less back, and all under the not so thinly veiled threat of being let go.

Corporations are sitting on piles of cash that is not getting put back into the economy (which would make all our lives better) because they're able to "improve efficiency". I've been lucky that I work for people who value their employees but most fortune 500 employers don't.

[slowpoke]

I'm not so sure about that. How many people do you know that still have a job that have been required to 9 hour days instead of 8, 10, 11? I know many many people that have been saddled with extra responsibility, extra hours, and extra stress with not only no pay raise, but often a pay cut.

The need for employee protections has never been higher. Corporations are taking advantage of the job market to constantly squeeze more and more out of people while giving less and less back, and all under the not so thinly veiled threat of being let go.

Corporations are sitting on piles of cash that is not getting put back into the economy (which would make all our lives better) because they're able to "improve efficiency". I've been lucky that I work for people who value their employees but most fortune 500 employers don't.
And most of that crap comes to us from our federal government with tax breaks to companies that do business with selected foreign labor markets. When Bush one started talking about a “new world order” American labor took it in the shorts. Look at all the jobs that have been lost in this country because of a tax environment that drives jobs offshore. The unions are nothing more than a bunch of back stabbers that can be easily bought by the companies that there supposed to be protecting employees from.
There was a time when a carpenter could support his family by framing houses even tho the work was seasonal. Now, because our federal gov wont secure our borders housing manufactures can employ 3 illegals for what they used to pay one citizen. 18% of this country is under-employed and the unions have no teeth because it’s an employers market. Unions are meaningless and despite what you hear or read, there is no free trade. As long as corporations and foreign governments can buy our politicians, were screwed.
If our politicians can be bought, why can’t we buy a cop any time we want to???
The best our gov could do to balance the budget was to form a new committee. No telling how much that will cost us.


Yes, the unions are pretty much useless.
And:
Yes, we do need something like the Tea Party.

[zaaa]

I'm personally in favor of publicly funded elections. "What, thats crazy talk!! I don't want to give money to people I don't agree with!" No not really, once you take the corporation funding out of it, put in some long term bans on congress taking lobbying jobs (10 yr. ban or some such) after they leave their elected position and put some real teeth in ethics violations we may eventually have an elected body that represents the people not the interests of the rich or corporations.

The issue with the current tea party is that it's been co-opted by people like the Koch brothers who only use it to further their private interests.

[hotpig]

I see Unions as a two edged sword. One blade has out lived its worth and hurt its members with too much pork thus costing jobs.

The other blade is we have better working conditions and pay/benefits than most every other country. Without the constant legislative and other pressure from Unions these are likely to decrease with time.

That said I'm the President of my Local. A not so popular job that pays me nothing. Actually it costs me time and money.

Being a public service Union we can not strike. We can not force a person to join. They do have to pay a fair share even if they do not join the local. Basically instead of paying 25.00 per month dues they pay 15.00 and get the same benefits but no vote or say on anything.

Since we do not have the leverage of striking we rely on Politicians and public support. Traditionally Republicans represented management and the Democrats the working man. By supporting legislation in favor of labor the Dem's received more contributions. Our last contribution went to a Republican. However I have noticed the roles seemed to be reversing a little more every few years.

Public opinion is real finicky right now. Recently in my local news paper I have been called a lazy welfare recipient living off of the hard work of the tax payer.

Our guys are fortunately to be able to get pay for doing what we love to do. I'm number one in seniority on my Fire Dept with nearly 25 years of service. Because of that I make nearly as much as the Fire Chief. The FD pays 100% of my health insurance, we have no dental or eye. We pay 100% if we want to add out families to the insurance.

The down side is they keep us under 56 hours per week so that we do not get overtime. The starting salary is minimum wage. Raises were hit and miss but since the economy sank they are now miss.

We were promised in exchange for low pay we would receive a decent pension at the end. This is common for government jobs. The pay extremes the tea party keep throwing out are cherry picked in order to get a strong reaction.

For me I can retire at age 50 and with 30 years on the job I can get up to 75% of my salary. 75% is max by Illinois statue. It sounded pretty impressive until I figured that I will be lucky to make it up to 13.00 per hour by the time I retire.

Since WI Illinois has changed the retirement to 55 and 35 years to get 75% and they put a cap amount on the max retirement.

[slowpoke]

The way I see it is that the current fed gov can’t be fixed. Thats because the only people that can fix it are the very ones that are breaking it. It would be nice if we had a way to boycott the feds by withholding fed tax monies till they get there act together and maybe just for fun, prove to us that they are useful for something other than stealing our money.




http://kahrtalk.com/picture.php?albumid=70&pictureid=482

[wyntrout]

A part of the Progressive movement, the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution changed the way U.S. Senators were chosen:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/17th+Amendment

The state legislature used to appoint them, retaining State representation in Congress. This is one of those things that "sounded good" but corrupted the original intent of the framers of our Constitution. Now all representatives are of the People, who don't know WTF about anything, and whose votes are bought by the professional politicians who are paid for by special interests. The result is that the People AND the States are not represented in the Congress.

Wynn:(

[heeler]

Although I dont agree with everything any party stands for I will say that the Tea Party is a refreshing change over all in what's been coming out of D.C.
They most definitely are a future force to be reckoned with which is exactly why the Dems are attacking them with their soundbites.
Reid and Waters come to my mind most immediately.

[pm9fan]

Since over half of the people in the US pay no federal tax and over half get some federal benefits, how about a "fair, non-descriminaitonal" revenue improvement?

Let's get rid of the biased income tax and replace it with a flat tax on all transactions? The number is arbitrary (10%, 12%, 15%) on every dollar spent is taxed.

First, every illegal immigrant gets to pay US federal tax!

Second, people will notice where their money goes and perhaps get educated on the issues and vote to cut waste plus elect representatives that watch the checkbook.

What can be fairer than we all pay the same rate. Seems to be a Biblical principle that has been lost along the way (along with a number of other principles, like not taking loans out for unborn children to repay). The more you earn, the more you keep. We all are equal under the law. Are we equal under the tax codes?

Awaiting incoming from the "Progressives".

[hotpig]

quote
The more you earn, the more you keep.

It is hard to follow that principal when the current administration campaigned under the Robin Hood economic theory of steal from the rich and give to the poor. Plus their definition of rich that started out at 250k per year of income keeps lowering.

[hotpig]

quote
Awaiting incoming from the "Progressives".

If you go to moveontosocialism.org you can see what the anti Americans are up to. Last week they had a game going called describe the tea party in ten words.

In what is very typical for Libs there are lots of calls for violence and even genocide against tea party and conservatives.

[Dietrich]

IMO the Tea Party represents a back to the basics movement that this nation sorely needs if it is to survive.Attacks by liberals and their lapdogs in the media are evidence to the real ugliness of their socialist beliefs.The United States is in trouble.A lot of trouble and it has come because of the giveaway programs of the government.I remember when Kruschev [sp?] made the statement "We will bury you". Don`t worry Nikita old pal,we`re doing a crackerjack job of burying ourselves.

[PSLFL]

Here's what little I know about the TEA party. The basic overall premise is "let's follow the constitution". Every member has his own "hot buttons" that I may or may not agree with. The thing I do agree with is that the TEA party is working within the system, voting together, making their opinions and desires known, and holding politicians responsible.
I don't understand why it is considered radical to vote the way you think you should.

[ripley16]

I don't understand why it is considered radical to vote the way you think you should.

It's considered radical, terroristic, demonic, racist, unamerican and hatefull because it isn't controled by the DNC or a union. Liberals are terrified of an informed and knowledgable electorate because liberals know that their policies and goals are repugnant to informed Americans. Their only defence of these policies is to do what they always do... viciously attack anyone that won't carry the progressive "water", ie; socialism.

[jocko]

as u well know our present administration skirts the constitution any time they want and just say, heh fokker take us to court. Why should it take the supreme court allthis time to rule on obama healthcare, when bush/gore elecvtions in florda was an issue the supreme court stepped right in. POLITICS. 366 days a year.

[TheTman]

Hotpig, public service unions were not the ones I had in mind when I went off on union member, I was thinking more of the aircraft unions here in Wichita, Boeing, Raytheon (Beechcraft) and Cessna. Public service unions don't have the power to strike as you mention, and if anyone did need a union I would say our police and firefighters might be the ones, I think they get fairly good wages, (I think they should be paid a little more) and I think they earn every penny and more. They are willing to put their life on the line to save ours. My best friend is a disabled fireman, fell thru a burning roof and broke his back and was put on disability. He collects a pension from the fire dept. I don't begrudge him getting that pension one bit, how many lives has that man saved? More than a few. His pension is probably the result of union bargaining. This guy pays for his job daily with great amount of pain from them messing up his surgies to repair his spine.
I guess I'm just saying not all unions are the same, some aren't so bad, but the aircraft ones have really hurt this town and their workers.
Forcing an employer to pay a guy $40.00 an hour to a guy to pop rivets is kinda ridiculous in my book. No wonder they sold the plant. The Boeing workers used to think they were living the high life and many of them were a little uppity about it too.
Didn't have time for old friends that werent in the Boeing community. Fokk em. They are sure singing the blues now that Spirit burst their bubble.

[Longitude Zero]

At many departments, mine included we have the FOP as a "bargaining agent". We cannot strike or take any work slowdowns or stoppages. The FOP negotiates for wages and benefits/grievance procedures etc. Our salaries are tied to a multiple city survey that compares us to other cites similarily situated.

As to the TEA Party is is high time the grassroots raised up and gave the stodigness of BOTH parties something to think about. Now some have taken this thin mandate a bit too far and have a "my way of the highway" attitude. This is just as ignorant/indolent as the old D/R party attitudes. Like it or not the TEA Party has to understand a basic priciple of politics, negotiation and the willingness to accept less than a full loaf now with the opening to get more later.

It is called compromise where I am from.

[slowpoke]

Something has to be done about so called free trade and it can’t be done under our current corrupt government. We do need some sort grass roots movement like the Tea Party to start fixing this from the ground up. There are just too many pigs at the top.


When I buy something from Canada I don’t pay any additional duty's and I get it in a few days.
When I sell something in Canada, it often takes a month for the customer to receive it and they pay a duty. Needless to say I stopped all foreign selling because of the hassle involved and the customer always ends up mad. Last month I bought a stupid little screw driver that I couldn’t find locally from China for $2.76 free shipping that took almost a month to get here but I didn't pay a duty. But there again, China has been buying U.S. politicians since Clinton got cozy with them for eight million bucks I think it was.


Here in this country we are blessed with the latest modern medicines. One of the main reasons for this is that much of the research is subsidized by our government (our tax money). But, theses medicines are cheaper for foreigners to buy in other countries than they are to us right here in the U.S.. So, Americans start buying there prescriptions from Canada where they can save a lot of money and Bush makes it illegal saying it’s to protect us. Yeah right! In reality the pharmaceutical companies knew where to put there money to insure that they had a captive market. If the gov is so interested in protecting us, why don’t they seal off the borders??


We do need a Tea Party and we need the ability to quickly recall politicians that turn into pigs after they are elected. Here’s a unique idea, how about a contract that would fire a politician when he steps outside the boundaries of his/her campaign promises. When you think about it, we have more protection when we buy a house or car than we do when we elect our nations leaders.


I’ve always been a Conservative Republican but I still have the ability to tell the difference between a pig and an elephant.

[O'Dell]

A part of the Progressive movement, the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution changed the way U.S. Senators were chosen:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/17th+Amendment

The state legislature used to appoint them, retaining State representation in Congress. This is one of those things that "sounded good" but corrupted the original intent of the framers of our Constitution. Now all representatives are of the People, who don't know WTF about anything, and whose votes are bought by the professional politicians who are paid for by special interests. The result is that the People AND the States are not represented in the Congress.

Wynn:(

I agree Wynn. The 17th was a big mistake. as it stands now Iran has representation in Washington, but my state of Georgia does not.

[O'Dell]

Since over half of the people in the US pay no federal tax and over half get some federal benefits, how about a "fair, non-descriminaitonal" revenue improvement?

Let's get rid of the biased income tax and replace it with a flat tax on all transactions? The number is arbitrary (10%, 12%, 15%) on every dollar spent is taxed.

First, every illegal immigrant gets to pay US federal tax!

Second, people will notice where their money goes and perhaps get educated on the issues and vote to cut waste plus elect representatives that watch the checkbook.

What can be fairer than we all pay the same rate. Seems to be a Biblical principle that has been lost along the way (along with a number of other principles, like not taking loans out for unborn children to repay). The more you earn, the more you keep. We all are equal under the law. Are we equal under the tax codes?

Awaiting incoming from the "Progressives".

We tried a semi-flat tax in 1986 and how is that working? The FairTax would solve the problem, generate the needed revenue, do away with the IRS, tax everyone on 'what they spend' [including criminals, illegals and tourists], and eliminate the billions and billions of dollars spent preparing tax forms.

[Longitude Zero]

I agree Wynn. The 17th was a big mistake. as it stands now Iran has representation in Washington, but my state of Georgia does not.

Even if the 17th had never happened or was repealed we are way to far down that road to see it make ANY POSITIVE difference. The political parties would discover ways around it. It is what it is.

[O'Dell]

I have no problem with the Tea Party, Of course, it's not a party at all, but a grass roots movement, and I think that's the way it should be. As far as unions are concerned, it wouldn't bother me at all if they all disappeared tomorrow. Some, not all, are one of the biggest impediment to our economy. I won't support any organization that uses violence to achieve it's goal, and unions have a history of doing just that. I am a longtime Libertarian, but I don't support Ron Paul, mainly because of his rabid followers.

[pm9fan]

We tried a semi-flat tax in 1986 and how is that working? The FairTax would solve the problem, generate the needed revenue, do away with the IRS, tax everyone on 'what they spend' [including criminals, illegals and tourists], and eliminate the billions and billions of dollars spent preparing tax forms.


Agreed! The problem for the Fair Tax is the sticker shock for voters finding out they pay 22-24% on transactions. Tough to educate the "Sheepeole" (stupid sheep people) on this issue as it takes an attention span over 120 seconds.

Hope we can vote an Executive branch and Congress to get rid of the IRS and get the Fair Tax for America.

[crazymailman]

Agreed! The problem for the Fair Tax is the sticker shock for voters finding out they pay 22-24% on transactions. Tough to educate the "Sheepeole" (stupid sheep people) on this issue as it takes an attention span over 120 seconds.

Hope we can vote an Executive branch and Congress to get rid of the IRS and get the Fair Tax for America.

Wishful thinking. The media would spin that faster than they did Paul Ryan's budget plan. All that balancing the budget on the backs of the poor crap.

[TheTman]

I think it's been said already, but taxes are the biggest reason there are no jobs here. Tax the hell out of those "rich" people making $250,000 or more and that does away with many small business jobs that these "rich" people would be starting if they weren't taxed to death. Tax the big corporations to death so they move to China and pay no taxes. Oh so they're all gone so we have to tax whoever is left to death.
How stupid can our government be? So much is screwed up, I don't know if we can ever recover, but it's going to take people with common sense in power to get things done. The TEA party will live and learn and learn to compromise a little. Some of them are making a difference already, and I can't wait to see more commone sense people elected into office. And PLEASE don't take anything you hear about them on the major networks as anywhere close to the truth. The attack dogs are out in full force with the major media right behind them. Maxine Waters may talk big and say nothing scares her, but I think the TEA party movement scares her and her kind to death. Common people with common sense having a voice? That would be scary to the libs. No wonder they discredit them any chance they get, any way they can. Pulling out out all the dirty tricks they can. And of course when you can't discredit them, or prove them wrong, we can always call them nasty names.

[Longitude Zero]

Our taxes are too high. There are other countries that are just as bad if not worse. England for example.

[zaaa]

tax everyone on 'what they spend'

This has been shown time and time again to put a significantly higher burden on poor and working class families as the rich spend a much lower % of their earnings. They can then continue to reinvest these non-taxed earnings and do an even better job of buying congressional votes.

The United States throughout the 20th century was the most prosperous as a nation when the tax rates on the wealthy are the highest. Unemployment has been shown to have no correlation to the top tax tier rates all it does is make the wealthy wealthier and increase the income gap.

Simply put a higher tax rate will give the government a greater ability to sustain the economy at a time when corporations are unwilling to do so. Furthermore if these funds were spent on items such as infrastructure construction (which is badly needed anyway) it will improve private business by making transportation costs lower and put millions to work in rebuilding the transportation systems we so badly need.

[JFootin]

We tried a semi-flat tax in 1986 and how is that working? The FairTax would solve the problem, generate the needed revenue, do away with the IRS, tax everyone on 'what they spend' [including criminals, illegals and tourists], and eliminate the billions and billions of dollars spent preparing tax forms.

A big AMEN to that, O'Dell! I have listened to Neil Boortz for years and I know what the Fair Tax would do for this country if implemented fully as designed. It would very quickly make the deficit, the national debt and this depression all vanish, make America more wealthy than it has ever been, and make it the most desirable nation in the world to do business in.

[jmk1138]

I don't know too much about budgets and stuff, but I did like their position on the last debates, "Don't fill out another credit card application."

[JFootin]

This has been shown time and time again to put a significantly higher burden on poor and working class families as the rich spend a much lower % of their earnings. They can then continue to reinvest these non-taxed earnings and do an even better job of buying congressional votes.

The United States throughout the 20th century was the most prosperous as a nation when the tax rates on the wealthy are the highest. Unemployment has been shown to have no correlation to the top tax tier rates all it does is make the wealthy wealthier and increase the income gap.

Simply put a higher tax rate will give the government a greater ability to sustain the economy at a time when corporations are unwilling to do so. Furthermore if these funds were spent on items such as infrastructure construction (which is badly needed anyway) it will improve private business by making transportation costs lower and put millions to work in rebuilding the transportation systems we so badly need.

Someone's been drinking the Lib Coolaid! We didn't have personal income tax the entire 20th century. And until the entitlement explosion since the 60s, the combined federal, state, and local taxes on an average family were less than 4% of income.

If you read the Fair Tax book, you'll find that there is a pre-bate at the start of the month for every household—enough to cover necessities, thus protecting the poor. Those who are rich will buy more things and pay more taxes, but they will also have money to invest in business enterprises. Businesses will be more competitive locally and worldwide because of zero corporate taxes (another tax that falls on our shoulders). Over 13 trillion dollars worth of corporate wealth currently kept outside of the country would come back here, with America suddenly becoming the most desirable place to do business, to invest, to have corporate home offices.

Plus, an incredible loosing of chains of slavery: the elimination of the I.R.S. from every citizen's back!

[zaaa]

Someone's been drinking the Lib Coolaid!

Heh, I'm a pretty left leaning person, registered republican, and very pro-gun rights. Just try categorizing that.

[O'Dell]

This has been shown time and time again to put a significantly higher burden on poor and working class families as the rich spend a much lower % of their earnings. They can then continue to reinvest these non-taxed earnings and do an even better job of buying congressional votes.

The United States throughout the 20th century was the most prosperous as a nation when the tax rates on the wealthy are the highest. Unemployment has been shown to have no correlation to the top tax tier rates all it does is make the wealthy wealthier and increase the income gap.

Simply put a higher tax rate will give the government a greater ability to sustain the economy at a time when corporations are unwilling to do so. Furthermore if these funds were spent on items such as infrastructure construction (which is badly needed anyway) it will improve private business by making transportation costs lower and put millions to work in rebuilding the transportation systems we so badly need.

I couldn't disagree more. Where do I start? If you would read the FairTax bill [It's only 132 pages including instructions for repealing the 16th amendment] You would find out about the "prebate". The poor would benefit under the FT.

During the 'prosperous' years, the top tax rate was higher, yes, but there were numerous deductions that are not available now. The actual tax rate was similar to what we currently have. I think you will find that our most prosperous times followed the tax cut in 1986. Currently in real money, the top 1% of the wage earners make less than 20% of the total income. However, they pay almost 40% of the total taxes. Just how much do you want to penalize the successful people, who by the way, create the jobs for the rest of us? BTW. these figures come from the IRS.

It is a provable fact that in our history, EVERY time the taxes were lowered the revenue to the Federal Government increased due to the growth of economy. Cut spending, definitely, but if you want to raise the standard of living and increase revenues to the government, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes, on the rich or anyone else.

Currently there is about thirteen TRILLION dollars of US money overseas. Why is that? It's because the US has the highest corporate taxes of any developed country in the world. Cut or eliminate those taxes and this money would flow back into this country. Can you even imagine the immediate boost to our economy if even half of that money came home. The last thing we would have to worry about would be creating jobs or how are we going to finance SS or medicare. BTW, the are no corporate taxes under the FT, nor are there any income taxes, SS taxes, medicare taxes, death taxes, or any other federal taxes for that matter.

The Washington elite don't want the FairTax. Again, why is that? it's because the FT would be the largest transfer of power from Washington to the people in our history. The Politicians don't want to give up that power. They want to continue to manipulate the current tax code, which no one person understands, and use the money they get from lobbyists to buy votes. The FT is complete transparent, and there is no way for them to use it to their advantage. It will take a grassroots movement [like the Tea Party] to drag them, kicking and screaming, to vote it in. Anything that makes the Washington politicians scream is okay by me.

[O'Dell]

Someone's been drinking the Lib Coolaid! We didn't have personal income tax the entire 20th century. And until the entitlement explosion since the 60s, the combined federal, state, and local taxes on an average family were less than 4% of income.

If you read the Fair Tax book, you'll find that there is a pre-bate at the start of the month for every household—enough to cover necessities, thus protecting the poor. Those who are rich will buy more things and pay more taxes, but they will also have money to invest in business enterprises. Businesses will be more competitive locally and worldwide because of zero corporate taxes (another tax that falls on our shoulders). Over 13 trillion dollars worth of corporate wealth currently kept outside of the country would come back here, with America suddenly becoming the most desirable place to do business, to invest, to have corporate home offices.

Plus, an incredible loosing of chains of slavery: the elimination of the I.R.S. from every citizen's back!

Obviously we were typing at the same time and quoted some of the same facts. I guess that only helps to legitimizes both of us.

[Bawanna]

Nice to be legitimate.

Something I always have sought but all I ever get is banjo music.

[zaaa]

There are things we agree on, primarily the need to remove the power from the elite (the top 0.1% of americans, the corporations, the politicians) and put that power into the hands of the citizens of the US. However, there are also things I think we fundamentally disagree on, one being that I believe in the need for a social support system (healthcare for all citizens, disability, social security in some form although probably not its current one, and a better system to get people back into the workforce). While the need to get the US out of debt is high (especially as it now jeopardizes our national security given the amount of US monies foreign nationalities hold) we need to build the systems properly so that we don't become a third world nation. We need to invest in education so that more of our children can better compete in a fully entrenched global economy and we need to invest in bringing high end manufacturing back to the states.

Close the double Irish tax loophole and the like and then get back to me about corporate tax rates.

[Longitude Zero]

Corporate tax rates should be as low as possible. In truth the 13 Trillion dollars is only a rough estimate. Many well versed think tanks feel it is at least 1/2 again as big. Now it would not all come back at once. We did not get into a bind in one year or two and we wont get out that quick either.

Also by going to a consumption tax about 20 Trillion dollars already flowing in the "underground" economy will ome to the forefront. As to the indisputalbe regressive nature of a consumption tax the answer is pretty simple. If you want to pay less tax buy less stuff. Or buy flank steak instead of filet mignon.

Pretty Simple.

[O'Dell]

There are things we agree on, primarily the need to remove the power from the elite (the top 0.1% of americans, the corporations, the politicians) and put that power into the hands of the citizens of the US. However, there are also things I think we fundamentally disagree on, one being that I believe in the need for a social support system (healthcare for all citizens, disability, social security in some form although probably not its current one, and a better system to get people back into the workforce). While the need to get the US out of debt is high (especially as it now jeopardizes our national security given the amount of US monies foreign nationalities hold) we need to build the systems properly so that we don't become a third world nation. We need to invest in education so that more of our children can better compete in a fully entrenched global economy and we need to invest in bringing high end manufacturing back to the states.

Close the double Irish tax loophole and the like and then get back to me about corporate tax rates.

First, the so called double Irish loophole no longer exist since Ireland lowered their corporate rates. It wouldn't exist anyway under the FT nor would any other loophole. No taxes - no loopholes required.

I don't think I mentioned cutting SS or medicare; I just suggested a better way to fund it. However, I would certainly question national health care. Governments are notoriously inefficient, and it's not working well elsewhere. Also, there is no way to justify it in the Constitution.

Eliminate 1% of Americans and 1% of corporations??? Are we talking death squads here? If we eliminate the top 1% of corporations and the top 1% of the Americans, I assume you mean the "rich", we would also eliminate 10 to 20% of the jobs; not to mention the funds due shareholders of the corporations. The last I heard was that the largest shareholders of Exxon-Mobile was the teachers retirement fund. Now there's some rich people for you.

I read a report from Harvard University a few years ago that suggested the fastest way to improve secondary education in the US was to get rid of the teachers unions.

Just about everything else you mentioned would be handled quite well by the FairTax.

[Quickdraw]

The best thing to happen to American politics since the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps it will inspire us to go back to a Constitutional government lead by elected statesmen of honesty and honor.

I read till post #6 which was yours and I will just stop right here and say I Agree

[zaaa]

However, I would certainly question national health care. Governments are notoriously inefficient, and it's not working well elsewhere.

While I'll agree that the current UK system as it is right now is certainly not the way to go, but I know many people in Canada that are quite happy with the system they have there. Fundamentally the concept of "for profit" and healthcare are diametrically opposed. The way to put more $ into the profit column is to reject treatments that are needed. The unwillingness of the US Gov. to use it's buying power to force the drug companies to give the same rates as they have around the rest of the world has everything to do with backroom deals and greased politicians.

At the very least all minors (under 18) should be 100% covered by the state. We have a responsibility to them and the future of our country to do so.

[O'Dell]

While I'll agree that the current UK system as it is right now is certainly not the way to go, but I know many people in Canada that are quite happy with the system they have there. Fundamentally the concept of "for profit" and healthcare are diametrically opposed. The way to put more $ into the profit column is to reject treatments that are needed. The unwillingness of the US Gov. to use it's buying power to force the drug companies to give the same rates as they have around the rest of the world has everything to do with backroom deals and greased politicians.

At the very least all minors (under 18) should be 100% covered by the state. We have a responsibility to them and the future of our country to do so.

If you live near our northern border, you will see many Canadians coming to the US for health care, because they don't want to wait for treatment in Canada.

I, for one, do not want to trust my health care to the whims of some Washington bureaucrat. At my age of 67, many treatments would not be available to me which is the way it works in most national systems. I am eligible for VA and medicare, but I have chosen to opp out, and use a private company, rather than depend on the government. This company is non-profit and I get excellent service. The cost over medicare could be covered by a couple of sixpacks and cartons of cigarettes a week, and a basic ********* rather than the smart phones most carry. I have never been turned down for anything, including laser surgery in both eyes, which most plans don't cover.

[crazymailman]

At the very least all minors (under 18) should be 100% covered by the state. We have a responsibility to them and the future of our country to do so.

I have to disagree with that. What about the responsibility of the parents. There are already multiple programs for the poor (many of which are being abused as it is). Those with children, not covered by existing programs, should buy insurance rather than iPods, Nintendo DS, smartphones etc. We have become a society that would rather buy things we want than things we need.

[Bawanna]

Kids are usually easy to have covered under a working parents coverage also. My kids have or are close to hitting the magic 18 mark and suddenly my coverage no longer applies to them unless I prove they are still in school or college etc. It's the 18 to 25 range where it's tough for young people.
Course at that age your normally invincible and healthy and have energy and all you got to think about is parties, girls, boys etc. Nice time.

[yqtszhj]

As for the TEA party, I'll give any group my support that gets Maxine Waters to tell her crowds and get on the left coast news broadcasting "The TEA party can go to hell!!!" although that's not the most stupid thing she has said.

As for big Unions and big corporations, you can't trust the big unions to take care of you and you can't trust the big corporations to take care of you. It's up to all of us to work hard, be smart, learn what we can, and watch out for our self because both of those groups are out for there good. That doesn't mean that there are not good people in both groups but as soon as we figure we can sit around and expect some group to watch over everything for us we have made the first mistake. We all need to realize that soon. Federal government is a good example.

Tea party gets a thumbs up.

[Michael W.]

Well 5 attempts, 5 full pages, and only my trivial comments went thru. The meaningful stuff gets kicked. Maybe there are sensors from the current regime watching our post. I kid you not. 5 attempts, 5 failures.

I don't know about you but I'm putting on my tin foil hat and scanning the horizon for black helicopters. I can't believe this............

Bawanna,

Whenever I'm writing something of profundity on a forum (about once
every 4-5 years:) I'll open up a text document and write it in there then
cut and paste into the forum editor.

This does a couple of things, let's me walk away from what I'm writing
and come back with a fresh perspective (usually an emptied bladder will
help in that regard) and really consider if I want to post something
so inflammatory or maybe just back away from the keyboard:)

Also lets me avoid inadvertent posts and/or inadvertent page refreshes
losing all of said profundity.....

As for the Tea Party, I say any group that can piss off the dems so much
that they'll foam at the mouth telling them to "Go to Hell" on tv....
I say "Yeaaa, bring it on baybeee!"

MW-

P.S. Oh, and I carried my PM9 today....obligatory Kahr content...:)

[ripley16]

As for the Tea Party, I say any group that can piss off the dems so much
that they'll foam at the mouth telling them to "Go to Hell" on tv....
I say "Yeaaa, bring it on baybeee!"

MW-



:D
Amen.

[ltxi]

A part of the Progressive movement, the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution changed the way U.S. Senators were chosen:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/17th+Amendment

The state legislature used to appoint them, retaining State representation in Congress. This is one of those things that "sounded good" but corrupted the original intent of the framers of our Constitution. Now all representatives are of the People, who don't know WTF about anything, and whose votes are bought by the professional politicians who are paid for by special interests. The result is that the People AND the States are not represented in the Congress.

Wynn:(

In 1913 it probably was a good idea. If we hadn't perverted the concept of "qualified voter" so much since then and encouraged the stupid and lazy (motor voter, wth?) to vote in their own ignorant self interest, it probably still would be.

The Constitution's framers included voter qualification safeguards to insure sane elected government.....white, male, landowners among those. Valid in 1776. Clearly not appropriate today. But in, correctly, removing those now outdated barriers, we repeatedly failed to institute time/era appropriate replacements.

And that, my friends, is the most broken, destructive thing in our political system today. Not only do we allow, but we even encourage the lowest, lowest common denominator to vote. We now have what we asked for if maybe not what we deserve.

Other than that, I have no opinion....and I am on my 4th beer.

[Bawanna]

In 1913 it probably was a good idea. If we hadn't perverted the concept of "qualified voter" so much since then and encouraged the stupid and lazy (motor voter, wth?) to vote in their own ignorant self interest, it probably still would be.

The Constitution's framers included voter qualification safeguards to insure sane elected government.....white, male, landowners among those. Valid in 1776. Clearly not appropriate today. But in, correctly, removing those now outdated barriers, we repeatedly failed to institute time/era appropriate replacements.

And that, my friends, is the most broken, destructive thing in our political system today. Not only do we allow, but we even encourage the lowest, lowest common denominator to vote. We now have what we asked for if maybe not what we deserve.

Other than that, I have no opinion....and I am on my 4th beer.

I concur wholeheartedly although I'm only just now heading to get my second, one more than usual. Which is tough since my wifes cousin brought a large bottle of 12 year old Glenfiddich which I shall have to pass to get it. It's untouched.

[TheTman]

Have you ever heard of the 8 steps of a democracy? It basically explains the different phases a democracy goes thru before it turns into something else, usually a dictatorship. We are the latter stages of step 7, and step 8 is where we lose our freedoms and the democracy becomes a dictatorship.
I suggest you look at: http://didshesaythat.com/?p=515 it's scary.

I've also read things about once the majority of voters realize they can vote people into office that will require to government to support them (think of all the gimmee gimme folks voting democrat in trade for a free ride), then all is lost and we become a dictatorship, as we trade freedom for a suck on the government teat.

Basically, if we don't do something fast, then the socialists will take over, promising everyone will get a free ride from the government, which is pretty appealing to the do-nothing welfare bunch that has sprung up so abundantly since the great depression, and our nation as we know it will cease to exist, replaced by some corporate/socialist dictatorship. I think the TEA party is the last hope we have to stop the process. Or perhaps it's too late the way the welfare bunch breeds like rats to produce more welfare babies. It's like the Muslims taking over Europe, the rate of reproduction of the Muslims compared to the native European citizens is something like 6 to 1 and the Muslims will have taken over Europe in a generation or two, not by force but by sheer numbers. The welfare crowd is doing the same thing here.
That is the reason they want to disarm us, so they can conveniently take control of us without us having any means to stop them.

[O'Dell]

In 1913 it probably was a good idea. If we hadn't perverted the concept of "qualified voter" so much since then and encouraged the stupid and lazy (motor voter, wth?) to vote in their own ignorant self interest, it probably still would be.

The Constitution's framers included voter qualification safeguards to insure sane elected government.....white, male, landowners among those. Valid in 1776. Clearly not appropriate today. But in, correctly, removing those now outdated barriers, we repeatedly failed to institute time/era appropriate replacements.

And that, my friends, is the most broken, destructive thing in our political system today. Not only do we allow, but we even encourage the lowest, lowest common denominator to vote. We now have what we asked for if maybe not what we deserve.

Other than that, I have no opinion....and I am on my 4th beer.

You get very lucid when you drink. :)

[O'Dell]

Kids are usually easy to have covered under a working parents coverage also. My kids have or are close to hitting the magic 18 mark and suddenly my coverage no longer applies to them unless I prove they are still in school or college etc. It's the 18 to 25 range where it's tough for young people.
Course at that age your normally invincible and healthy and have energy and all you got to think about is parties, girls, boys etc. Nice time.

Hey Bawanna. Off topic, but I wonder why "*********" was x'ed out in my post #55. A day or two ago when I wrote xxxx Morris, nickname for Richard, I could understand that one, but *********???


Well it did it again. Should I have said cellular telephone?

[Bawanna]

Hey Bawanna. Off topic, but I wonder why "*********" was x'ed out in my post #55. A day or two ago when I wrote xxxx Morris, nickname for Richard, I could understand that one, but *********???


Well it did it again. Should I have said cellular telephone?

What are the odds of that. I was just now sitting here trying to figure that one out. I couldn't figure what the word you meant was and I finally hit on *********. I have no idea.

Johnh has been talking about lookiing into the word censor to try and fix some of this stupid stuff. It's of course way over my head. Until he finds the time I guess we'll have to stick with Richard and cellular phone.

Guess it don't like me either. We're dirty mouthed little cussers ain't we and I'm still 2 behind still on them brews.

[tv_racin_fan]

There are things we agree on, primarily the need to remove the power from the elite (the top 0.1% of americans, the corporations, the politicians) and put that power into the hands of the citizens of the US. However, there are also things I think we fundamentally disagree on, one being that I believe in the need for a social support system (healthcare for all citizens, disability, social security in some form although probably not its current one, and a better system to get people back into the workforce). While the need to get the US out of debt is high (especially as it now jeopardizes our national security given the amount of US monies foreign nationalities hold) we need to build the systems properly so that we don't become a third world nation. We need to invest in education so that more of our children can better compete in a fully entrenched global economy and we need to invest in bringing high end manufacturing back to the states.

Close the double Irish tax loophole and the like and then get back to me about corporate tax rates.

First off corporations do not pay taxes, their consumers do. Raise the corporate taxes and either prices increase to the consumer or those corporations move to where the taxation is less. Taking those nasty ole jobs with them.

Second, many of the founding fathers warned us that the trouble with democracy is once the sheeple learn they can vote themselves largess, they will... The politicians know this and they promise largess that the nation can not provide.

Third go look at the percentage of wage earners who do not pay income taxes. That percentage has spiked horridly in the last couple of decades from 18% to nearly 50%. (I believe the IRS numbers show that the bottom 50% of wage earners paid 3% of the federal income tax in 2009) So while it may be true that the top tax rates are at their historic lows so are the lower rates (in terms of actual tax liability).

Those social support systems you mentioned are what has us over the barrel now. Do you know at what earnings the WIC program is no longer available? Any clue at what wage programs such as helmets for children are shut off?

Social Secruity is another sore spot. The politicians tell you that since you have paid in your are entitled to some payout. Funny thing that the govt had to argue that SS was a simple tax in order to get the SCOTUS to not delacre it unconstitutional. In other words the SCOTUS has declared that YOU are not entitled to a single penny of SS funds no matter how much you may have paid in. Medicare is the same way.

That healthcare you mentioned. Who should pay for it? I found it interesting how the democrats pointed to the Canadian, French, and even UK healthcare systems but yet they did not offer such a system to the sheeple. Any clue how those systems are paid for? (hint: in Canada there is a sales tax (of I believe 7%) above the normal sale tax to pay for healthcare) When people compare the corporate tax rates of France and the UK and even Canada to the US they tend to forget to add in their VAT taxes.

Back to SS... when SS was first started there were many many more workers paying in than there were people who recieved benefits. The scheme was designed around that being the case forever. The very politicians who pushed for the system knew that would not be the case... knew that it was destined to fail from the get go. When it becomes two workers paying in for one beneficiary either the tax rate is going to have to skyrocket or the benefits are going to have to undergo a drastic cut. You tell me which one you prefer and explain why.

Throwing more and more money at education has resulted in a wonderful education system, has it not?

[MikeyKahr]

I was just now sitting here trying to figure that one out. I couldn't figure what the word you meant was and I finally hit on *********. I have no idea.

I wonder why things like ********* never happen to jocko. :confused: O wait, nevermind. :rolleyes::p

[hotpig]

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on a socialism plan"..
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.....

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

[TheTman]

I have to tell you guys, I'm very proud to be a member of this forum. This is a hot button issue, and got into another hot button issue with the unions, and we all handled everything well, disagreements didn't degenerate into name calling or anything. I think we all respect each others opinion whether we agree or not. What a great group of people, no matter what your personal beliefs are. I want to thank everyone for participating. The poll results were encouraging to me, as a TEA party backer. I'm hoping the movement will keep gaining momentum and make a real difference in our government before it's too late, if it's not already. Right now I see an America divided along the conservative and liberal lines, not so much Rebublican versus Democrat, as there are conservative Democrats, although many have been driven away from the party by the more radical libs that have taken over, and there are some pretty liberal Republicans. I wish the two sides could be as civil as we are to each other. It makes me sick when I see a bought and paid for liberal politician tell a whole group of middle class Americans, "go to hell". I guess when you can't use facts, you can always resort to name calling, which seems fairly popular among one of the sides. I'm not saying she is the only bought and paid for politician, as I think most of them in either big party are bought and paid for. I believe we need movements like the Tea Party to help get America back on track and turn away from this socialist path were heading down. We need things like immigration reform, people complain there are no jobs, when we let people pour across the border that are willing to work for a third or half of what a person should earn for a days work. Many of the immigrants come here and take advantage of the education system go to college and really utilize what's available, while we let our kids sit around and play video games and give them everything they need or want without them ever having to earn anything, and then send them off to get brainwashed into being politically correct, socialist morons by our school system, and end up as part of the gimmee gimmee crowd. They've kicked God out of the classrooms and replaced him with sex education, socialism, and learning how to put condoms on bannannas in 6th grade, and other crap the government thinks the kids need to know. Kids these days have no idea who Robert E. Lee was, but they can tell you everything you ever wanted to know about Rosa Parks. We used to throw a .22 in the trunk and maybe shoot a rabbit or something on the way home for dinner, now they kick kids out for pointing their finger and saying BANG. Maybe I'm just another old fart out of touch with the times, but to me, things are way mixed up. Often the only moral guidance a child will get is at school, when we used to learn the 10 Commandmants, and the Lords Prayer and things, and now you can't even mention Jesus. The little muslim children get to run around yelling Allah Akbar, and thats called being diverse, while Christian children get chastized for praying silently to themselves before a test, and God forbid you have a prayer before a football game or any school function. Is it any wonder we have 12 and 13 year olds joining gangs and wanting to kill people because they wear a different color shirt? What in the hell is going on and how did it happen? Thanks ACLU, Thanks Teachers Unions, Thanks you idiot atheists. Thanks to everyone that helped make this wonderful progressive modern society possible.

[JFootin]

Heh, I'm a pretty left leaning person, registered republican, and very pro-gun rights. Just try categorizing that.

LOL! You're unique! :) And not easily offended like a lot of libs I know. I took my sick computer to a local man who, I think, has a genius I.Q. and knows everything there is to know about computers—period. Used to work among the geniuses at Bell Labs. But, when I shared a couple of conservative opinions while we were getting to know each other, he got very angry and threatened to throw me and my computer out of his place! Told me I was a bad American citizen because I haven't read Marx. (I also haven't read "Mein Kampf," but I don't consider that required reading for American citizens, either.) Said I should be reading "The Nation," about the most radical liberal rag going! I later found out from my FFL person that the man is also a gun owner. (Probably thinks HE is worthy to carry a gun, but not me and my type!)

I'll look forward to some interesting exchange of ideas with you! :)

[Longitude Zero]

That POS would not get another cent of my money if he treated me like that.

[O'Dell]

I wonder why things like ********* never happen to jocko. :confused: O wait, nevermind. :rolleyes::p

I think when Jocko posts a message, the word censor goes into sensory overload, overheats, and shuts down.

[zaaa]

Just because I don't agree with someone doesn't mean I can't get along with them, and often there are good bits of perspective in opposing viewpoints. Debating ideas does not need to be a personal attack. Plus, for the purpose of this forum specifically, we all agree on the rights of people to defend themselves as stated in the 2A.

[JFootin]

Just because I don't agree with someone doesn't mean I can't get along with them, and often there are good bits of perspective in opposing viewpoints. Debating ideas does not need to be a personal attack. Plus, for the purpose of this forum specifically, we all agree on the rights of people to defend themselves as stated in the 2A.

You are a rare bird, indeed. The practice of intellectual debate is a lost art in our dumbed down society. I find it to be a valuable learning tool, myself. How can I begin to understand how liberals can arrive at such implausible positions about everything under the sun (:rolleyes:) unless I can have discourse and debate with them?

[Bawanna]

You are a rare bird, indeed. The practice of intellectual debate is a lost art in our dumbed down society. I find it to be a valuable learning tool, myself. How can I begin to understand how liberals can arrive at such implausible positions about everything under the sun (:rolleyes:) unless I can have discourse and debate with them?

I'd rather not learn or try to understand them myself. Theres zero logic in any of their thinking. There should be a large island someplace to keep them where they can't hurt nobody but themselves.

After they are all sterilized of course.

[jocko]

What are the odds of that. I was just now sitting here trying to figure that one out. I couldn't figure what the word you meant was and I finally hit on *********. I have no idea.

Johnh has been talking about lookiing into the word censor to try and fix some of this stupid stuff. It's of course way over my head. Until he finds the time I guess we'll have to stick with Richard and cellular phone.

Guess it don't like me either. We're dirty mouthed little cussers ain't we and I'm still 2 behind still on them brews.

volunteer to do the word sensor sh-t for John and u, as yoau two fokkers evidkenntly have no experience in word sensor:D:D

It is a sh-tty job I know,but someone needs to do it..

[jocko]

Hey Bawanna. Off topic, but I wonder why "*********" was x'ed out in my post #55. A day or two ago when I wrote xxxx Morris, nickname for Richard, I could understand that one, but *********???


Well it did it again. Should I have said cellular telephone?

because u do not quality to use that type of language on this forum. It takes a real di-khead to be able to do that. Ask me how I know that:yo:

Who the hell is ****Morris. I know a Di-k Morris on Fox news..

[Bawanna]

volunteer to do the word sensor sh-t for John and u, as yoau two fokkers evidkenntly have no experience in word sensor:D:D

It is a sh-tty job I know,but someone needs to do it..

That's a wonderful offer but I'm not sure modern technology is ready for Jocko yet. I know I'm not ready for modern technology so I might be wrong, perhaps you'd be a perfect match.

[zaaa]

Theres zero logic in any of their thinking.

It's that we come from 2 different fundamental premises. I fundamentally believe that we as society have a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that our citizens are given the opportunities to better their lives, that children should be cared for without regard to what their parents are able or willing to do, and that those with more have a larger obligation to the society that allowed them to accumulate this wealth (as it is rare that they did so entirely by the sweat of their brow alone). I don't think that people should be given an indefinite amount of time to right themselves and that the culture of permanent welfare is immoral itself, but I don't see the government as a great evil, but something that does for people what they cannot do themselves.

I understand that many here (and indeed most gun owners) are of the self reliant type and this is truly admirable, but along with this is often a disdain for those who are not self reliant no matter the reason for it. To ignore or deny the social and political reasons for subcultures that have become entrenched on the receiving end of government assistance simply compounds the problems on fixing these causes. Reliance on the tax payers for one's entire sustenance is not the cause, it is a symptom.

A wholesale change to these cultures requires changes in education, criminal justice, and popular cultures that cannot be done unless enough people are willing to change the status quo. While I see many elected officials, both R and D, as being bought I also see many of them not wanting to change the status quo simply to remain in power.

There is indeed logic, it just may not be your logic.

[jocko]

That's a wonderful offer but I'm not sure modern technology is ready for Jocko yet. I know I'm not ready for modern technology so I might be wrong, perhaps you'd be a perfect match.

take that as a NO then????:yo:

[Bawanna]

It's that we come from 2 different fundamental premises. I fundamentally believe that we as society have a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that our citizens are given the opportunities to better their lives, that children should be cared for without regard to what their parents are able or willing to do, and that those with more have a larger obligation to the society that allowed them to accumulate this wealth (as it is rare that they did so entirely by the sweat of their brow alone). I don't think that people should be given an indefinite amount of time to right themselves and that the culture of permanent welfare is immoral itself, but I don't see the government as a great evil, but something that does for people what they cannot do themselves.

I understand that many here (and indeed most gun owners) are of the self reliant type and this is truly admirable, but along with this is often a disdain for those who are not self reliant no matter the reason for it. To ignore or deny the social and political reasons for subcultures that have become entrenched on the receiving end of government assistance simply compounds the problems on fixing these causes. Reliance on the tax payers for one's entire sustenance is not the cause, it is a symptom.

A wholesale change to these cultures requires changes in education, criminal justice, and popular cultures that cannot be done unless enough people are willing to change the status quo. While I see many elected officials, both R and D, as being bought I also see many of them not wanting to change the status quo simply to remain in power.

There is indeed logic, it just may not be your logic.

Well I typed a full page response to this that explained my feelings and once again it just got spit out to cyberspace so I'll go back to trying to avoid this RKBA thread.

[jocko]

hell great one, if I didn't know better that post from zaaa, almost sounds like my liberal a-s daughter talking...

[Bawanna]

hell great one, if I didn't know better that post from zaaa, almost sounds like my liberal a-s daughter talking...

Be Nice!

[zaaa]

Heh, it's cool. I know I'm walking into a lions den with my perspective and can deal with a bit (a bit mind you try not to go overboard) of ribbing. As soon as I've gotten a chance to shoot my new CM9 I'll be in other areas of the forum too just so you know I'm not here to troll.

[Bawanna]

It is indeed cool. I wish my post would have went thru but alas I'll not try it again.

Thanks for the heads up on the Troll designator, I did not detect troll in anyway in your post and I have very little use for them. In fact I have a special place for them. I know Johnh, I'm being good. I'm being good, don't whoop me no mo!

[jocko]

if u read right, I was referring to my daughers stance, if one is going ti dish it out as zaaa staed, they have to be prepared to eat some of it. I am nice, just ask my liberal daugher, who is also a lawyer, so she has two strikes against her and coming from an Italian family, she is not exempt from getting a horse head in the mail.

I hope the cm9 works great for zaaa, might just change he/she/it stance on life. although I serioulsy doubt it. Never seen a liberal yet change course!!!

[zaaa]

If my Colt Commander didn't change it I doubt the Kahr will although I am getting my CWP to carry the Kahr so there is that.

[JFootin]

If my Colt Commander didn't change it I doubt the Kahr will although I am getting my CWP to carry the Kahr so there is that.

Another liberal carrying a gun! Yikes! :eek: LOL!

[ltxi]

Hey Bawanna. Off topic, but I wonder why "*********" was x'ed out in my post #55. A day or two ago when I wrote xxxx Morris, nickname for Richard, I could understand that one, but *********???


Well it did it again. Should I have said cellular telephone?

For me it was Black berry without the space

[yqtszhj]

It's that we come from 2 different fundamental premises. I fundamentally believe that we as society have a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that our citizens are given the opportunities to better their lives, that children should be cared for without regard to what their parents are able or willing to do, and that those with more have a larger obligation to the society that allowed them to accumulate this wealth (as it is rare that they did so entirely by the sweat of their brow alone). I don't think that people should be given an indefinite amount of time to right themselves and that the culture of permanent welfare is immoral itself, but I don't see the government as a great evil, but something that does for people what they cannot do themselves.

I understand that many here (and indeed most gun owners) are of the self reliant type and this is truly admirable, but along with this is often a disdain for those who are not self reliant no matter the reason for it. To ignore or deny the social and political reasons for subcultures that have become entrenched on the receiving end of government assistance simply compounds the problems on fixing these causes. Reliance on the tax payers for one's entire sustenance is not the cause, it is a symptom.

A wholesale change to these cultures requires changes in education, criminal justice, and popular cultures that cannot be done unless enough people are willing to change the status quo. While I see many elected officials, both R and D, as being bought I also see many of them not wanting to change the status quo simply to remain in power.

There is indeed logic, it just may not be your logic.

Welcome to the forum zaaa. And a decent post too. I didn't want to get into this one but just a couple of comments:

I agree everyone should be given an opportunity to do the best they can. It's their responsibility to take the opportunity and try to improve themself. They do have the right not to do anything with their life, just don't expect me to think it's right and support it.

Parents should take care of and be involved with their children. If they are not the parent is a problem. That's the issue except in VERY RARE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Those with more should be generous from their own heart. It should be a character trait. It shouldn't be a mandate or have to be one. I think everyone should pay their share but the gross mis-management and abuse by our government really gets me. Look at social security.

I agree that the culture of permanent welfare is a major problem and the government does a poor job of managing that situation. I don't have a problem with anyone that doesn't REALLY have the ability to be self reliant but too many just don't want too. I'm live in the south and I see it a lot of riding the system.

I tend to like the little guy who works hard and lives simple because he tends to be humble, you know the underdog. And if he chooses to live his life that way that's OK with me. I also hacks me off if the big guy tries to take advantage of him too. I don't mind getting in the face of the big guy or putting a foot up their a$$ (jocko's censor in effect) either. That's how I was raised. That's how I believe parent should try to teach their childern too.

I don't think we may be that far apart on some things. And most of all thank GOD for our free country where we can discuss these issue.

Welcome again and hang around. :)

[pappy42]

The most telling info about the TEA party is the protest on both sides of the isle that only the two party system will work.

BS; the only thing that will "work" is when the folks in WDC get the hint that the citizens of our great nation are not going to allow the "business as usual" system to continue.

We must have a Constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. Term limits. And, every law that is passed by congress and signed into law by the president, MUST apply to EVERY citizen of the United States.

It's time to say no to career politicians who think that they are above us "common folk"

[jocko]

We must have a Constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. Term limits. And, every law that is passed by congress and signed into law by the president, MUST apply to EVERY citizen of the United State


ain't gonna happen thats like asking Ted Bundy if he believes in the death sentence, sad but true.

[yqtszhj]

yep

[Sparks1957]

I'm not so sure about that. How many people do you know that still have a job that have been required to 9 hour days instead of 8, 10, 11? I know many many people that have been saddled with extra responsibility, extra hours, and extra stress with not only no pay raise, but often a pay cut.

The need for employee protections has never been higher. Corporations are taking advantage of the job market to constantly squeeze more and more out of people while giving less and less back, and all under the not so thinly veiled threat of being let go.

Corporations are sitting on piles of cash that is not getting put back into the economy (which would make all our lives better) because they're able to "improve efficiency". I've been lucky that I work for people who value their employees but most fortune 500 employers don't.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I'll agree that some unions have acted a bit like organized crime in the past, but they really are the only way ordinary working people have to balance the forces that would reduce them to indentured servants again. It is clear that most (not all, of course) employers are interested in their bottom lines, and if employees get screwed, oh well...

Someone needs to stand up for the rights of working people. Individuals cannot do it and be effective.

[Rainman48314]

I see Unions as a two edged sword. One blade has out lived its worth and hurt its members with too much pork thus costing jobs.

The other blade is we have better working conditions and pay/benefits than most every other country. Without the constant legislative and other pressure from Unions these are likely to decrease with time.

That said I'm the President of my Local. A not so popular job that pays me nothing. Actually it costs me time and money.

Being a public service Union we can not strike. We can not force a person to join. They do have to pay a fair share even if they do not join the local. Basically instead of paying 25.00 per month dues they pay 15.00 and get the same benefits but no vote or say on anything.

Since we do not have the leverage of striking we rely on Politicians and public support. Traditionally Republicans represented management and the Democrats the working man. By supporting legislation in favor of labor the Dem's received more contributions. Our last contribution went to a Republican. However I have noticed the roles seemed to be reversing a little more every few years.

Public opinion is real finicky right now. Recently in my local news paper I have been called a lazy welfare recipient living off of the hard work of the tax payer.

Our guys are fortunately to be able to get pay for doing what we love to do. I'm number one in seniority on my Fire Dept with nearly 25 years of service. Because of that I make nearly as much as the Fire Chief. The FD pays 100% of my health insurance, we have no dental or eye. We pay 100% if we want to add out families to the insurance.

The down side is they keep us under 56 hours per week so that we do not get overtime. The starting salary is minimum wage. Raises were hit and miss but since the economy sank they are now miss.

We were promised in exchange for low pay we would receive a decent pension at the end. This is common for government jobs. The pay extremes the tea party keep throwing out are cherry picked in order to get a strong reaction.

For me I can retire at age 50 and with 30 years on the job I can get up to 75% of my salary. 75% is max by Illinois statue. It sounded pretty impressive until I figured that I will be lucky to make it up to 13.00 per hour by the time I retire.

Since WI Illinois has changed the retirement to 55 and 35 years to get 75% and they put a cap amount on the max retirement.
You sound grossly underpaid. Are you in a small town of under 25,000 residents?

[muggsy]

Best thing since sliced bread.

[tv_racin_fan]

It's that we come from 2 different fundamental premises. I fundamentally believe that we as society have a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that our citizens are given the opportunities to better their lives, that children should be cared for without regard to what their parents are able or willing to do, and that those with more have a larger obligation to the society that allowed them to accumulate this wealth (as it is rare that they did so entirely by the sweat of their brow alone).

So how many children, other than your own, do you currently care for or donate money to care for? The issue, in my opinion, is it should be a voluntary thing and not a mandatory thing. What gives you the right to demand and gun point that I donate to the care of someone elses child?

I don't think that people should be given an indefinite amount of time to right themselves and that the culture of permanent welfare is immoral itself, but I don't see the government as a great evil, but something that does for people what they cannot do themselves.

The welfare culture has come about because some believe that the care of a nations citizens is the duty of govt.

I understand that many here (and indeed most gun owners) are of the self reliant type and this is truly admirable, but along with this is often a disdain for those who are not self reliant no matter the reason for it. To ignore or deny the social and political reasons for subcultures that have become entrenched on the receiving end of government assistance simply compounds the problems on fixing these causes. Reliance on the tax payers for one's entire sustenance is not the cause, it is a symptom.

I have no problem with a hand up, needed one myself a time or two. What I took issue to was finding out that I didn't qualify for the same level of handup as did someone of another color (they call it race when in fact there is but ONE race among mankind).

A wholesale change to these cultures requires changes in education, criminal justice, and popular cultures that cannot be done unless enough people are willing to change the status quo. While I see many elected officials, both R and D, as being bought I also see many of them not wanting to change the status quo simply to remain in power.

The founding fathers warned us of politicians and carrer politicians in particular. They warned us of political parties.

There is indeed logic, it just may not be your logic.

Govt is evil PERIOD. It is currently an evil neccessity but it is evil just the same. A democratic republic just happens to be the least evil of all types of govt, in my opinion... but it is evil none the less.

I can live with a progressive tax schedule, I know taxes are neccessary for the function of govt. What galls me is the fact that so many pay no federal income taxes at all and far worse is the number who don't even contribute to the Social Security or Medicare/Medicaide system they apparently rely on for retirement and healthcare. In my opinion IF the nation is going to have an income tax then everyone who earns an income should pay something and 35% is more than enough for a top rate.

There are those who don't think that the actual rate of the top rate matters. I believe I know better. In my own experience I knew guys who stopped working to avoid a 50% tax rate. They had businesses and employees and the people who suffered were their employees. After all anyone can live pretty well on $200K or so. But those employees had to find other jobs when the business shut down for the rest of the year to avoid that 50% tax rate.

[Rainman48314]

There are those who don't think that the actual rate of the top rate matters. I believe I know better. In my own experience I knew guys who stopped working to avoid a 50% tax rate. They had businesses and employees and the people who suffered were their employees. After all anyone can live pretty well on $200K or so. But those employees had to find other jobs when the business shut down for the rest of the year to avoid that 50% tax rate.I know a few people who also had a similar reaction to a higher top rate. They were math challenged. The falacy is that ALL your income jumps up to a 50% rate, not so. Only the dollars which exceed the threshold get a 50% treatment. Anyone shutting down a business because he was unwilling to pay 50% on some of his earnings is attempting to make a political point..at the expense of his employees. Not anyone I would want for a neighbor.

[tv_racin_fan]

There was no falacy nor math challenge, they knew what was what.. they had no intention of working for anyone and having to cough up 50% of the earnings for any hour worked. I happen to agree with them, I don't care to work for anyone where I need to cough up as much and more than I get in return for my effort. You do the math, if you make the best part of $100 per hour for 40 hours a week why would you work that 41st hour for only $50 when you could be home with your family?

[Rainman48314]

There was no falacy nor math challenge, they knew what was what.. they had no intention of working for anyone and having to cough up 50% of the earnings for any hour worked. I happen to agree with them, I don't care to work for anyone where I need to cough up as much and more than I get in return for my effort. You do the math, if you make the best part of $100 per hour for 40 hours a week why would you work that 41st hour for only $50 when you could be home with your family?

Where exactly is that 50% top marginal rate you worry about? $100x40x52=$208,000

Single 2011 Tax Brackets

Taxable Income
Marginal Tax Rate:$0-$8,50010%
$8,500-$34,50015%
$34,500-$83,60025%
$83,600-$174,40028%
$174,400-$379,15033%
$379,150+35%

Married Filing Jointly 2011 Tax Brackets

Taxable Income
Marginal Tax Rate:$0-$17,00010%$17,000-$69,00015%$69,000-$139,35025%$139,350-$212,30028%$212,300-$379,15033%$379,150+35%


As an FYI, you can't lump Medicare and Medicaid together. They are two distinctly different programs. Medicaid is based on means, it's a welfare program. As for Medicare, you must earn it by paying sufficient taxes for a number of work quarters. When you finally get Medicare, you pay monthly as a withold from your SS check. Amounts vary based on earnings or any delay in applying.

[Husky44]

I would encourage supporters of the Tea Party movement to follow the money... Trace the threads far enough, and the "grass roots" are fertilized by an elite few.

I tend to fit every demographic trait for "staunch conservative", and just a few years ago could have been very easily sucked into the Tea Party movement. However, I have two issues:

1) They don't offer any workable solutions. Cutting taxes sounds great, and we can all point to a few very small, but hugely wasteful government programs that could go away tomorrow with little to no real impact on society. Problem is, they won't have a significant impact on the federal budget either. To make a significant difference with tax cuts, you're going to have to make some REAL, substantial cuts in base programs. Tell me how you propose to do so, and how you're going to deal with the consequences, and I'll consider your position. I've never heard these kinds of painful details discussed. In reality, you're only going to fix the long-term problem by a combination of some painful cuts, and some tax increases. NO ONE wants to talk about that.

2) The Tea Party is funded by some real big money, that has a vested interest in influencing how the country runs. The Koch brothers come right out of some Robert Ludlum novel, but they're real, and they're frightening. And if you dig far enough, several of the major Tea Party organizations are bankrolled, sponsored, and staffed by the Koch brothers and their cronies. Sorry, but NO one should have that much influence.

Statesmen who worked hard to hammer out reasonable compromises built this country, and built it into what it was for the first 200 years. The last 30 years of hyper-partisanship, vitriol, intolerance, and selfishness has put us where we are today; the Tea Party is just more of the same.

[tv_racin_fan]

There is no 50% top rate today sir, this was some years ago.

As for medicare and social security the govt has lied to you to make you think you can somehow earn it. They continue to tell you that they are entitlements when the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise.

The govt has the ability to change the rules today and then again tomorrow such that you have actually earned nothing and are entitled to nothing, they may bestow them onto you at their whim, or they may take it away at their whim.

I have lived long enough to recall when the politicians claimed that SS would never be taxable income.

[TheTman]

The Koch brothers are scary? Hmm, they're from my home town and do a lot of good things for the city. I'm sure like any body with a lot of money there is a darker side to them. My grandfather grew up with their grandfather and their big office is built on land my grandfather sold them. Wish grandpa would have invested some money with them, we might all be rich now. LOL. My son is employed by Koch Chemicals and is doing very well. No one around here seems to think they are very scary. I did a brief stint for Koch pipeline, and hated it so quit after a few months.
Did get to meet Charles when he came around at Christmas to say hi to the empolyees.

[muggsy]

We already have term limits. You can vote them out every two, four or six years.

[muggsy]

Money makes the world go around. How much money would you limit an individual to Commrade Huskey? So much for your conservatism.

[muggsy]

My SS card still says, "Not for Purposes of Identification". :)

[tv_racin_fan]

Husky the problem with the tax increases the democrats are touting is that they want to increase the taxes on the very people who can most easily avoid any taxation at all and they have no plan to increase the taxation of the very ones who currently pay no federal income taxes. When you have a large segment that pay no federal income taxes you can not then claim that any increase on anyone already paying federal income taxes is fair or shared sacrifice unless you also raise taxes on those not currently paying federal income taxes.

The democrats and President Obama claimed that the healthcare reform could be paid for by taxation on only those making $200K or more. I challenge anyone to show me any nation that pays for their national healthcare system by taxation only on those making over $200K equivilent.

The democrats talked about how awesome the Canadian system was and yet they did not offer anything of the kind. You might want to check to see how that system is paid for and ask yourself why such a system (which I could support) was not offered nor even debated.

Currently the democrats intend to raise taxes on those making over $200K to pay for the healthcare reform and they intend to raise their taxes again to fund the jobs bill and again to pay for deficit reduction and they intend to let the so called Bush Tax cuts expire on the very same group. Exactly how much do you think they intend to raise their taxes? Let me do the math here... 4.8% for the Bush Tax cut expiration... 3.9% for healthcare reform... uumm I think it was 2.5% for deficit reduction... maybe another 2.5% for the jobs bill that is better than 13%... How is that fair when currently some 45%+ pay no federal income taxes and some 10%+ pay no payroll taxes?

[JFootin]

Real unemployment is 20%, so more than 20% don't pay payroll taxes. What the Dems are doing is class warfare and it is rooted in a Socialist view of the world.

[Husky44]

Money makes the world go around. How much money would you limit an individual to Commrade Huskey? So much for your conservatism.

Really? Would you care to expound on that comment? Because by my reading of it, you've taken a very limited comment of mine and jumped all the way to branding me a communist? I'd like to hear more of your reasoning.

[Husky44]

tvracingfan: I don't like the idea of tax increases either. But I can't come up with too many alternatives. I'm not saying anyone's proposal is right, but I take exception to the tea party perspective that opposes tax increases, period. It just won't work.

As for the "45% don't pay federal income taxes"--have you ever considered why?

Good detailed link here (http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/07/27/why-do-some-people-pay-no-federal-income-tax/), but the bottom line is that a lot of our taxpaying households have an income low enough that they are exempt. The majority of the rest of them are excluded because we, the people, have decided that we want to give breaks to seniors and low income families with children. Read the Tax Policy Center white paper here (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why-No-Income-Tax.pdf).

Is that "class warfare" rooted in socialism? Label it whatever you want, but it seems like a good idea to me. Should we increase taxes on a family with two kids earning less than $26k/year? I'm thinking they're probably not in a good position to have their taxes increased. Can I take a bigger hit on my taxes than I am now, in order to pay for those base programs that are necessary to keep our government running? Yes, I can. Do I want to? Not particularly, but I do want to ensure our nation continues to have a strong national defense, a good national infrastructure that allows us to continue to work, and generally continue to fund the basics of our government.

Show me an alternative that accomplishes the same, without tax increases, or by taxing those 46%, without driving them further into poverty, and I'll be glad to listen.

[tv_racin_fan]

tvracingfan: I don't like the idea of tax increases either. But I can't come up with too many alternatives. I'm not saying anyone's proposal is right, but I take exception to the tea party perspective that opposes tax increases, period. It just won't work.

Why wont it work? Will it not work because GOVT can not be bound to spend only that which it brings in thru taxation? Or will it not work because GOVT wont be bound by the Constitution?

As for the "45% don't pay federal income taxes"--have you ever considered why?

Of course I have considered why. Care to explain why someone who earns a wage should not pay at least a portion of that wage in taxes to fund the benefits of the govt that he enjoys? Sheesh if I can enjoy the beenefits of this great nation and not have to pay for them you care to explain to me exactly why I should work and pay taxes? As govt raises the level of exemptions it has to increase the taxation on those who actualy pay those taxes. What exactly is the plan once everyone is exempted from paying taxes? Or conversely what exactly is the plan when those who pay the taxes can no longer support those exempted? You do know that SS is bringing in less than it spends currently.. don't you?

Good detailed link here (http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/07/27/why-do-some-people-pay-no-federal-income-tax/), but the bottom line is that a lot of our taxpaying households have an income low enough that they are exempt.

They have an income but do not pay taxes? And here I thought the INCOME taxes were paaid by those who had an income... Have you bothered to read that link yourself?

For instance: "While that’s the case for many households, a new TPC paper shows that about half of people who don’t owe income tax are off the rolls not because they take advantage of tax breaks but rather because they have low incomes." Well yeah DUH! But in honesty they pay no taxes because of the taax breaks. For instance the standard deduction tax break and the child care deduction tax break and gee I can go on and on here... "The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax." Indeed it does and the govt continues to increase that basic subsistence level to make even more non tax payers.

"Policymakers can argue about whether specific tax expenditures serve their intended purposes, whether restructuring them might improve them, and even whether we should have them at all. But they cannot argue that pruning them back or eliminating them all would result in every American paying income tax."

OH?? So if the standard deduction was eliminated and the child care deduction and all those other deductions and credits then those who currently do not pay federal income taxes wouldn't then pay some? Isn't that exactly what the fair tax or any other flat tax system says? That everyone would then pay something? Bad enough when politicians lie to me but when someone else lies don't go trying to tell me I have to believe them just because the govt or politicians agree with them or that you agree with them, a LIE is a LIE no matter who tells it. AND that is exactly what the problem is THEY HAVE BEEN LYING TO US.

The majority of the rest of them are excluded because we, the people, have decided that we want to give breaks to seniors and low income families with children. Read the Tax Policy Center white paper here (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why-No-Income-Tax.pdf).

I never agreed that anyone should be exempted from paying a portion of their income as income taxes. What year did that come up for a vote? (might have been before my mothers time I suppose because she doesn't remember that being on any ballot either) Far as I am concerned if one earns an income then they should pay something in an income tax IF that is how the majority of the country wants to fund our govt. (it wasn't the fiunding fathers idea of how it should be funded)

Is that "class warfare" rooted in socialism? Label it whatever you want, but it seems like a good idea to me. Should we increase taxes on a family with two kids earning less than $26k/year? I'm thinking they're probably not in a good position to have their taxes increased. Can I take a bigger hit on my taxes than I am now, in order to pay for those base programs that are necessary to keep our government running? Yes, I can. Do I want to? Not particularly, but I do want to ensure our nation continues to have a strong national defense, a good national infrastructure that allows us to continue to work, and generally continue to fund the basics of our government.

AH now we get to the heart of the matter. You care to expound on what you believe are the BASICS of our govt?

Show me an alternative that accomplishes the same, without tax increases, or by taxing those 46%, without driving them further into poverty, and I'll be glad to listen.

ROFLMAO

I am not driven into poverty sir the tax system promotes it.

IF I earn more I pay more not only in real dollars but also in percentage of my income. Thus why would I wish to earn more so that an even larger portion of my earnings are given to those who won't earn nor pay? How exactly is this FAIR? Go to any college and ask those students if they would give up some of their hard earned grade point average so that a student with a grade point average below the "poverty line" could be lifted above said line.

Hey I know lets tax those eveil rich guys at 90% of their wages over $200K... the nation already tried that and the idea failed sir. Ya see those evil rich guys can avoid making over $200K in actual income and live quite well.Ya know they get paid in STOCK OPTIONS and corporate paid benefits. Heck it was the govt wage freeze which begat the notion that the company one works for should offer some sort of healthcare benefit.

[ripley16]

Has Nancy Pelocy called the current protesters at Wall St, et al., terrorists yet? Seems to me the "TEAT PARTY" has been much more violent and destructive than the TEA PARTY activists ever were.

Or... does she just turn a blind eye to socialists, anarchists, communists, corrupt unions and other anti-American groups.

[jocko]

wellhow about ol Harry Reid yesterday saying that the private sector economy is picking up but the government sector is not. when his home state has the highestr unemployment in the UNITED STATES.

Seems like guys like Reed and Pelosi really do look through rose colored glasses. He has not a fokking clue as to what needs to be done in this down economy, except spend spend spend. U know most industry, at age 65 ur outta there but not in our governmentr, look at Reed, and the best of the best Robert Byrd. dame they even have parks and park shitters name after that twit. Bridges that ain't built yet with his name plaque already made for it.

what has to stop is there 8 republicana candiadtes tearing each other apart. It is going to hurt and just gives the demo party additional firewood to use against the top candidate. These debates are not serving a good cuase IMO, as now it is getting nasty and makes the etire forum look childish. When u gotta go back and pick on a person who had fokking illegals mowing his grass over 5 years ago, then we best check ever hispanic we see at a gas station working there or a fast food place. HellI had 12 people putting on my new roof about 3 years ago, not even sure I went out and looke dtosee who or what they were. I sur ein hell wasnot going to ask for each person I. D. either. get my roof oh and get the fokk outta here..

[jocko]

Has Nancy Pelocy called the current protesters at Wall St, et al., terrorists yet? Seems to me the "TEAT PARTY" has been much more violent and destructive than the TEA PARTY activists ever were.

Or... does she just turn a blind eye to socialists, anarchists, communists, corrupt unions and other anti-American groups.

is from komifornia, how in the hell did she ever get elected out there????? tome speaks "lowly" of komifornai voters. The woman is ignorant. She is truly a follower of Forrest Gump: "stupid is as stupid does". She lives by that creed..

[TheTman]

Jocko, I think her district includes San Francisco, that says a lot right there, as it's the major home of left winged fruits and nuts.

[Husky44]

ROFLMAO
It just won't work.

Why wont it work? Will it not work because GOVT can not be bound to spend only that which it brings in thru taxation? Or will it not work because GOVT wont be bound by the Constitution?

It won't work because no one has taken the time to understand that we cannot operate the basics on what we take in now. You ask what my definition of the basics are: Well, let's start with that Constitution you reference:

establish justice
insure domestic tranquility
provide for the common defense
promote the general welfare
ensure the blessings of liberty
oh, and interstate commerce, which is a constitutional role of the federal government
We can argue the definition of things such as promoting general welfare, but you need to acknowledge that common law and basic human decency says that once we've established a definition of promoting general welfare (for instance, providing for a minimum living standard for our elderly, disabled, and others who can't provide for themselves), we have a moral obligation to maintain that provision until we determine another way to provide for it, or until we the people decide to rescind that social contract.

No, you didn't vote for it. This nation is not a democracy--we don't get to vote on every decision. Rather, our founding fathers saw fit to establish a system where we elect representation, and they make the decisions. Perhaps if we elect enough people who place their own self interests over the wellbeing of their fellow man, we can rid ourselves of our obligation to care for those who can't care for themselves, but just remember, that's going to be a really ugly place to live.


I am not driven into poverty sir the tax system promotes it.
Are you in poverty? Or are you just not making as much as you'd like to make?

I have several close friends who are in poverty, according to our federal governments standards. First, even they acknowledge that compared to the rest of the world, they are not impoverished at all. That said, they regularly DON'T make ends meet, despite both husband and wife working full time jobs. I'm guessing by your comments that you're well above those levels cited in the studies I referenced (yes, I did read them--the whole things, not just selecting the points that supported my position) whereby people don't pay any taxes because their income level is low enough that their standard deduction offsets their tax bill based on gross revenue. Good for you. But for those who don't, and are already making decisions like "should I pay the electric bill this month or the water bill?" taking more of their income, making it highly likely that they can't pay their rent, and wind up in the street, just doesn't sound like a good plan to me.


IF I earn more I pay more not only in real dollars but also in percentage of my income. Thus why would I wish to earn more so that an even larger portion of my earnings are given to those who won't earn nor pay? How exactly is this FAIR?
Do you really want "fair", or are you looking to do what's RIGHT? Because if you'll look into it a little, "fair" is a real rough place to live--one bad break and you'll likely never recover. Be careful of what you ask for.


Hey I know lets tax those eveil rich guys at 90% of their wages over $200K... the nation already tried that and the idea failed sir. Ya see those evil rich guys can avoid making over $200K in actual income and live quite well.Ya know they get paid in STOCK OPTIONS and corporate paid benefits. Heck it was the govt wage freeze which begat the notion that the company one works for should offer some sort of healthcare benefit.

Not really sure what your point is here. By your definition, I am one of those evil rich guys. Never earned a stock option in my life. I can give you a pretty intricate rundown of how our progressive tax system works. A lot of things that appear to be a deduction that continues to grow ad nauseum as income grows, actually cap out, and then start declining.

Your point earlier that as income increases, your percentage of tax on that income increases is only a true statement if you limit your discussion to income taxes. To be more accurate, look at total tax burden. When one considers sales taxes, property taxes, and fees collected to cover the cost of government services, the burden on the poor as a percentage of total income rises significantly. So yes, even though I pay a higher tax percentage on my income, I think it's RIGHT to do so, because I have the ability to live well on my income, and fund a large portion of our government. Do I like paying taxes? When I consider the ramifications of a society that chooses otherwise, then, yes, I do. Can we do things better? I'm sure we can, but we need to think the consequences through, and we need to consider all the options, not just the things that pay short-term benefit and make MY life easier.

Please don't take anything I've written as trying to sound self-righteous, accusatory, or demeaning of your position. I've held and espoused (rather strongly) very similar views to yours. But I've also taken the time to understand the situation, both on the macro level, and at the most important level, getting to know and understand the situation of real people. It's changed my mind, changed my heart, and changed what I do with my resources. I respectfully request that you consider, for a moment, what the real outcomes of some of the policies being espoused today look like, and get to know some of the people who would experience that reality.

A maxim that changed my approach to a lot of things: "Seek first to understand, then to be understood." Stephen Covey

Originally stated in the context of communication and interpersonal relationships, it is useful to me to guide my approach to all situations.

[tv_racin_fan]

We can't pay for the basics with what we bring in now because the basics keep getting expanded upon, and the tax base is getting smaller.

Social Security which was supposed to fund itself thru the payroll taxes can't do so because the govt in it's infinite wisdom has seen fit to expand the outlays more than the intake can keep up with. It was doomed to failure at the outset due to the changes that were already occuring in the birth and death rates and life expectancy.

The politicians tell you that SS is an entitlement and yet the SCOTUS has ruled differently. Helvering V Davis the SCOTUS ruled it constitutional on the basis of the payroll taxes going into the Treasury the same as Income Taxes and not being earmarked in any way.

In the beginning many occupations were exempted from paying the tax but by the time many of those folks got to retirement age they were included in the system and thus they took out far more than they paid in.

Do you recall the so called luxury tax placed on yachts back in the 80's?

We can not as a nation continue to spend a trillion dollars more than we take in. We can not continue to borrow 40% of every dollar we spend.

Taxing the rich wont cut it. They have the power and the wherewithall to avoid the taxation. The democrats don't seem to have learned that from that luxury tax fiasco.

[Husky44]

I don't disagree that we can't keep going as we are. I don't disagree that we need to make some significant cuts. I don't even disagree that we can't balance the budget solely on the backs of a certain class of wage earner (the "rich" is a nebulous term that both sides throw around without meaning, and intending only to demonize someone). My disagreement lies in the claim that we can only fix this through reduced spending with out any tax increases. Those who make that pronouncement tend to be long on politically charged hyperbole and short on details.

There was a bipartisan commission organized not too long ago which took the time to study our economic condition and suggest detailed principles to bring the federal budget under control. One of their first statements was that its going to take all the tools in the toolbox and everyone is going to feel the pain. They gave detailed plans.

Both sides of the aisle rejected it. It seems neither side is interested enough in fixing the problem that they're willing to compromise on their talking points, because both sides (not just talking Ds and Rs here, but left and right, tea party included) are more interested in appealing to their base than they are in fixing the problem.

If someone can show me a solution that reduces spending without increasing taxes, explain how it manages the fallout, I'll listen.I haven't heard anyone in DC or on tv do that.

[wyntrout]

YOU people who think the government needs more money and raising taxes is the way to get it ARE THE f****** PROBLEM! YOU are ENABLERS. If your butt was on fire would you throw a can of gas on it??

The government needs to be starved... drastically pruned and reduced... not given more fuel to spawn more bureaucracies and regulations to control every aspect of our lives. It has long been a giant cancer consuming more and more of this great country's resources and now the "National DEBT" is approaching the Gross National Product and figures in the TRILLIONS are being thrown about as "necessary" to our nation's recovery.

Having complete control of all of this country's resources... all wealth not just "meager" taxes on income, but total control of all savings... pensions... property... and even your healthcare... is the ultimate goal of big government. They WILL decide who lives and dies... who can be of further benefit to the STATE... who needs to be allowed(required) to wither on the vine... or be "pruned".

This will be their only course of action once all of the evil rich are brought down and Capitalism is finally destroyed... the death of wealth creation. The State will decide how to allocate the ever diminishing resources and available healthcare to those who support their goals.

The large parasitic class of welfare recipients and cheats who helped the corrupt politicians achieve their positions of power will no longer be assets as their votes are no longer needed and will be looking at Draconian cuts to all of their "rights" and entitlements... those things that bought their votes... the things taken by force from the productive citizens.

Mediocrity and sloth have become the byproduct of these policies that have finally killed the dreams of people who thought that hard work would enable them to get ahead of their peers on the bottom rungs of society. The death spiral of our way of life will be complete... brought on by taking more and more from the producers and giving more and more "rights" and entitlements to the unproductive masses whose only contributions are more generations of unproductive and "needy" voters who are promised more and more by the corrupt politicians.

Productivity will decline drastically because working hard doesn't get you any more wealth or security... only more taxes. More people will decide that hard work won't allow them to live as they choose, but by joining the ranks of those clamoring for more "free stuff", they can get by almost as well... without all of the hard work. This is what happened to the great Soviet Experiment that was Lenin's dream and Stalin's "greatest achievement"... the eventual destruction of the Soviet Union.

When I was a child I learned about Communism and it was our greatest enemy. We saw documentaries about the hard lives the Soviet people endured. I couldn't begin to list all of the negative things we saw on TV or read about in history classes until the Progressives and Revisionists got control of our government education system. Communism was bad and we had the proof showing how downtrodden and what miserable lives the average Soviet "Citizens" endured. Their only achievements were measured by what contributions they made to improve the Soviet Military and its advances on conquering the world. Everything was done for the State and everyone was subordinate to its needs and goals. The people toiled to build the Soviet Military Machine and when their bodies were exhausted, they were used to lubricate the massive gears that ground up every man, woman, and child... with no further thought of them.

We're at the point now where almost half of our "citizens" don't contribute taxes and their votes buy more of the same. Fair Taxation... what a concept. I think that fair is one rate for everyone. A person who earns $1,000,000 paying 10% would pay $100,000... for "simplification"... while someone earning only $25,000 would pay $2,500. The person making more pays more, but some say he should pay even more... because he can afford it. Who decides that... the people who want more free stuff... or the politicians who use promises of more stuff to buy the votes of those who live off the sweat of others. This is tyranny AND SLAVERY.

Yes, I know about progressive tax rates and marginal tax rates. I've always done my own taxes. It is counterproductive to take a larger percentage of what a person makes as his income increases. At some point the producer stops trying to increase his income because more and more is being taken from him leaving him ever increasing marginal returns... meaning less to show for his work and industry. This is exacerbated by the ever-increasing regulations and taxes on every part of production and distribution. As production costs rise and costs to the consumers must necessarily follow, demand for products falls and businesses fail. Too many ignore this cause and effect and call for even more taxes and regulations for "fair prices", etc.

Only the government can afford to run a "business" at a loss... using the taxpayers money. The U.S. Postal Service is a great example. They are over "budget" every year but manage to pay exorbitant bonuses to employees and especially the management. Then they turn around and say they are losing money and need to raise the rates and reduce services and personnel.

Jeez... I have a life and I can't sit here all day. I wasted hours last night fuming and thinking about what to say here, but I'm not "gifted" with a great memory for facts and figures... and certainly am not an orator or writer, not do I pretend to be.

One thing I DO KNOW, though, is that anyone who thinks the government NEEDS more money, IS part of the PROBLEM... A BIG PART!

I also think that the term "citizen" should be reserved for those who HAVE contributed to this great country's success... with HONORABLE military service AND those who do make positive economic contributions to our country... provide jobs and work for a living. Sales taxes and the like don't qualify as contributions in this regard... the "RIGHT" to vote is limited to Citizens. The "inmates" should not have a say in the governance of this country!

JMHO

Wynn:yo:

[Bawanna]

Sure glad you posted that Wynn, I was too thinking of what to say, all I came up with was eliminate the free loaders, illegals benefits and eliminate the government waste and they wouldn't need any more money.

I hate to give more money so the first lady can have more servants, or to pay for federal elevator inspectors in counties that don't have elevators or brand new tanks pushed off aircraft carriers into the ocean for fish habitat cause they are surplus, brand new but not needed.

I saw an editorial last night where the guy recommended eliminating the air force since it's cost is exactly the amount they want to save on military expenses and they weren't mentioned in the constitution. Only a Navy and an Army.

[JFootin]

I don't know about you guys, but I feel there is nothing much I can do about all this insanity, except to cast one measly vote every couple of years. +1 on Wynn and Bawanna's comments, but who is listening? The politicians and power brokers aren't, and the multiplying masses of insane liberals and progressives intent on destroying everything surely aren't. And anyone who thinks that civil insurrection is the answer doesn't know how overwhelmingly powerful the government is, and how they have plans and resources in place to crush any resistance. Its all a pile of crap! John Lenon suggested that we imagine there is no God, and the nation and the world have pretty much done that over the last half century. Not real good without God, is it?

[Husky44]

Well, no one has yet to tell me how we're going to deal with all those welfare bums, infirm, etc, who are sucking up all that excess tax money that we're going to quit paying so we can balance the budget. Should we just shoot them so they die quickly, or do we let them starve out, or wait for their medical issues to take them down?

Kudos to all who have had the means and the wherewithal to overcome any serious adversity without having to have a hand up, or better yet, who have never had to face those kinds of problems. I'm thankful to God every day that I don't, but I know too many people that do, and I keep screwing up and seeing them as human beings, created by the same God that blessed me. So I'll keep doing what I can to help, and trying to engage in reasonable dialog with those who have an interest in trying to understand the complexities of the problem. For those who choose to assume that I have some sort of agenda to destroy the country that I served for 23 years, who have no interest in considering other options, I guess we should limit our conversation to things that we can mutually agree on.

You get a little upset? Well gee, so do I. I've been called more names by people who have no clue who I am or what I believe, because they take exception to the fact that I'm not agreeing with their position. I'm not a communist, a lib-tard, an enabler, nor do I think I'm part of the problem, any more than is someone who launches into tirades without offering solutions, or at least solutions that have some chance of actually improving the situation. I'm real tired of people calling my friends, most of whom work harder than your average middle income taxpayer, some sort of parasite who should be humiliated, starved, have their citizenship revoked, or worse, just because they don't make enough money. More Americans than will ever realize are just one aw-**** from being homeless and jobless; most don't have enough savings to fall back on if they're really in a crappy situation (debilitating car wreck, seriously sick kid...).

Wynn, you're sitting in a great spot, you, like I, get to draw a check from the government for the rest of our lives. I know, you earned it. Well, one of my friends lost his chance to earn it, because the Army gave him a BCD during his first enlistment. Seems when he got 5 years in prison for attempted manslaughter for shooting the balls off the guy who raped his wife, the Army took exception to that. I'm sure all of you agree that he should have let it go, because his life wasn't in danger. He's been busting his butt for 20 + years since then to provide for his wife and four daughters. He works hard, but can't seem to keep up, particularly since the bankruptcy. Oh, yeah, that's because the liver cancer's kicking his butt (he still goes to work every day as a heavy vehicle mechanic--he'd actually be better off from a medical care perspective, not to mention from a physical health perspective trying to deal with his cancer, but he's too friggin proud to quit, because folks like you will judge him and call him a welfare bum. No kidding). Seems even with his company medical insurance, they still won't pay for several thousand dollars worth of meds he needs each month, to ease the pain enough so he can get through a day at work.

Yeah, I get just a little pissed. That's only one story; I've got several that are close, personal friends. So don't preach to me about how the welfare bums are ruining your wonderful life, or driving you into poverty. If you don't know anyone struggling like that, consider yourself blessed, but I'd also encourage you to get out and try to make a real difference in the world. You might just get to know some folks who had a road that was just one single bump different from yours, but wound up on a totally different course. If you're so egotistical to think that was solely because of your superior intellect, work ethic, or good looks, I might as well stop now, because you are deluded to the point that you wouldn't recognize reality. The FACTS are that most of the people you're railing about who don't pay income taxes are the working poor. Same story with homelessness--most of them aren't drunken bums, despite what Rush Limbaugh and Fox News tell you. But those facts are really inconvenient, and recognizing their real people who are struggling makes it much harder to demonize them and blame them for all the things in life you're not happy with.

Me, I'll just go on trying to do things to make a difference where I can, paying my taxes, and being thankful that when I get a raise that pushes me into a higher tax bracket, that I can do more to help those who need it. I'll keep trying to have civil conversations when I can, to see if I can help others understand that it's not as clean and easy as our sound-bite politicians and political commentators would have us believe, and continue to hold my tongue to the best of my ability when uniformed people make offensive statements. But sometimes it gets away from me.

[ltxi]

I don't disagree that we can't keep going as we are. I don't disagree that we need to make some significant cuts. I don't even disagree that we can't balance the budget solely on the backs of a certain class of wage earner (the "rich" is a nebulous term that both sides throw around without meaning, and intending only to demonize someone). My disagreement lies in the claim that we can only fix this through reduced spending with out any tax increases. Those who make that pronouncement tend to be long on politically charged hyperbole and short on details.

There was a bipartisan commission organized not too long ago which took the time to study our economic condition and suggest detailed principles to bring the federal budget under control. One of their first statements was that its going to take all the tools in the toolbox and everyone is going to feel the pain. They gave detailed plans.

Both sides of the aisle rejected it. It seems neither side is interested enough in fixing the problem that they're willing to compromise on their talking points, because both sides (not just talking Ds and Rs here, but left and right, tea party included) are more interested in appealing to their base than they are in fixing the problem.

If someone can show me a solution that reduces spending without increasing taxes, explain how it manages the fallout, I'll listen.I haven't heard anyone in DC or on tv do that.

Well, at least I agree with you on this and at least your most immediate previous post. Guess now I'll also get to share in the whippings and beatings.

[jocko]

doesnt look to me like u " held ur tongue" It is easy to pick one or two instances out to make a point. We DO TAKE CARE OF OUR NEEDY. We always have but we today have more needy who indeed are not needy but just damn lazy asses. Can u pick them out of a crowd of 50 needy??? I probably can't. Nobody gave me jachshit in life, certainly my father through the depression worked his ass off to feed his family of 5, with no grade school education, he survived and did well because he worked his ass off. WPA helped alot of people save their dignity for they worked for what they earned. Today the "needy" expect it. Sure I feel sorry for those without, but please don't expect me to give up my home for them either. Show me U CARE AND I CAN SHOW U I CARE.

[ltxi]

Well, no one has yet to tell me how we're going to deal with all those welfare bums, infirm, etc, who are sucking up all that excess tax money that we're going to quit paying so we can balance the budget. Should we just shoot them so they die quickly, or do we let them starve out, or wait for their medical issues to take them down?

Kudos to all who have had the means and the wherewithal to overcome any serious adversity without having to have a hand up, or better yet, who have never had to face those kinds of problems. I'm thankful to God every day that I don't, but I know too many people that do, and I keep screwing up and seeing them as human beings, created by the same God that blessed me. So I'll keep doing what I can to help, and trying to engage in reasonable dialog with those who have an interest in trying to understand the complexities of the problem. For those who choose to assume that I have some sort of agenda to destroy the country that I served for 23 years, who have no interest in considering other options, I guess we should limit our conversation to things that we can mutually agree on.

You get a little upset? Well gee, so do I. I've been called more names by people who have no clue who I am or what I believe, because they take exception to the fact that I'm not agreeing with their position. I'm not a communist, a lib-tard, an enabler, nor do I think I'm part of the problem, any more than is someone who launches into tirades without offering solutions, or at least solutions that have some chance of actually improving the situation. I'm real tired of people calling my friends, most of whom work harder than your average middle income taxpayer, some sort of parasite who should be humiliated, starved, have their citizenship revoked, or worse, just because they don't make enough money. More Americans than will ever realize are just one aw-**** from being homeless and jobless; most don't have enough savings to fall back on if they're really in a crappy situation (debilitating car wreck, seriously sick kid...).

Wynn, you're sitting in a great spot, you, like I, get to draw a check from the government for the rest of our lives. I know, you earned it. Well, one of my friends lost his chance to earn it, because the Army gave him a BCD during his first enlistment. Seems when he got 5 years in prison for attempted manslaughter for shooting the balls off the guy who raped his wife, the Army took exception to that. I'm sure all of you agree that he should have let it go, because his life wasn't in danger. He's been busting his butt for 20 + years since then to provide for his wife and four daughters. He works hard, but can't seem to keep up, particularly since the bankruptcy. Oh, yeah, that's because the liver cancer's kicking his butt (he still goes to work every day as a heavy vehicle mechanic--he'd actually be better off from a medical care perspective, not to mention from a physical health perspective trying to deal with his cancer, but he's too friggin proud to quit, because folks like you will judge him and call him a welfare bum. No kidding). Seems even with his company medical insurance, they still won't pay for several thousand dollars worth of meds he needs each month, to ease the pain enough so he can get through a day at work.

Yeah, I get just a little pissed. That's only one story; I've got several that are close, personal friends. So don't preach to me about how the welfare bums are ruining your wonderful life, or driving you into poverty. If you don't know anyone struggling like that, consider yourself blessed, but I'd also encourage you to get out and try to make a real difference in the world. You might just get to know some folks who had a road that was just one single bump different from yours, but wound up on a totally different course. If you're so egotistical to think that was solely because of your superior intellect, work ethic, or good looks, I might as well stop now, because you are deluded to the point that you wouldn't recognize reality. The FACTS are that most of the people you're railing about who don't pay income taxes are the working poor. Same story with homelessness--most of them aren't drunken bums, despite what Rush Limbaugh and Fox News tell you. But those facts are really inconvenient, and recognizing their real people who are struggling makes it much harder to demonize them and blame them for all the things in life you're not happy with.

Me, I'll just go on trying to do things to make a difference where I can, paying my taxes, and being thankful that when I get a raise that pushes me into a higher tax bracket, that I can do more to help those who need it. I'll keep trying to have civil conversations when I can, to see if I can help others understand that it's not as clean and easy as our sound-bite politicians and political commentators would have us believe, and continue to hold my tongue to the best of my ability when uniformed people make offensive statements. But sometimes it gets away from me.

Well, crap, I mostly agree with this, also. Now I'm really in trouble. But just to be clear...while I don't have an inherent problem with welfare and/or the poor, I do have an intensely serious issue with supporting the slackers, lazy, and bloodsucking cheats who make either a profession.

[jocko]

agree, when welfare was started it was right and just. People still had some pride in self work but today to many know the system better than the system designers. I know of family in my home town thathave lived off of welfare from the git go and their kids now do and their kids kids are in line. That is not what the system was designed to to. It was not designed to KEEP U ON WELFARE and sucking off hard working tax payers..

[TheTman]

I don't think anyone has a problem with the Government helping those who are down on their luck, between jobs and so forth. What pisses me and plenty others off is the people who use the system to freeload and party and keep on making "welfare babies" to get more $$$ out of the system. Then there are the disability scammers that get a free ride because their back hurts a little bit. They make it tough for people that really need assistance. I've seen people lose their homes because they were too sick to work, yet they couldn't get on disability because so many people have scammed the system that they think everyone is a scammer now, and you usually have to be denied twice, then hire a lawyer to get the benefits that you payed taxes for all your working life. Like a fire fighter friend of mine, who fell through a burning floor and broke his back, and then later fell and broke his neck. The surgeon who supposedly fixed his neck screwed it up so bad that the next surgeon couldn't do much to help him. So he lives with a constant pain level of 6 (his "good" days) to 10, is restricted from lifting more than 10 lbs, and has so many restrictions that there is no job we could think of that he could do, plus no one will hire him with his pre-existing conditions. Many of his days are spent curled up in the fetal position trying to get through the pain he is in without putting a bullet in his head. You'd think someone who risked his life repeatedly to save other's lives would be able to get disability, but he was denied twice and had to hire a lawyer, which turned into a 4 year process. Meanwhile another person that went to our same shrink, has a little back ache once in awhile and has to take a loratab now and then, and is getting disability. He restores cars, swaps out engines and transmissions and stuff, and travels all over the US for car shows, but he can't work? Give me a break. Freeloaders like him are the ones that really piss me and others off. I'm on disability too, Dr. never would release me to go back to work, after 18 months of chemotherapy, which really screwed me up, physically and mentally. Thankfully I'm in remission now, but the Dr. says I have no business trying to hold down a job. I too had to go through the disability circus, 2 denials, hire a lawyer, and then got the benefits I'd paid taxes on for all my working life. If I hadn't had long term disability insurance from my job, I'd probably lost everything too. I suppose certain people see me as a free loader, they see me riding a motorcycle or mowng the lawn, they don't see me laid up in bed for the next few days because of it. I take motorcycle trips sometimes, but spend most of the time after getting there recuperating in bed for the ride home. And after we get home I'm pretty useless for about a week or so. Just because I can't work, should I not be able to have a little fun now and then? It's not like I'm out living the high life, I barely make ends meet with my meager disability income, but I scrimp and save and sometimes get to go on a trip.


I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think it involves trillion dollar stimulus programs. Something needs to be done with this monstrosity tax system we live under. Government spending has to be cut. Instead of taxing the "rich" people making $250K a year, who are the ones creating a lot of the jobs we do have, let them keep some of that to reinvest into their company. Reagan showed that by reducing taxes on the "rich" it stimulated the economy and jobs were created and we were generally in much better shape than we are today.

If tax dollars were spent wisely I doubt if anyone would have a problem paying taxes, but when these big bailouts go to line the pockets of the officers and major shareholders of the companies, instead of keeping them going and keeping jobs available, that is pure BS. You can't spend your way out of debt, anyone with a 6th grade education should know that, but it seems to elude our present policymakers.
Then you have these government agencies spending a thousand dollars on a hammer, and all that crazy crap. I don't think the "Jobs Bill" Obama keeps harping about is the answer. They need to make it feasible for employers to open new plants in the USA without a dozen federal beaucracies and the big labor unions making it too damn expensive to create jobs here. I really don't blame companies for going overseas when you can't get anything done here due to all the damn red tape you have to go through to open a plant here. The EPA, OSHA, DOE, etc. are all out of control, and need to be reigned in if companies are ever going to invest here. The EPA is the one that really gets my goat, all the red tape they create to keep some damn little minnow or something from getting wiped out. Don't they know that species have become extinct long before they existed. That's just the way of the world, but oh no, let's spend a few billion dollars so some damn tadpole will have place to live. Could they not take a few of these and relocate them somewhere else, or put them in a zoo or something? No, that would be way too easy and cost effective.

And they do need to do something about the jerks who take advantage of the welfare system and get them working. I knew a man who was excited his wife was having another baby because then he could quit his job and live off the welfare his 9 kids would bring in. Crap like that needs to stop. So I can see where some of the anger against the welfare bums comes from. They may be human beings, but some of them are not doing their best to pull their own weight.

[Husky44]

Don't disagree with anyone that states that abuse of the system needs to stop. Unfortunately, in both the government sector and the private sector, one of the first places budgets get cut is in oversight, which just makes it easier for those who want to abuse the system.

If this were a simple problem, we would have already solved it.

Thetmanski, I think you helped make one of the points I was trying to make: These are real people, and painting them all with the welfare bum brush is wrong.

ltxi, Thanks for jumping in the fray with me.

jocko: I said I hold my tongue, "but sometimes it gets away from me." This was one of those times. Also, remember that the vast majority of the people receiving government support, or paying little or no taxes, aren't the career welfare recipients, that's just what gets the best media play.

[Bawanna]

There's a huge difference between disabled and welfare freeloaders but all combined those don't add up to lunch money in the federal money barrel.

Chump change. What gets my goat is a 707 for Nancy Pelosi to cummute to California without stopping for gas in her smaller jet. The first ladies 20 or so servants to help her manage parties, correspondence etc. The wasteful spending to put up senators and congressmen or send them on foreign junkets to anylize the life of centipedes in Ethiopia to determine how much money to give them.

I get state disability. It was not optional and had to be paid by both the employers and employees and for a carpenter it was very expensive.
I tried to save the state money but they don't like that and they got rules. Can't buy a wheelchair tire innertube at a bicycle shop for 5 bucks cause it ain't a wheelchair part provider so you have to go to a wheelchair tire provider and buy the exact same thing with the same part number for 30 bucks.

Whenever I need something major, van equipment or a chair I have to prove that I'm not just faking it by getting physical exams etc. This tapered off some after about the 10 year mark but was still a pain.

The disabled and the legitimate folks in temporary need are not a blight on teh budget, it's all the other stuff. I look at the waste on the city level, small city like ours and it makes me almost cry. Multiply that by 100 for a county, 1000 times or more for a state, and probably a couple million for the feds. It's a huge money eating machine.

[wyntrout]

Yep. I don't mind helping people who really NEED help. It galls me that the government will forcibly take our money and give it magnanimously to whomever they want to give a leg up... Democratic voters... or pick businesses as they did with all of these "Green" businesses they "invested" our money in... and if you'll research those "chosen" companies, you'll find Friends of Obama and his friends heavily invested in the same.

The Churches and local charities ought to be taking care of the truly needy, not the government. Those organizations would rise to the occasion as necessary. Those local organizations AND their FAMILIES know best who is truly needy and deserving of community support, not the government in Washington D.C.

All of us make decisions that affect our lives. I don't consider myself LUCKY because I have a retirement from the U.S. Air Force. I joined the first time because I wanted choices and didn't want to be drafted and used as cannon fodder. I was smart enough that had I been drafted, I wouldn't have been humping a heavy pack in the bush of Vietnam, but I joined and after testing, I got language training as I intended, but not necessarily the language I would have picked... Arabic. Later I did volunteer for Vietnamese to get some kind of job and do something besides police the the trash around the base and hike around Goodfellow AFB for exercise in San Angelo, Texas.

I was on my way to Japan to do airborne reconnaissance using our limited knowledge of Vietnamese... a 4-month short familiarization course... not the full-blown linguistics studies I had in Arabic for a year... when the 6-Days War kicked off in the Middle East... what my original training was anticipating. At that point I was in a higher priority field and missed out on using my real training in Arabic.

After 4 years in the Air Force I got out and used the G.I. Bill along with working to pay for college and then rejoined the Air Force to fly again as a navigator. It was my third choice after pilot and helicopter pilot... I should have held out for pilot, but could have been a casualty had I gotten back into the war sooner.

I've made many decisions... some bad... like actually retiring at age 42... yeah, that wasn't smart, but I thought with my investments and my wife still having 8 years to go for Air Force retirement, I shouldn't have to work for some Pinheaded a$$holes anymore. Another 20 years could have had us on easy street for sure, but that was my bad decisions... time and circumstances. I retired in Maine and had I gotten a crappy local job, the state would have taxed my retirement, my wife's pay, as well as whatever menial job I was able to find in rural Northern Maine while my wife was stationed there.

Unfortunately, I continued "retirement" when we moved to San Antonio. Someone actually offered me a job there, and I turned it down without even finding out the details... probably one of the dumber things I did, but we were doing fine... at the time.

I think about those decisions a lot since the several stock market downturns we've had. 20 years at just $25K or so a year would have made a big difference in our savings and we could both have stayed retired. As it was, my wife retired voluntarily from the Air Force in '96 and we moved to Jacksonville. In '06 my wife got a job to help us make ends meet. Her experience in management was marketable and she was 10 years younger, not to mention, nice looking and smart... with a sweet voice. She actually got a job using her degrees in psychology and sociology, whereas mine in Mathematics and my experience as a Bombardier/Navigator was not so much in demand... plus I was lazy and still didn't want to work for pinheads.

Now with Social Security and both our retirements, my wife's job is above and beyond what we need to subsist and we have only our mortgage... and my expensive hobbies to pay for above regular expenses. We made our decisions though, we didn't just work Monday to Friday and blow everything on partying Friday night and the weekend, living from paycheck to paycheck.

Well, as usual, this became another story about ME!:rolleyes: I just didn't want you to think that I thought myself perfect or too smart.

I don't get a lot accomplished because I sit here and do this. Dang. I need to do something else for a while.

Oh. I do get pissed when I hear my military retirement and Social Security lumped in with "entitlements". I signed contracts and fulfilled my obligations for my military pension and SS. I earned or paid for them. I never received any welfare and my single mother worked her behind off to make sure we got something to eat and a home to live in when I was a child. When I joined the Air Force, I set up an allotment to my mom and later when she died I got her sister to take in a younger brother and I set her up a monthly allotment to help her care for him along with her two children. She wasn't a single mom, but my little brother could really eat!

Well, enough about me. Dang! I just can't shut up!:rolleyes:

Wynn:)

[tv_racin_fan]

Hey I agree we need to raise taxes.

I just believe you can't raise them on only one segment of society which is what the democrats proposed. They talk of allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire... ONLY ON THE TOP RATE. They talk of raising the rate ONLY ON THOSE MAKING OVER 200K.

If we are going to raise the rate I say raise it from the bottom up. Make it so the guy at the very bottom who currently doesn't even pay ANY payroll tax now has to pay 1%.The guy at the next level who does pay some payroll taxes now gets to pay all of it. The guy at the next level who pays the payroll tax but no FEDERAL INCOME taxes now gets to pay 1%. The guy at the next level who currently is paying 5% gets a raise to 7%. ETC ETC until the top rate gets a 5% increase.

The trouble is not one single politician besides Mr Cain has suggested anything of the sort. AND his plan has those "empowerment zones"...

Ok I have an idea. You know those welfare slackers n bums. Why not require them to work for their check? Wheel chair bound?? He can answer phones or do other appropriate work, such as soldering electrical parts or sorting nuts n bolts ya get the idea, something that don't require him to stand. The elderly can wander around and pick up trash in the parks maybe replace TP in the bathrooms or why not allow them to sit and tell stories to our children maybe be members of think tanks that share their wisdom with the young.

Currently we ask them to do nothing for it and I think that is the real problem.

FREE EDUCATION? Nothing is free, why not require them to work in their chosen field while in school...

My wife got her "degree" in just such a program. I still dunno why the govt stopped the program it seemed to make sense to me. Maybe that was the problem it made sense and it required the recipients to actually do something besides sit home and collect a check.

[wyntrout]

WE DON"T NEED TO RAISE TAXES... THAT"S JUST EMPOWERING THE BUMS TO WASTE MORE MONEY. They need to stop trying to do everything for everyone to BUY their votes and learn to effectively use the already excessive amount of money they take from the taxpayers... instead of wasting it... because it ain't their money and it cost them nothing to spend our money. They don't need more of it!! That's empowerment of the worst kind. When a drunk breaks half the bottles of booze he stole, you don't take up a collection and buy him another truckload!

Wynn:mad:

[tv_racin_fan]

The problem with HELPING people as it relates to WELFARE or FOODSTAMPS or even SOCIAL SECURITY and MEDICARE is it aint HELPING them it is ENABLING THEM.

How was it said in the bible? Something about if ya give a man a fish ya feed him for one day if ya TEACH him to fish ya feed him for life. The govt aint trying to teach the man to fish and that is the problem THAT would be a hand up what the govt does is give HAND OUTS.

Also I believe it was said somewhere in the bible, let him that wont work also not eat. Seems to go along the same line in my book.

I recall when my children wanted me to "help" them with their homework. What they wanted me to do was work out the problem they couldn't (or wouldn't) and give them the answer. What I did was show them how to work it out or tell them I didn't know how to do their math the way the teachers now require it to be done. My son told me not so long ago one of his teachers told him not to worry about homework, just scribble something on paper to show he did something and it counted. In fact she told him he could scribble something on paper and use it more than once to show he had done his homework...it never was graded anyway. I wondered why he never seemed to do any homework but got good grades on his tests.

[muggsy]

First off corporations do not pay taxes, their consumers do. Raise the corporate taxes and either prices increase to the consumer or those corporations move to where the taxation is less. Taking those nasty ole jobs with them.

Second, many of the founding fathers warned us that the trouble with democracy is once the sheeple learn they can vote themselves largess, they will... The politicians know this and they promise largess that the nation can not provide.

Third go look at the percentage of wage earners who do not pay income taxes. That percentage has spiked horridly in the last couple of decades from 18% to nearly 50%. (I believe the IRS numbers show that the bottom 50% of wage earners paid 3% of the federal income tax in 2009) So while it may be true that the top tax rates are at their historic lows so are the lower rates (in terms of actual tax liability).

Those social support systems you mentioned are what has us over the barrel now. Do you know at what earnings the WIC program is no longer available? Any clue at what wage programs such as helmets for children are shut off?

Social Secruity is another sore spot. The politicians tell you that since you have paid in your are entitled to some payout. Funny thing that the govt had to argue that SS was a simple tax in order to get the SCOTUS to not delacre it unconstitutional. In other words the SCOTUS has declared that YOU are not entitled to a single penny of SS funds no matter how much you may have paid in. Medicare is the same way.

That healthcare you mentioned. Who should pay for it? I found it interesting how the democrats pointed to the Canadian, French, and even UK healthcare systems but yet they did not offer such a system to the sheeple. Any clue how those systems are paid for? (hint: in Canada there is a sales tax (of I believe 7%) above the normal sale tax to pay for healthcare) When people compare the corporate tax rates of France and the UK and even Canada to the US they tend to forget to add in their VAT taxes.

Back to SS... when SS was first started there were many many more workers paying in than there were people who recieved benefits. The scheme was designed around that being the case forever. The very politicians who pushed for the system knew that would not be the case... knew that it was destined to fail from the get go. When it becomes two workers paying in for one beneficiary either the tax rate is going to have to skyrocket or the benefits are going to have to undergo a drastic cut. You tell me which one you prefer and explain why.

Throwing more and more money at education has resulted in a wonderful education system, has it not?

I read your post and thought that I was talking to myself again. :) We could be twins.

[Rainman48314]

From (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/09/8716867-what-last-nights-elections-told-us#comments) NBC online





What last night's elections told us

Two points about last night’s elections: 1) This is no longer 2010; and 2) Voters say, “Don’t go too far”… Bryant wins in MS, and Beshear wins in KY.
By NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower

*** This is no longer 2010: So what do we make of last night’s election results across the country? Our initial takeaway is that they suggest this is no longer 2010 (or even 2009), when Republican enthusiasm -- fueled by the Tea Party -- helped the GOP win up and down the ballot. In Ohio last night, Democrats and organized labor overturned Gov. John Kasich’s (R) anti-collective-bargaining law. In New Jersey, Democrats expanded their majority (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/nj_legislative_elections_resul.html) in the state legislature, despite Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) active campaigning for the GOP. And even in Virginia, where Republicans could still win control of the state Senate (with the deciding race separated by just 86 votes), the GOP gains were much smaller than expected. But if last night’s results suggested that this is no longer 2010, it’s also no longer 2008, when Democrats held the political upper hand. If anything, we’re looking at a political environment -- one year before the 2012 presidential election -- that’s a jump ball and could be decided by the slimmest of margins (like that Virginia state Senate race).
*** And voters say: “Don’t go too far”: But there’s another way to look at last night’s results, especially when you add the surprising defeat of that anti-abortion/”personhood” amendment in Mississippi, the likely recall of anti-illegal-immigration Arizona state Senate President Russell Pearce (R), the two Ohio ballot measures, and the rejection of a Maine law ending same-day voter registration: Voters punished elected officials for going too far. They might not be happy with public-sector unions, but they don't support taking away their collective-bargaining rights (especially for first-responders). They might be against abortion in Mississippi, but don’t want to potentially outlaw things like birth control. They might be troubled by illegal immigration, but they don’t want their elected officials to look like they are targeting a specific community. They might believe government should do something about health care, but they don't want to be forced to buy insurance. And they might be concerned about the idea of voter fraud, but they don't want to lose rights they had. Politicians may be pushing absolutes, but voters are sending a different message

[John222]

The Tea Party is just misguided puppets of the Koch Brothers and Rupert Murdock. Follow their money, it leads straight to Carl Rove, big oil and the Koch Brothers.