Tea Party Democrats

[PLAYER57832]

Killing tommorrow for today is what we OUGHT to be decrying.. instead... its "go ahead and cut education".. "go ahead and cut food subsidies"... etc. AND.. oh yeah.. how dare you even think about asking the wealthiest in America.. the same group that has seen their income grow when the rest of us were tanking.. we cannot possible ask them to pay even a penny more.

In 2013, those "rich" people will start paying 0.9% more in Medicare taxes, 2.8% more in capital gains/dividends taxes, and another 0.9% in excise taxes on those capital gains/dividends.

These have absolutely NOTHING to do with taxing pollution, which was what we were just discussing, OR my original statement regarding a moderate, slighly graduated income tax for general needsm AFTER removing all the many deductions, etc.

I was just correcting your lie about the rich not being asked to pay a penny more. We already asked (read: made) them pay more for the massive health care entitlement,

The WEALTHY don't pay the health care bill, its the middle ranks and those who are decently off, but not truly wealthy who bear the burden.

By sticking to this "no new taxes" bit, it is the wealthy who continue to get the pass... and the cuts somehow are the things average people depend upon... talk of cutting subsidies to companies and they got labled "tax increases".

but now we have to ask (read: make) them to pay more for pollution? Of course, this means nothing for debt reduction.

I said make the polluters pay for pollution. Wealth is irrelevant. You cause other people damage, you should pay for it! This is, also quie irrelevant to the Tea Party.

Its funny.. you talk about change, but keep insisting that things have to basically stay the same.. Isay we need a complete change.

I'm pretty sure requiring the government to stop spending more money than they take in WOULD be a radical change and nothing close to basically staying the same.

Problem is, your plan makes the average American pay for a largess gained by the wealthy. The reason they have gained so much wealth in the past few decades is in large part because they were not required to pay their share of the debt they incurred. In fact, our social security was used to give them even bigger breaks and bonuses.

[Woodruff]

I tend to disagree, simply because I believe the Tea Party would like to be viewed in that vein. As well, as someone who likes the ideals of the Tea Party, I don't want to see them become just another damn lobbying group.

Most Tea Party movement supports are already members of an existing political party. I am a registered Libertarian. My brother is a registered Republican (he likes big business more than me). My brother-in-law is a registered Democrat. I know I'm giving "personal life" examples which people don't like, but I'd be willing to bet 90% of the Tea Party movement members are registered with a particular political party.

I think you misunderstood me. Of course most of the Tea Party movement are registered with a particular political party...since clearly, they are politically-active individuals, I would honestly expect that a full 100% of Tea Party members are registered. My point isn't that they don't already belong to another party, but rather that they would LIKE to bring the Tea Party to the point where they could register as that instead of being required to Republican/Democrat/Independent.

Rather, I think it is the excuse that those who want to use no-compromise as a weapon. I don't blame the Tea Party, so much...but I do blame those who don't stand up against the idea of no-compromise, because it's foolish. But as we see in these fora so often, as long as someone holds the same ideological pattern, nobody wants to correct them. I wish people would get embarrassed enough about the people that are associated with their beliefs to start standing up to them, but apparently being viewed as "winning" is more important than anything else...and it's pathetic. That's why you never see Phatscotty get corrected by the conservatives around here and you never see PLAYER get corrected by the liberals around here.

I'm not sure about all this. I will say that I have argued/discussed with PhatScotty and Night Strike before, and I will do it again.

Frankly, it's exceedingly rare. I don't even remember seeing it when he's off on one of his dipshit points.

BBS and I argue/discuss all the time.

Well hell, I have no idea what BBS is (and that's a compliment). <grin>

When I don't "correct" them it's because they have been corrected already.

See, in my opinion, that's not acceptable. If they're saying something that you think is wrong, you should be speaking up. So they've had someone "from the opposition" correct them...that's not going to be particularly meaningful to them. It's far more meaningful when someone "of similar thought" corrects them. Frankly, I don't know how some of the people in these fora aren't thoroughly embarrassed to even be loosely associated politics-wise with some others here.

[Woodruff]

I say we have been compromising the spenders way for far too long. Every single year spending goes up and gov't grows. Yet the problems are worse than ever...hmmm When have the spenders ever compromised?

Says the guy who wants to spend more money by drug testing welfare recipients.

[Woodruff]

What Tea Party members espouse the idea that they want to lower corporate taxes?

They refuse to raise taxes.... including the massive breaks that the wealthy and corporations have gotten in the past.

That's not anywhere near the same thing.

[john9blue]

I say we have been compromising the spenders way for far too long. Every single year spending goes up and gov't grows. Yet the problems are worse than ever...hmmm When have the spenders ever compromised?

Says the guy who wants to spend more money by drug testing welfare recipients.

i know you think scotty and i are butt buddies, but this is wrong; if there were enough drug users denied welfare, then the government would actually be reducing expenditures.

[Woodruff]

What are NOT being cut? corporate subsidies.

Corporations buy products and create jobs, preschoolers do not.

Night Strike, I have to tell you...people that prefer to cut educational programs such as preschool education are people that honestly and truly are not at all concerned about the future of our country.

[Woodruff]

(1) Why do we have people who are not willing to "work things out?" The answer, from my point of view, is that the people that are elected to Congress have not and continue to not represent the people that voted for them. The people elected to Congress do not do what their constituents want or what is best for their constituents; rather, the people elected to Congress do what their biggest donors want them to do. Therefore, when 90% of Congress is not representing their constituents, but is instead continuing to spend money, making small cuts instead of large ones, the constituents get angry. Instead of thinking about this as a Republican vs. Democrat thing (which is what you're doing), think of it as a constituent vs. government thing, which is what it is. When your elected officials stop listening to you, why should you "work things out" with them? Why should you continue to bend over when your representatives no longer represent you?

A-freaking-men.

would you have replied that way if i had said that instead of greek?

You mean if you'd made a rational, even-handed response instead of an idiotic, pandering one? Sure I would have.

[Woodruff]

I say we have been compromising the spenders way for far too long. Every single year spending goes up and gov't grows. Yet the problems are worse than ever...hmmm When have the spenders ever compromised?

Says the guy who wants to spend more money by drug testing welfare recipients.

i know you think scotty and i are butt buddies, but this is wrong; if there were enough drug users denied welfare, then the government would actually be reducing expenditures.

THE MATH DOESN'T WORK. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS? THE MATH CANNOT WORK.

[PLAYER57832]

What Tea Party members espouse the idea that they want to lower corporate taxes?

They refuse to raise taxes.... including the massive breaks that the wealthy and corporations have gotten in the past.

That's not anywhere near the same thing.

True, but my point was that they want to keep taxes on the wealthy and corporations artificially low.

[john9blue]

You mean if you'd made a rational, even-handed response instead of an idiotic, pandering one? Sure I would have.

THE MATH DOESN'T WORK. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS? THE MATH CANNOT WORK.

this is THE best double post i have ever seen. hands fucking down. LOL

[PLAYER57832]

You mean if you'd made a rational, even-handed response instead of an idiotic, pandering one? Sure I would have.

THE MATH DOESN'T WORK. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS? THE MATH CANNOT WORK.

this is THE best double post i have ever seen. hands fucking down. LOL

Try looking at the data, then. You criticize, but make it quite clear you don't get that he is correct.

[Woodruff]

You mean if you'd made a rational, even-handed response instead of an idiotic, pandering one? Sure I would have.

THE MATH DOESN'T WORK. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS? THE MATH CANNOT WORK.

this is THE best double post i have ever seen. hands fucking down. LOL

See, this is just like your claim that laughing at an idiot's idiotic statements isn't a rational response. After explaining it 15 times, this is what you're going to get.

But I'm glad you spend so much time discussing the issues rather than making personal attacks, though. You've got quite a ratio of that going, certainly. It may actually be at 100%...or wait, the opposite perhaps.

[john9blue]

You mean if you'd made a rational, even-handed response instead of an idiotic, pandering one? Sure I would have.

THE MATH DOESN'T WORK. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS? THE MATH CANNOT WORK.

this is THE best double post i have ever seen. hands fucking down. LOL

See, this is just like your claim that laughing at an idiot's idiotic statements isn't a rational response. After explaining it 15 times, this is what you're going to get.

But I'm glad you spend so much time discussing the issues rather than making personal attacks, though. You've got quite a ratio of that going, certainly. It may actually be at 100%...or wait, the opposite perhaps.

well okay. i just thought it was funny.

i disagree that the math "cannot work". maybe with our government's current level of efficiency it would be difficult, but there are enough variables at work (size of the welfare program, frequency of testing, threshold for welfare disqualification, length of disqualification, cost of drug testing) that saying it can "never work" is a hasty generalization.

[Woodruff]

You mean if you'd made a rational, even-handed response instead of an idiotic, pandering one? Sure I would have.

THE MATH DOESN'T WORK. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS? THE MATH CANNOT WORK.

this is THE best double post i have ever seen. hands fucking down. LOL

See, this is just like your claim that laughing at an idiot's idiotic statements isn't a rational response. After explaining it 15 times, this is what you're going to get.

But I'm glad you spend so much time discussing the issues rather than making personal attacks, though. You've got quite a ratio of that going, certainly. It may actually be at 100%...or wait, the opposite perhaps.

well okay. i just thought it was funny.

i disagree that the math "cannot work". maybe with our government's current level of efficiency it would be difficult, but there are enough variables at work (size of the welfare program, frequency of testing, threshold for welfare disqualification, length of disqualification, cost of drug testing) that saying it can "never work" is a hasty generalization.

It has nothing at all to do with government inefficiency. The test costs $55. A typical Florida welfare recipient recieves, as I understand things, about $300. A Florida-based study in 2001 determined that welfare recipients actually use drugs less than the general population, which rounds out at about 6% of the general population. Other states have looked at having the same sort of program and have abandoned the idea because it was not going to be cost-effective.

In a separate Governor-raking-in-the-money program, Governor Scott wants to test all state government employees quarterly. Governor Scott just happens to have a SIGNIFICANT financial interest in the company that will be conducting both of these sets of tests. Apparently, the cash grab by the Governor is of no concern.

[BigBallinStalin]

You mean if you'd made a rational, even-handed response instead of an idiotic, pandering one? Sure I would have.

THE MATH DOESN'T WORK. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS? THE MATH CANNOT WORK.

this is THE best double post i have ever seen. hands fucking down. LOL

See, this is just like your claim that laughing at an idiot's idiotic statements isn't a rational response. After explaining it 15 times, this is what you're going to get.

But I'm glad you spend so much time discussing the issues rather than making personal attacks, though. You've got quite a ratio of that going, certainly. It may actually be at 100%...or wait, the opposite perhaps.

well okay. i just thought it was funny.

i disagree that the math "cannot work". maybe with our government's current level of efficiency it would be difficult, but there are enough variables at work (size of the welfare program, frequency of testing, threshold for welfare disqualification, length of disqualification, cost of drug testing) that saying it can "never work" is a hasty generalization.

It has nothing at all to do with government inefficiency. The test costs $55. A typical Florida welfare recipient recieves, as I understand things, about $300. A Florida-based study in 2001 determined that welfare recipients actually use drugs less than the general population, which rounds out at about 6% of the general population. Other states have looked at having the same sort of program and have abandoned the idea because it was not going to be cost-effective.

In a separate Governor-raking-in-the-money program, Governor Scott wants to test all state government employees quarterly. Governor Scott just happens to have a SIGNIFICANT financial interest in the company that will be conducting both of these sets of tests. Apparently, the cash grab by the Governor is of no concern.

[and in response to the above...]

Governor Scott: "This is not the cash grab that you are looking for."

Pro-drug-testing fanatics: "Oh, gee, I guess testing welfare recipients does make sense!"

[BigBallinStalin]

Most people in the Tea Party movement would indicate to you that government spending, especially the spending that has occurred in the last 10 years, is a "most extreme situation." I have no problem with compromise. I do have a problem with compromise in this instance because, as I indicated in my response to Player above, the debt ceiling was created to control spending; it has not controlled spending because it is raised every year.

So, do people expect me to believe that if Congress compromises and raises the debt ceiling without any significant cuts in spending that there will be significant cuts in the future?

Is this issue not going to raise its ugly head every year until someone actually makes significant cuts to spending?

Oh, get real, TGD! The government just needs more oversight, and we'll keep assuming that the politicians will work for the social good in order to cut costs and be responsible spenders! It's that simple! C'mon, TGD! Climb aboard my ideal boat towards the ideal government, where we can rant and rave about anything that we like while pretending that it will somehow all work out!

Never mind those unseen costs! Never mind political incentives! Never mind the lobbyists! Our journey to la-la land is the place to be! We don't need to bother with real world incentives and real-world individuals! We can be like Plato and *POOP!* the ideal has become the real from the pure power of our minds!

I'm not sure about all this. I will say that I have argued/discussed with PhatScotty and Night Strike before, and I will do it again. BBS and I argue/discuss all the time. When I don't "correct" them it's because they have been corrected already. Further, as Player indicated above, PhatScotty and I don't have the same beliefs with respect to a lot of different things. We just have more similar beliefs than I do with Player or than PhatScotty does with Democrats (as an example).

That's ridiculous! We never argue about anything, and I will not stand for these lies!

[john9blue]

well okay. i just thought it was funny.

i disagree that the math "cannot work". maybe with our government's current level of efficiency it would be difficult, but there are enough variables at work (size of the welfare program, frequency of testing, threshold for welfare disqualification, length of disqualification, cost of drug testing) that saying it can "never work" is a hasty generalization.

It has nothing at all to do with government inefficiency. The test costs $55. A typical Florida welfare recipient recieves, as I understand things, about $300. A Florida-based study in 2001 determined that welfare recipients actually use drugs less than the general population, which rounds out at about 6% of the general population. Other states have looked at having the same sort of program and have abandoned the idea because it was not going to be cost-effective.

In a separate Governor-raking-in-the-money program, Governor Scott wants to test all state government employees quarterly. Governor Scott just happens to have a SIGNIFICANT financial interest in the company that will be conducting both of these sets of tests. Apparently, the cash grab by the Governor is of no concern.

if there have been studies done that show it can't be done without losing money, then you have a point, but do you know where i can find these studies? i don't have an opinion on drug testing welfare recipients, i was just correcting what i felt to be a logical error.

oh and i'm from illinois, i know all about corrupt governors...

[Woodruff]

well okay. i just thought it was funny.

i disagree that the math "cannot work". maybe with our government's current level of efficiency it would be difficult, but there are enough variables at work (size of the welfare program, frequency of testing, threshold for welfare disqualification, length of disqualification, cost of drug testing) that saying it can "never work" is a hasty generalization.

It has nothing at all to do with government inefficiency. The test costs $55. A typical Florida welfare recipient recieves, as I understand things, about $300. A Florida-based study in 2001 determined that welfare recipients actually use drugs less than the general population, which rounds out at about 6% of the general population. Other states have looked at having the same sort of program and have abandoned the idea because it was not going to be cost-effective.

In a separate Governor-raking-in-the-money program, Governor Scott wants to test all state government employees quarterly. Governor Scott just happens to have a SIGNIFICANT financial interest in the company that will be conducting both of these sets of tests. Apparently, the cash grab by the Governor is of no concern.

if there have been studies done that show it can't be done without losing money, then you have a point, but do you know where i can find these studies? i don't have an opinion on drug testing welfare recipients, i was just correcting what i felt to be a logical error.

Did you look at the math I provided above?

I will have to re-search to find the studies. However, if you'd like to assist in that search, I do remember a couple of the states...I remember that New York and Maryland were involved, as were some individual counties in Oregon. I'll see what I can find.

At any rate, Arizona is the only state currently testing TANF recipients (though Missouri and Florida are also planning to do so, TANF recipients being exactly who those two states are planning to test), and they have had one positive test result since its program began in 2009. One.

[Baron Von PWN]

I was going to rage about the uselessness of "tea partier'" as a label but I covered that in another thread. TL DR anyone can claim to be a tea partier and be endorsed/disowned by a small army of other tea partiers.

[PLAYER57832]

if there have been studies done that show it can't be done without losing money, then you have a point, but do you know where i can find these studies? i don't have an opinion on drug testing welfare recipients, i was just correcting what i felt to be a logical error.

oh and i'm from illinois, i know all about corrupt governors...

In this case, it does not take a study. It takes looking at the basic math, data provided.

Roughly 3% of people on welfare are on drugs. Each test costs $55.
(data for that is in that thread). Then you have administration costs, etc. There ARE more effective ways to catch drug users that will cost far less. (studies were provided, examples of other methods).

Also, this test is assessed not just for those who are on welfare, but when someone applies. Those who qualify for welfare do get the money refunded, but to ask people in desperate straights to come up with a $55 application fee is pretty harsh.

Just to name a few points...

[PLAYER57832]

[
if there have been studies done that show it can't be done without losing money, then you have a point, but do you know where i can find these studies? i don't have an opinion on drug testing welfare recipients, i was just correcting what i felt to be a logical error.

oh and i'm from illinois, i know all about corrupt governors...

Actually I cited 6% which is a high estimate, based on some studies I did cite. The 6% is a maximum.. other figures show its more like 3% for Florida. AND, most of those are not heavy drug users. The testing itself is far more likely to catch even casual marihuana users more readily than heavy hard drug users becuase marihuana stays in the blood stream a lot longer than most hard drugs.

ALL of those facts and more are cited in the drug/welfare thread.

[thegreekdog]

I tend to disagree, simply because I believe the Tea Party would like to be viewed in that vein. As well, as someone who likes the ideals of the Tea Party, I don't want to see them become just another damn lobbying group.

Most Tea Party movement supports are already members of an existing political party. I am a registered Libertarian. My brother is a registered Republican (he likes big business more than me). My brother-in-law is a registered Democrat. I know I'm giving "personal life" examples which people don't like, but I'd be willing to bet 90% of the Tea Party movement members are registered with a particular political party.

I think you misunderstood me. Of course most of the Tea Party movement are registered with a particular political party...since clearly, they are politically-active individuals, I would honestly expect that a full 100% of Tea Party members are registered. My point isn't that they don't already belong to another party, but rather that they would LIKE to bring the Tea Party to the point where they could register as that instead of being required to Republican/Democrat/Independent.

You may be right. I honestly don't know. Frankly, I've spent my Tea Party time trying to get people to understand Libertarianism and I want those people to join the Libertarian Party.

Rather, I think it is the excuse that those who want to use no-compromise as a weapon. I don't blame the Tea Party, so much...but I do blame those who don't stand up against the idea of no-compromise, because it's foolish. But as we see in these fora so often, as long as someone holds the same ideological pattern, nobody wants to correct them. I wish people would get embarrassed enough about the people that are associated with their beliefs to start standing up to them, but apparently being viewed as "winning" is more important than anything else...and it's pathetic. That's why you never see Phatscotty get corrected by the conservatives around here and you never see PLAYER get corrected by the liberals around here.

I'm not sure about all this. I will say that I have argued/discussed with PhatScotty and Night Strike before, and I will do it again.

Frankly, it's exceedingly rare. I don't even remember seeing it when he's off on one of his dipshit points.

Well, just recalling from memory... I have disagreed with both of them publicly on a variety of social issues (drugs and abortion to name two). I have disagreed with both of them publicly on immigration. I've disagreed with both of them publicly on the whole "test people for drugs who are on welfare" thing. I've disagreed with NS most recently on defense spending. It's exceedingly rare because our ideas do overlap to some extent.

When I don't "correct" them it's because they have been corrected already.

See, in my opinion, that's not acceptable. If they're saying something that you think is wrong, you should be speaking up. So they've had someone "from the opposition" correct them...that's not going to be particularly meaningful to them. It's far more meaningful when someone "of similar thought" corrects them. Frankly, I don't know how some of the people in these fora aren't thoroughly embarrassed to even be loosely associated politics-wise with some others here.

Oh, I'm embarrassed all the time. I constantly long for Doc Brown and luns to be more active. But I need to act moderatingly (or whatever) and I don't want to bust Phatscotty's balls for posting picture of Abraham Lincoln or quotes from John Adams or bust Night Strike's balls for his overuse of the eyeroll smilie. I think I've made it clear in many threads the hyporcisy of the mainstream Republican, who wants the government out of his wallet and in his bedroom (and the reverse is true as well for mainstream Democrats). On fiscal issues, I tend to agree with the Night Strikes and Phatscottys; on social issues we don't agree at all (although I think you'd be surprised as to what Phatscotty sees as government intervention from a social perspective).

[PLAYER57832]

I was going to rage about the uselessness of "tea partier'" as a label but I covered that in another thread. TL DR anyone can claim to be a tea partier and be endorsed/disowned by a small army of other tea partiers.

I have been making that point for some time... I keep getting told that I just don't understand the movement.

[thegreekdog]

I was going to rage about the uselessness of "tea partier'" as a label but I covered that in another thread. TL DR anyone can claim to be a tea partier and be endorsed/disowned by a small army of other tea partiers.

I have been making that point for some time... I keep getting told that I just don't understand the movement.

As I indicated before, there are two key elements to the Tea Party movement that cuts across everything: (1) Spend less; (2) Tax less.

[BigBallinStalin]

I tend to disagree, simply because I believe the Tea Party would like to be viewed in that vein. As well, as someone who likes the ideals of the Tea Party, I don't want to see them become just another damn lobbying group.

Most Tea Party movement supports are already members of an existing political party. I am a registered Libertarian. My brother is a registered Republican (he likes big business more than me). My brother-in-law is a registered Democrat. I know I'm giving "personal life" examples which people don't like, but I'd be willing to bet 90% of the Tea Party movement members are registered with a particular political party.

I think you misunderstood me. Of course most of the Tea Party movement are registered with a particular political party...since clearly, they are politically-active individuals, I would honestly expect that a full 100% of Tea Party members are registered. My point isn't that they don't already belong to another party, but rather that they would LIKE to bring the Tea Party to the point where they could register as that instead of being required to Republican/Democrat/Independent.

You may be right. I honestly don't know. Frankly, I've spent my Tea Party time trying to get people to understand Libertarianism and I want those people to join the Libertarian Party.

Rather, I think it is the excuse that those who want to use no-compromise as a weapon. I don't blame the Tea Party, so much...but I do blame those who don't stand up against the idea of no-compromise, because it's foolish. But as we see in these fora so often, as long as someone holds the same ideological pattern, nobody wants to correct them. I wish people would get embarrassed enough about the people that are associated with their beliefs to start standing up to them, but apparently being viewed as "winning" is more important than anything else...and it's pathetic. That's why you never see Phatscotty get corrected by the conservatives around here and you never see PLAYER get corrected by the liberals around here.

I'm not sure about all this. I will say that I have argued/discussed with PhatScotty and Night Strike before, and I will do it again.

Frankly, it's exceedingly rare. I don't even remember seeing it when he's off on one of his dipshit points.

Well, just recalling from memory... I have disagreed with both of them publicly on a variety of social issues (drugs and abortion to name two). I have disagreed with both of them publicly on immigration. I've disagreed with both of them publicly on the whole "test people for drugs who are on welfare" thing. I've disagreed with NS most recently on defense spending. It's exceedingly rare because our ideas do overlap to some extent.

When I don't "correct" them it's because they have been corrected already.

See, in my opinion, that's not acceptable. If they're saying something that you think is wrong, you should be speaking up. So they've had someone "from the opposition" correct them...that's not going to be particularly meaningful to them. It's far more meaningful when someone "of similar thought" corrects them. Frankly, I don't know how some of the people in these fora aren't thoroughly embarrassed to even be loosely associated politics-wise with some others here.

Oh, I'm embarrassed all the time. I constantly long for Doc Brown and luns to be more active. But I need to act moderatingly (or whatever) and I don't want to bust Phatscotty's balls for posting picture of Abraham Lincoln or quotes from John Adams or bust Night Strike's balls for his overuse of the eyeroll smilie. I think I've made it clear in many threads the hyporcisy of the mainstream Republican, who wants the government out of his wallet and in his bedroom (and the reverse is true as well for mainstream Democrats). On fiscal issues, I tend to agree with the Night Strikes and Phatscottys; on social issues we don't agree at all (although I think you'd be surprised as to what Phatscotty sees as government intervention from a social perspective).

Let me tell you something! It's the Liberals who correct their own MUCH LESS than the conservatives! They come in here with their Obama signs and hit their knees on the concrete fora floor whenever his name is mentioned, but they have no regard for the rising deficit nor his ineffective policies and draconian measures on our freedom and liberty and all sorts of the things and stuff!! [/partisan-play]