Tea Party Democrats

[PLAYER57832]

Anyway, the only difference, per Tea Party rhetoric, between the federal government and state governments is that states are smaller and so easier to be bullied to the will of the strongest.

Actually, that's what you say, not what Tea Party members say. Do you believe the people in Nebraska have different beliefs than those in Massachusetts? What about Texas vs. California? Why should people be forced to only have these one-size-fits-all policies of the federal government when our system was created to have each state enact policies that are the most beneficial to their state? It's much easier to get things changed in a state government than it is in a federal government, which is why our system of federalism relies on having all of these state governments. If you want low tax rates, move to a state that has them. If you want massive government handouts, move to a state that has them. Stop allowing the federal government to force whatever they want on the states when it's unconstitutional for them to do so.

Like I said... cover for "lets' all flee to the lowest tax state".

Except... that doesn't truly promote business. And I DID provide a link referencing that.. but it was even mentioned at one point by greekdog.

No, PLAYER. Most economists would agree that marginal increases or decreases in tax rates don't have a significant affect on businesses (when discussing varying State taxes within the US, which don't vary that much from one another). But if you compare a state with 10% tax to a state with 70% tax, then the difference is clear on the positive effects that lower taxes have on promoting business.

Since NOBODY is talking about a 50% difference in your tax rate, your point is irrelevant.

It can't be denied that Delaware successfully promoted more business within its borders with its near 0% business tax. .

What I deny is that it truly benefitted the country in the long run. For that marginal benefit, the rest of us effectively lost any control over credit card interest rates, exactly because this was decided by an individual state and not the entire country.

Also, it did not promote as much business as the tech boom did for Califorania. And while California is currently in trouble, its not because their taxes were too high. It is STILL a favorable place to do business. Most people would rather live in the Bay Area, Santa Barbara, even San Diego rather than Delaware.

[BigBallinStalin]

Anyway, the only difference, per Tea Party rhetoric, between the federal government and state governments is that states are smaller and so easier to be bullied to the will of the strongest.

Actually, that's what you say, not what Tea Party members say. Do you believe the people in Nebraska have different beliefs than those in Massachusetts? What about Texas vs. California? Why should people be forced to only have these one-size-fits-all policies of the federal government when our system was created to have each state enact policies that are the most beneficial to their state? It's much easier to get things changed in a state government than it is in a federal government, which is why our system of federalism relies on having all of these state governments. If you want low tax rates, move to a state that has them. If you want massive government handouts, move to a state that has them. Stop allowing the federal government to force whatever they want on the states when it's unconstitutional for them to do so.

Like I said... cover for "lets' all flee to the lowest tax state".

Except... that doesn't truly promote business. And I DID provide a link referencing that.. but it was even mentioned at one point by greekdog.

No, PLAYER. Most economists would agree that marginal increases or decreases in tax rates don't have a significant affect on businesses (when discussing varying State taxes within the US, which don't vary that much from one another). But if you compare a state with 10% tax to a state with 70% tax, then the difference is clear on the positive effects that lower taxes have on promoting business.

Since NOBODY is talking about a 50% difference in your tax rate, your point is irrelevant.

There's no need to kick and scream. Delaware's taxes are included within the study, which you use to say that "taxes don't truly promote business," yet taxes do promote business as is evident with Delaware's situation, and even though Delaware's taxes don't vary as much as my example's 60%, still Delaware's small difference matters.

I decided to spend the time writing my previous reply, because it's important for you to understand how certain studies work, and how you can accurately apply their conclusions into other debates.

Besides, your point still doesn't invalidate NS's--namely,

1) "It's much easier to get things changed in a state government than it is in a federal government, which is why our system of federalism relies on having all of these state governments."

For example, "if you want low tax rates, move to a state that has them. If you want massive government handouts, move to a state that has them. Stop allowing the federal government to force whatever they want on the states when it's unconstitutional for them to do so."

Essentially, he's advocating for a more "vote with your feet" policy. May the best public policies be the most practical, I guess. A federal government's policies instituted over every State denies that possibility.

It can't be denied that Delaware successfully promoted more business within its borders with its near 0% business tax. .

What I deny is that it truly benefitted the country in the long run. For that marginal benefit, the rest of us effectively lost any control over credit card interest rates, exactly because this was decided by an individual state and not the entire country.

Not "anyone's," but rather the federal government's loss of control. But if you want to understand why credit card interest rates are the way they are, then you have to consider the Federal Reserve's influence on the interest rates of loans and how that most likely affects credit card interest rates.

Also, it did not promote as much business as the tech boom did for Califorania. And while California is currently in trouble, its not because their taxes were too high. It is STILL a favorable place to do business. Most people would rather live in the Bay Area, Santa Barbara, even San Diego rather than Delaware.

It is and it isn't. Taxes matter, and so do job opportunities, and so do many other factors... so what's your point?

[BigBallinStalin]

"What I deny is that it truly benefitted the country in the long run. "

Well, there are consequences with one's public policies and the means to pay for such goods.

[Woodruff]

Anyway, the only difference, per Tea Party rhetoric, between the federal government and state governments is that states are smaller and so easier to be bullied to the will of the strongest.

Actually, that's what you say, not what Tea Party members say. Do you believe the people in Nebraska have different beliefs than those in Massachusetts? What about Texas vs. California? Why should people be forced to only have these one-size-fits-all policies of the federal government when our system was created to have each state enact policies that are the most beneficial to their state? It's much easier to get things changed in a state government than it is in a federal government, which is why our system of federalism relies on having all of these state governments. If you want low tax rates, move to a state that has them. If you want massive government handouts, move to a state that has them. Stop allowing the federal government to force whatever they want on the states when it's unconstitutional for them to do so.

I agree with this, by and large. However, there are SOME things that the Federal Government must take stands on, even in areas such as education. There are SOME things in education that certain states have tried to enact that would absolutely cause very serious consequences for our nation as a whole. I'm not saying that education shouldn't largely be local...I definitely feel that it should be. But some things cannot be allowed to happen.

[Phatscotty]

Here is a clip of the Tea Party joining with Liberals, and Kucinich announcing his alliance with the Tea Party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwwMzuF3wDg

[john9blue]

states can be as corrupt as they damn well please, as long as i'm allowed to move 2 hours away into another one. that's the whole point of states' rights; it gives people choices. it's democracy in geographical form.

[Woodruff]

states can be as corrupt as they damn well please, as long as i'm allowed to move 2 hours away into another one. that's the whole point of states' rights; it gives people choices. it's democracy in geographical form.

Therein lies a part of the problem...those states do not reside in a vacuum. By subverting education in the name of (just to name one primary example) religion, seriously hampers our abilities as a nation. We waste minds that have the potential to be outstanding thinkers who will not learn how to use the scientific method, who will not learn how to think objectively and to view situations from varying perspectives. We MASSIVELY waste the resources of our nations' minds by allowing certain educational philosophies to prevail. As I said previously, I am generally in favor of the Federal Government getting out of the education business...with some few exceptions such as ensuring that these things cannot happen.

[Baron Von PWN]

states can be as corrupt as they damn well please, as long as i'm allowed to move 2 hours away into another one. that's the whole point of states' rights; it gives people choices. it's democracy in geographical form.

That assumes you have the financial ability to move.

[PLAYER57832]

Like I said... cover for "lets' all flee to the lowest tax state".

Except... that doesn't truly promote business. And I DID provide a link referencing that.. but it was even mentioned at one point by greekdog.

No, PLAYER. Most economists would agree that marginal increases or decreases in tax rates don't have a significant affect on businesses (when discussing varying State taxes within the US, which don't vary that much from one another). But if you compare a state with 10% tax to a state with 70% tax, then the difference is clear on the positive effects that lower taxes have on promoting business.

Since NOBODY is talking about a 50% difference in your tax rate, your point is irrelevant.

There's no need to kick and scream. Delaware's taxes are included within the study, which you use to say that "taxes don't truly promote business," yet taxes do promote business as is evident with Delaware's situation, and even though Delaware's taxes don't vary as much as my example's 60%, still Delaware's small difference matters.

I decided to spend the time writing my previous reply, because it's important for you to understand how certain studies work, and how you can accurately apply their conclusions into other debates.

Besides, your point still doesn't invalidate NS's--namely,

1) "It's much easier to get things changed in a state government than it is in a federal government, which is why our system of federalism relies on having all of these state governments."

For example, "if you want low tax rates, move to a state that has them. If you want massive government handouts, move to a state that has them. Stop allowing the federal government to force whatever they want on the states when it's unconstitutional for them to do so."

Essentially, he's advocating for a more "vote with your feet" policy. May the best public policies be the most practical, I guess. A federal government's policies instituted over every State denies that possibility.

This is only "good" if you want the changes to happen. The point of our government is that it takes a long time to change things at the federal level.

Some things are too important to be subject to the whims of the "cause du jour". This is particularly true when the benefits to a few are pretty immediate, short term and the harm to many is long term. That is precisely the situation in most of the debates today. Cutting social security, Medicaid, education will cause EXTREME harm down the road. But, keeping taxes low cause immediate benefit to some very powerful people. That equation doesn't change at the state level, in fact it is compounded..... as we can see in PA, elsewhere.

It can't be denied that Delaware successfully promoted more business within its borders with its near 0% business tax. .

What I deny is that it truly benefitted the country in the long run. For that marginal benefit, the rest of us effectively lost any control over credit card interest rates, exactly because this was decided by an individual state and not the entire country.

Not "anyone's," but rather the federal government's loss of control. But if you want to understand why credit card interest rates are the way they are, then you have to consider the Federal Reserve's influence on the interest rates of loans and how that most likely affects credit card interest rates.[/quote]BULL. The reason is that banks are in the business of making profits and will whenever allowed to do so. The federal government absolutely dropped the ball.. becuase there has been so much "reduce size of the government" pressure for the past 30 years. That pressure has been around for almost forever, but in the last 30 years, it has gotten a very strong voice.

"]

Also, it did not promote as much business as the tech boom did for Califorania. And while California is currently in trouble, its not because their taxes were too high. It is STILL a favorable place to do business. Most people would rather live in the Bay Area, Santa Barbara, even San Diego rather than Delaware.

It is and it isn't. Taxes matter, and so do job opportunities, and so do many other factors... so what's your point?

My point is that we need to look at overall impacts. Delaware might have benefitted to some extent, but did the country as a whole? NO. Economic policies have to be broad (to the extent we need them) because we are not independent economies. In your scenario, one state might gain, but it is at the expense of other states. Further, those gains are temporary because the other states will be forced to follow. BUT... that is where comparing California really comes in. California has been ahead for many, many years precisely because they did invest in things like education. However, becuase other states took different routes, California people and businesses also wound up not paying for the benefits they recieved. That.. getting things you don't pay for, is always a problem. However, to claim that the problem is "too many benefits" ignores the good that came from all those programs. It ignores why they were established and the real positive impacts they had on the economy. Just as an example, I got an exemplary college education for less than it would cost me to take one class through Penn State. Now, I have made a lot of errors career-wise, but that part was not one of them. (I could have .. likely should have.. chosen any career, the costs would have been the same).

Corbett is doing the exact opposite of what he should. Many of the recent gains PA has experienced are attributable to investments in education. That Penn state is rated so very highly has had an absolute benefit to our entire area. HOWEVER, in come Marcellus shale and skews it all. Why? Because they are, by law, excused from paying for almost all of the impacts they cause to us. (the EPA has no power over these operations). The natural gas companies were able to infuse HUGE amounts of money, to exert a lot of influence all over the state. But note.. the arguments were not about marcellus shale. At the time of the elections, few people knew much at all about it. Only after did the REAL reasons for all the investment (the fact that they had invested in so many people's campaigns) come out. By rights, we should have been able to rely upon the EPA to defend us, to at least monitor impacts. However, under Bush, with all the "no more regulations, etc." pressure, this "little rule" was slipped in saying that the EPA has no say over this industry. NONE.

Corbett's campaign, the campaigns of most elected this past season said almost nothing about that. Instead, they talked about high taxes and a few right wing issues..ranging from erroneous claims about Obama taking folk's hunting rifles to abortion and homosexuality to the terrorism and immigration. Tot he extent shale was brought up, it was about low taxes = industry.

THAT is what the Tea Party rhetoric really does and has done.

The bottom line is that you want to ignore the impacts of these decision on everyday people over the long term.

[PLAYER57832]

Like I said... cover for "lets' all flee to the lowest tax state".

Except... that doesn't truly promote business. And I DID provide a link referencing that.. but it was even mentioned at one point by greekdog.

No, PLAYER. Most economists would agree that marginal increases or decreases in tax rates don't have a significant affect on businesses (when discussing varying State taxes within the US, which don't vary that much from one another). But if you compare a state with 10% tax to a state with 70% tax, then the difference is clear on the positive effects that lower taxes have on promoting business.

Since NOBODY is talking about a 50% difference in your tax rate, your point is irrelevant.

There's no need to kick and scream. Delaware's taxes are included within the study, which you use to say that "taxes don't truly promote business," yet taxes do promote business as is evident with Delaware's situation, and even though Delaware's taxes don't vary as much as my example's 60%, still Delaware's small difference matters.

I decided to spend the time writing my previous reply, because it's important for you to understand how certain studies work, and how you can accurately apply their conclusions into other debates.

Besides, your point still doesn't invalidate NS's--namely,

1) "It's much easier to get things changed in a state government than it is in a federal government, which is why our system of federalism relies on having all of these state governments."

For example, "if you want low tax rates, move to a state that has them. If you want massive government handouts, move to a state that has them. Stop allowing the federal government to force whatever they want on the states when it's unconstitutional for them to do so."

Essentially, he's advocating for a more "vote with your feet" policy. May the best public policies be the most practical, I guess. A federal government's policies instituted over every State denies that possibility.

This is only "good" if you want the changes to happen. The point of our government is that it takes a long time to change things at the federal level.

Some things are too important to be subject to the whims of the "cause du jour". This is particularly true when the benefits to a few are pretty immediate, short term and the harm to many is long term. That is precisely the situation in most of the debates today. Cutting social security, Medicaid, education will cause EXTREME harm down the road. But, keeping taxes low cause immediate benefit to some very powerful people. That equation doesn't change at the state level, in fact it is compounded..... as we can see in PA, elsewhere.

It can't be denied that Delaware successfully promoted more business within its borders with its near 0% business tax. .

What I deny is that it truly benefitted the country in the long run. For that marginal benefit, the rest of us effectively lost any control over credit card interest rates, exactly because this was decided by an individual state and not the entire country.

Not "anyone's," but rather the federal government's loss of control. But if you want to understand why credit card interest rates are the way they are, then you have to consider the Federal Reserve's influence on the interest rates of loans and how that most likely affects credit card interest rates.[/quote]BULL. The reason is that banks are in the business of making profits and will whenever allowed to do so. The federal government absolutely dropped the ball.. becuase there has been so much "reduce size of the government" pressure for the past 30 years. That pressure has been around for almost forever, but in the last 30 years, it has gotten a very strong voice.

"]

Also, it did not promote as much business as the tech boom did for Califorania. And while California is currently in trouble, its not because their taxes were too high. It is STILL a favorable place to do business. Most people would rather live in the Bay Area, Santa Barbara, even San Diego rather than Delaware.

It is and it isn't. Taxes matter, and so do job opportunities, and so do many other factors... so what's your point?

My point is that we need to look at overall impacts. Delaware might have benefitted to some extent, but did the country as a whole? NO. Economic policies have to be broad (to the extent we need them) because we are not independent economies. In your scenario, one state might gain, but it is at the expense of other states. Further, those gains are temporary because the other states will be forced to follow. BUT... that is where comparing California really comes in. California has been ahead for many, many years precisely because they did invest in things like education. However, becuase other states took different routes, California people and businesses also wound up not paying for the benefits they recieved. That.. getting things you don't pay for, is always a problem. However, to claim that the problem is "too many benefits" ignores the good that came from all those programs. It ignores why they were established and the real positive impacts they had on the economy. Just as an example, I got an exemplary college education for less than it would cost me to take one class through Penn State. Now, I have made a lot of errors career-wise, but that part was not one of them. (I could have .. likely should have.. chosen any career, the costs would have been the same).

Corbett is doing the exact opposite of what he should. Many of the recent gains PA has experienced are attributable to investments in education. That Penn state is rated so very highly has had an absolute benefit to our entire area. HOWEVER, in come Marcellus shale and skews it all. Why? Because they are, by law, excused from paying for almost all of the impacts they cause to us. (the EPA has no power over these operations). The natural gas companies were able to infuse HUGE amounts of money, to exert a lot of influence all over the state. But note.. the arguments were not about marcellus shale. At the time of the elections, few people knew much at all about it. Only after did the REAL reasons for all the investment (the fact that they had invested in so many people's campaigns) come out. By rights, we should have been able to rely upon the EPA to defend us, to at least monitor impacts. However, under Bush, with all the "no more regulations, etc." pressure, this "little rule" was slipped in saying that the EPA has no say over this industry. NONE.

Corbett's campaign, the campaigns of most elected this past season said almost nothing about that. Instead, they talked about high taxes and a few right wing issues..ranging from erroneous claims about Obama taking folk's hunting rifles to abortion and homosexuality to the terrorism and immigration. Tot he extent shale was brought up, it was about low taxes = industry.

THAT is what the Tea Party rhetoric does. And... that chameleon-like ability happens because there is no set platform. As long as someone claims to be for lowering taxes.. nothing else matters. BUT... the details do matter. As you all jokingly noted in another thread, you can lower taxes quite well by simply nationalizing everything. You can also cut government by just eliminating each and every regulatory agency out there.
NOW see why I say it is a dangerous movement? Because it is no real movement. It is just a theme that people can use however they wish.. and people very much do.

[Night Strike]

My point is that we need to look at overall impacts. Delaware might have benefitted to some extent, but did the country as a whole? NO. Economic policies have to be broad (to the extent we need them) because we are not independent economies. In your scenario, one state might gain, but it is at the expense of other states. Further, those gains are temporary because the other states will be forced to follow. BUT... that is where comparing California really comes in. California has been ahead for many, many years precisely because they did invest in things like education. However, becuase other states took different routes, California people and businesses also wound up not paying for the benefits they recieved. That.. getting things you don't pay for, is always a problem. However, to claim that the problem is "too many benefits" ignores the good that came from all those programs. It ignores why they were established and the real positive impacts they had on the economy. Just as an example, I got an exemplary college education for less than it would cost me to take one class through Penn State. Now, I have made a lot of errors career-wise, but that part was not one of them. (I could have .. likely should have.. chosen any career, the costs would have been the same).

Of course economic competition among the states is a good thing. Under your line of thinking, we can no longer have a free market either because some businesses will lose while others win. You're ludicrous.

And California leading in something?? The only thing they're leading is in the race to have the biggest spending deficit in the nation.

[john9blue]

states can be as corrupt as they damn well please, as long as i'm allowed to move 2 hours away into another one. that's the whole point of states' rights; it gives people choices. it's democracy in geographical form.

Therein lies a part of the problem...those states do not reside in a vacuum. By subverting education in the name of (just to name one primary example) religion, seriously hampers our abilities as a nation. We waste minds that have the potential to be outstanding thinkers who will not learn how to use the scientific method, who will not learn how to think objectively and to view situations from varying perspectives. We MASSIVELY waste the resources of our nations' minds by allowing certain educational philosophies to prevail. As I said previously, I am generally in favor of the Federal Government getting out of the education business...with some few exceptions such as ensuring that these things cannot happen.

i don't understand this; you're saying that you don't want alternative educational philosophies (like religious ones) to have a negative impact on children, but you favor getting government out of education? wouldn't that destandardization make it easier for alternative education like the religious kind to prosper?

That assumes you have the financial ability to move.

of course. no system is perfect.

[Woodruff]

states can be as corrupt as they damn well please, as long as i'm allowed to move 2 hours away into another one. that's the whole point of states' rights; it gives people choices. it's democracy in geographical form.

Therein lies a part of the problem...those states do not reside in a vacuum. By subverting education in the name of (just to name one primary example) religion, seriously hampers our abilities as a nation. We waste minds that have the potential to be outstanding thinkers who will not learn how to use the scientific method, who will not learn how to think objectively and to view situations from varying perspectives. We MASSIVELY waste the resources of our nations' minds by allowing certain educational philosophies to prevail. As I said previously, I am generally in favor of the Federal Government getting out of the education business...with some few exceptions such as ensuring that these things cannot happen.

i don't understand this; you're saying that you don't want alternative educational philosophies (like religious ones) to have a negative impact on children, but you favor getting government out of education? wouldn't that destandardization make it easier for alternative education like the religious kind to prosper?

No. It allows for alternative educational methods and such to prosper among the various states, which I think is a good thing...allow the states/localities to essentially run their educational system as they see fit. However, in regards to some very specific situations, there should be Federal mandates against simply out of long-term national interest. Teaching our children religious rhetoric like "intelligent design" in the schools when the place that belongs is IN THE HOME only puts us on the same level as the extreme Islamic community, education-wise.

That assumes you have the financial ability to move.

of course. no system is perfect.

So if you don't have money, the answer is "f*ck you".

[john9blue]

That assumes you have the financial ability to move.

of course. no system is perfect.

So if you don't have money, the answer is "f*ck you".

yes, that's usually how life/progress works...

[Woodruff]

That assumes you have the financial ability to move.

of course. no system is perfect.

So if you don't have money, the answer is "f*ck you".

yes, that's usually how life/progress works...

That's definitely not progress. But it is the Tea Party in a nutshell, based on the Tea Party politicians' actions.

[john9blue]

That assumes you have the financial ability to move.

of course. no system is perfect.

So if you don't have money, the answer is "f*ck you".

yes, that's usually how life/progress works...

That's definitely not progress. But it is the Tea Party in a nutshell, based on the Tea Party politicians' actions.

so i say something and you jump straight to dissing the tea party? baiting much?

at first i thought the way you did, but then i realized that limiting scientific progress in order to improve the lives of poor people is actually, indirectly, degrading from the quality of life of future generations. in some cases, industrial/scientific expansion can be justified even if it comes at the cost of people's lives.

then again, i have this thing called "foresight".

[Woodruff]

of course. no system is perfect.

So if you don't have money, the answer is "f*ck you".

yes, that's usually how life/progress works...

That's definitely not progress. But it is the Tea Party in a nutshell, based on the Tea Party politicians' actions.

so i say something and you jump straight to dissing the tea party? baiting much?

Not baiting at all. Stating my view on what the Tea Party has unfortunately turned into, which your statement so eloquently portrayed.

at first i thought the way you did, but then i realized that limiting scientific progress in order to improve the lives of poor people is actually, indirectly, degrading from the quality of life of future generations.

Limiting scientific progress? Perhaps you can explain how "So if you don't have money, the answer is "f*ck you" helps to increase our scientific progress. Perhaps you mean scientific progress like shutting down NASA and teaching intelligent design in our school systems? Scientific progress like that? Get back to me when you're serious.

[john9blue]

at first i thought the way you did, but then i realized that limiting scientific progress in order to improve the lives of poor people is actually, indirectly, degrading from the quality of life of future generations.

Limiting scientific progress? Perhaps you can explain how "So if you don't have money, the answer is "f*ck you" helps to increase our scientific progress. Perhaps you mean scientific progress like shutting down NASA and teaching intelligent design in our school systems? Scientific progress like that? Get back to me when you're serious.

yes. that's exactly what i was talking about.

[Woodruff]

at first i thought the way you did, but then i realized that limiting scientific progress in order to improve the lives of poor people is actually, indirectly, degrading from the quality of life of future generations.

Limiting scientific progress? Perhaps you can explain how "So if you don't have money, the answer is "f*ck you" helps to increase our scientific progress. Perhaps you mean scientific progress like shutting down NASA and teaching intelligent design in our school systems? Scientific progress like that? Get back to me when you're serious.

yes. that's exactly what i was talking about.

Yeah, I didn't think you'd seriously explain it either.

[john9blue]

you asked if that was what i meant. i gave you an answer. problem?

[Phatscotty]

He has no interest in making the Tea Party look bad. Yet his every post is something negative and slanderous about the Tea Party.

United we stand, divided we fall

[Woodruff]

He has no interest in making the Tea Party look bad. Yet his every post is something negative and slanderous about the Tea Party.

You should try reading more effectively, since that's not true at all. I generally like the grassroots ideals of the Tea Party, and have stated so many times here. I DO have an interest in making the Tea Party poseurs like you look bad, though, Phatscotty...so there is that. I'd love to see all of the poseurs like you stop trying to hitch your wagon to the Tea Party, because you're just slowing it down.

[john9blue]

so what do you think the tea party is, woody?

[Woodruff]

so what do you think the tea party is, woody?

Currently? I think the Tea Party is a grand, idealistic movement that has been thoroughly subverted by the far right. It's still possible that it can recover, I believe (thanks ONLY to Ron Paul), but not as long as the poseurs are accepted as legitimate voting material by the Tea Party masses themselves. The Tea Party idealists should be loudly decrying these jackasses at EVERY opportunity. But instead, it seems as though the Tea Party believes that these poseurs bring some sort of "legitimacy" to their movement...it does precisely the opposite.

[PLAYER57832]

My point is that we need to look at overall impacts. Delaware might have benefitted to some extent, but did the country as a whole? NO. Economic policies have to be broad (to the extent we need them) because we are not independent economies. In your scenario, one state might gain, but it is at the expense of other states. Further, those gains are temporary because the other states will be forced to follow. BUT... that is where comparing California really comes in. California has been ahead for many, many years precisely because they did invest in things like education. However, becuase other states took different routes, California people and businesses also wound up not paying for the benefits they recieved. That.. getting things you don't pay for, is always a problem. However, to claim that the problem is "too many benefits" ignores the good that came from all those programs. It ignores why they were established and the real positive impacts they had on the economy. Just as an example, I got an exemplary college education for less than it would cost me to take one class through Penn State. Now, I have made a lot of errors career-wise, but that part was not one of them. (I could have .. likely should have.. chosen any career, the costs would have been the same).

Of course economic competition among the states is a good thing. Under your line of thinking, we can no longer have a free market either because some businesses will lose while others win. You're ludicrous

.OH bull. The market can be free. We were talking about taxes. Taxes are not a market, cannot and should not be. Taxes are to provide services. Sure, some people will jump to the place with the lowest taxes, for a quick buck.. but will they keep their families there? Usually not. For their families, they want someplace safe, with a good education system, etc.

And California leading in something?? The only thing they're leading is in the race to have the biggest spending deficit in the nation.

They were leading the tech boom, and education boom. But, those things cannot continue without payment. So... all those who profited so mightily have up and left, taking their balls to a new field.

But the question is whether that is helpful to the country... and the answer is a resounding NO. Its time to stop acting like spoiled children and demanding "no payment". We need services, we need regulation to keep businesses from destroying the rest of us... and that does take government funded by taxes.

The Tea Party certainly claims to be about the individual.. but all of their policies somehow seem to benefit corporations and not individuals or small business people. You want to call me "stupid", fine. At least I can think on my own.