interesting results from tea party convention vote...

mikepegg44 · October 2010

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

because the bush tax cuts have been sooooooo effective in stimulating the economy and creating jobs, right? where are the jobs allegedly created by the rich who require these tax cuts? oh yeah, there are none

well, actually when the bush tax cuts went through up until something non-related to tax cuts blew up the economy things weren't that bad. After the economy goes through a recession like this, it takes a while for things to come back, the answer ins't taking more money from people, and by the way, it is all people who will be affected by these tax cuts.

Want to stop manufacturing from going over seas, tie tax breaks to american factories...give an incentive to do it, that is a legislative measure that would work...why on earth did you focus on that small part of what I said and ignore everything else. Explain to me how temporary jobs fixes the economy. Also the stimulus that was supposed to bring the unemployment rate down hasn't worked.

gimmie wrote:

...because the unemployment rate is still nearly 10% and as a result of these tax cuts that is billions of dollars in the budget that we have been short every year since they went into effect

IT IS NOT THEIR FUCKING MONEY!!!!! Quit spending more than you have, very simple.

gimmie wrote:

all i know is i would not want to be the asshole to make decisions as far as cutting the programs that many people rely on like welfare and social security. but that is just me...

Running a state and trying to keep it above water doesn't make you an asshole, it means you need to make tough decisions based on the policies you think will help out the most. No one can benefit from every decision. It just isn't possible.

Cosmo · October 2010

Jason P wrote:

Most of the stimulus money in my area goes to highway repairs. The asphalt and paving companies are making serious bank but it has had almost zero effect on the rest of the construction industry. It is nice to have some temporary jobs, but it does nothing but provide a short-term boost to the paving contractors, most of whom are not local. Heavy-highway jobs don't have the same payback as typical commercial construction. If $500M is spent on a factory, that factory creates 200 jobs, plus it will end up supporting numerous other businesses who employ more jobs, and create more tax revenue for the local, state, and federal governments. On the other hand, $500M in re-paving roads has less tangible effects.

...
True... but the variable in this is... a factory making what? Factories are closing in this country every day because the goods they are manufacturing aren't competative with the factories in India and China.
As for the highways... those workers now have money to spend or save... but, we all get the widened corridor from Long Beach and Los Angeles that is going to last for a few decades.
Californisa really needs to fix our levee system through the Central Valley.... if all of these other people don't want the 'Stimulus' money... we'll take it because our levee system is a vital project that has been neglected for decades because no one here wants their taxes raised to pay for it.

Cosmo · October 2010

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

interesting, although i will say that i am not too terribly surprised...it was a close vote, but there was a large number of delegates who did not vote for some reason...i wonder if this will continue or if palin will be their choice after all..

Sarah Palin no longer the darling of her own tea party
Tea Party convention delegates put her in shock second position to Chris Christie for their choice for president in 2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/20 ... party-2012

Over the past year Sarah Palin has established herself as the queen of the Tea Party movement. Her endorsements have helped Tea Party candidates oust established Republicans in races across the country.

But even among the hardcore of tea partygoers it cannot be assumed she reigns supreme. A canvass of delegates to the Tea Party Patriots convention in Richmond over the weekend put her in shock second position for their choice for president in 2012.

More than 1,500 delegates voted out of about 2,300 who attended the two-day event. Palin polled 13.5% of the votes and was pipped to the post by Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, on 14%.

At first glance it seemed an odd choice. Sarah Palin, the darling of the movement, versus a relatively little-known governor who has professed his intention not to run in 2012.

Until you take on board what Christie did last week. On Thursday he cancelled the $8.7bn (£5.5bn) tunnel under the Hudson river, the second rail tunnel that would have linked New Jersey and New York, easing congestion on the lines and taking the steam out of the increasingly clogged up roads.

For progressive economists such as the Nobel prizewinning Paul Krugman, that was a "destructive and incredibly foolish decision on multiple levels". It confirmed, the New York Times columnist wrote, that America has become "a nation whose politicians seem to compete over who can show the least vision, the least concern about the future and the greatest willingness to pander to short-term, narrow-minded selfishness".

For the Tea Party crowd, Christie's surprise act was an heroic blow struck against big government and one of its most egregious manifestations – public transport. Government should leave us alone, is the rallying cry you hear everywhere from the Tea Party followers. Let us get on with our lives, enjoying our freedom and liberty in our private cars as we crawl along in mile-upon-mile of traffic.

...
Still... goes to show that Palin is still rated high up there in Tea Party lore. Even if she seems to be spending most of her time here in Hollywood or out in New York, instead of with the 'Real Americans' in East Bumfucking, North Dakota.
Also goes to show that the Tea Party is more Republican, than independent.

gimmesometruth27 · October 2010

Cosmo wrote:

Also goes to show that the Tea Party is more Republican, than independent.

that has been obvious since day one...

gimmesometruth27 · October 2010

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

because the bush tax cuts have been sooooooo effective in stimulating the economy and creating jobs, right? where are the jobs allegedly created by the rich who require these tax cuts? oh yeah, there are none

well, actually when the bush tax cuts went through up until something non-related to tax cuts blew up the economy things weren't that bad. After the economy goes through a recession like this, it takes a while for things to come back, the answer ins't taking more money from people, and by the way, it is all people who will be affected by these tax cuts.

Want to stop manufacturing from going over seas, tie tax breaks to american factories...give an incentive to do it, that is a legislative measure that would work...why on earth did you focus on that small part of what I said and ignore everything else. Explain to me how temporary jobs fixes the economy. Also the stimulus that was supposed to bring the unemployment rate down hasn't worked.

gimmie wrote:

...because the unemployment rate is still nearly 10% and as a result of these tax cuts that is billions of dollars in the budget that we have been short every year since they went into effect

IT IS NOT THEIR FUCKING MONEY!!!!! Quit spending more than you have, very simple.

gimmie wrote:

all i know is i would not want to be the asshole to make decisions as far as cutting the programs that many people rely on like welfare and social security. but that is just me...

Running a state and trying to keep it above water doesn't make you an asshole, it means you need to make tough decisions based on the policies you think will help out the most. No one can benefit from every decision. It just isn't possible.

i know it is all people who will see taxes increase. i have been paying attention. and obama is not "raising taxes", congress is letting the tax cuts expire because they keep adding shit on to the tax bills like "no health care for immigrants that are sick from working on 9/11". there is no way that bill was going to pass when you add shit like that onto it. obama would keep the tax cuts in place for 98% of all people. he has stated that ad nauseum...

you sound like a broken record, "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts"...the current taxes are not that burdensome for most people, and the corporations can afford them as well. tax cuts is not the answer. trickle down economics has failed. the rich have not created jobs at all, like so many of them claim that they do. corporations went over seas not for taxes only, but to save money on labor so the ceo can buy things like a $6000 shower curtain.

so are you in favor of getting rid of welfare and social security? you sound like you are. and that is what these teabaggers would do if they ever got elected.

i think it is a very shitty thing to do to sell out your beliefs and principles for the sake of votes, and because of that all politicians are whores. including palin and this dude in new jersey.

TriumphantAngel · October 2010

i only wish the tea baggers were as passionate about the wasting billions of dollars on wars and supporting illegal occupations.

Commy · October 2010

TriumphantAngel wrote:

i only wish the tea baggers were as passionate about the wasting billions of dollars on wars and supporting illegal occupations.

i agree.

they are so fired up about spending, but being lied to to spend 1 trillion in iraq just doesn't bother them for some reason.

gimmesometruth27 · October 2010

as long as taxes are lower they will go along with anything...

OnTheEdge · October 2010

Federal deficit with and without the Iraq war.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/ ... s_not.html

mikepegg44 · October 2010

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i know it is all people who will see taxes increase. i have been paying attention. and obama is not "raising taxes", congress is letting the tax cuts expire because they keep adding shit on to the tax bills like "no health care for immigrants that are sick from working on 9/11". there is no way that bill was going to pass when you add shit like that onto it. obama would keep the tax cuts in place for 98% of all people. he has stated that ad nauseum...

you sound like a broken record, "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts"...the current taxes are not that burdensome for most people, and the corporations can afford them as well. tax cuts is not the answer. trickle down economics has failed. the rich have not created jobs at all, like so many of them claim that they do. corporations went over seas not for taxes only, but to save money on labor so the ceo can buy things like a $6000 shower curtain.

so are you in favor of getting rid of welfare and social security? you sound like you are. and that is what these teabaggers would do if they ever got elected.

i think it is a very shitty thing to do to sell out your beliefs and principles for the sake of votes, and because of that all politicians are whores. including palin and this dude in new jersey.

First off, you didn't answer my question, how does creating temporary jobs fix the economy?

secondly, tax cuts are necessary. Personally I think that everyone could use a little more money in their pocket. And really they don't even have to be cuts per se, but breaks and incentives to keep work in the US. I don't see what is wrong with that. Putting more money in the pockets of the people who earn it is always better. I promise you more people would agree if they had to write out checks for their own taxes.
Yes, social security is something that millions of Americans pay into that won't be there when we get old enough. Explain to me how they are losing money...how are people getting more out of it than what they put in? I don't understand it. I would much rather be able to choose to participate or not. Why is it forced on me? I can take care of my own retirement thanks.
As far as welfare goes, no I understand the importance of help in these situations but I would like to see something done to change the incentive not to work. In order to receive benefits you need to make under a certain amount, why not make it that in order to receive more benefits you need to be showing that you are beginning to make money. After a certain time of you making money about the line then you are terminated. Make people earn the money they get and you will be surprised how much better they will feel about their lives.
But I will end it with the same question. explain to me how creating a temporary job that puts people back to work for a short period of time is going to solve the economic crisis?

Commy · October 2010

mikepegg44 wrote:

how does creating temporary jobs fix the economy?

the problem with the economy has to do with the middle and lower classes, the upper class has been just fine.

the middle class can't spend. so the upper class can't sell them all that shit they don't need, so they can't keep up their profits.

this has to do with wages being stagnant for almost 40 years. at first working class people were able to do it alone, say 1979 ish. they were able to comfortably raise a family on one salary. as cost of living went up and wages didn't, both parents needed to work. with combined income they were able to make ends meet, to buy all that crap they were being sold. as time passed and wages stayed the same, even that wasn't enough. so they borrowed. and they maintained the ecnomy, people were buying, people were working....then it all went to shit, and the working class can't do anymore to maintain this robbery. throughout it all the upper class became wealthier and wealthier.

2 things can happen now. reform, where the upper class is taxed and the lower classes see wage increases.....in effect giving the working class the ability to buy again, to keep the economy running, or social revolution, where we take what is ours.

in the meantime, allowing laborers to work, giving them teh ability to spend, will stimulate the economy.

labor runs the country anyway, not management. the pay is backwards.

gimmesometruth27 · October 2010

mikepegg44 wrote:

First off, you didn't answer my question, how does creating temporary jobs fix the economy?

secondly, tax cuts are necessary. Personally I think that everyone could use a little more money in their pocket. And really they don't even have to be cuts per se, but breaks and incentives to keep work in the US. I don't see what is wrong with that. Putting more money in the pockets of the people who earn it is always better. I promise you more people would agree if they had to write out checks for their own taxes.
Yes, social security is something that millions of Americans pay into that won't be there when we get old enough. Explain to me how they are losing money...how are people getting more out of it than what they put in? I don't understand it. I would much rather be able to choose to participate or not. Why is it forced on me? I can take care of my own retirement thanks.
As far as welfare goes, no I understand the importance of help in these situations but I would like to see something done to change the incentive not to work. In order to receive benefits you need to make under a certain amount, why not make it that in order to receive more benefits you need to be showing that you are beginning to make money. After a certain time of you making money about the line then you are terminated. Make people earn the money they get and you will be surprised how much better they will feel about their lives.
But I will end it with the same question. explain to me how creating a temporary job that puts people back to work for a short period of time is going to solve the economic crisis?

so does temporay jobs not temporarily get people back to work so that they are not drawing unemployment for a period of time? does that not give those people money in their pocket to spend and thus help the economy? i never at any time said the words "temporary jobs is the solution to the economic crisis", so how can you infer and imply that??? i ignored it because i thought the question was irrelevent to my thread about the tea party picking someone other than palin to represent them in the 2012 election. others derailed it and it devolved into what it is now.

if you want to go down that road, i am going to have to respectfully disagree with you because you are rehashing the same tired old republican economic lie and campaign promise that "tax cuts are necessary". are you suggesting that we cut them lower than they are right now? actually most americans paid less taxes in 2009 than the did under bush, and the vast majority of americans have their taxes taken out of their paycheck and are not writing out lump sum checks to pay their annual taxes. how the hell would cutting taxes even lower help alleviate the deficit that everyone is talking about? would that bring the corporations that went and hired people overseas back to the usa? because it won't. we either need to cut spending, which everyone seems to think is the right thing to do, except that will royally fuck over an entire segment of your population. where are you gonna take it from? education? social security, which by the way is not only for retirement, but it covers people who are disabled, those with als, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, amputees, not to mention all of these crippled vets coming back each month. it is for people that can not hold jobs and can not work yet endure massive medical bills each year. wouldn't mr jesus say "whatever you do to the least of my people you do unto me?" those programs are absolutely necessary. you pay into it in case something happens to you and get end up disabled and unable to work, not just for YOUR retirement. we live in a society here, and we are not heathen enough to let people go hungry or die because they do not have the means to pay for thier own medical bills for a condition they were born with.

our infrastructure is falling apart, we need to spend money on that. i am not going to rob peter to pay paul, so the answer is to raise taxes. we can not fund all of this when we are taking significant amounts out of the government's pocket. the navy budget is $708 billion dollars for this year. we spend more money on defense in a year than the next 13 countries combined. we give $4 billion in support of the israeli government this year. and not to mention all of the money that pays for these fucking wars and lines the pockets of companies like haliburton and kbr and blackwater. if you want to talk wasteful spending you need to start there. so don't tell me that you would rather pay israel and halliburton and pay for the wars and let your own countrymen suffer. fact is those wars are not going away. "the war on turr" is here to stay. that navy budget? it is gonna continue to rise each year, as that of the fbi and homeland security, as well as "aid" to the israeli government. do not tell me that we need to do all of those things and still cut taxes because none of that would be paid for, and you know military spending is never going to be decreased. all that and we have nearly 50 million uninsured americans right now.

it is also funny to me that people on this forum assume that because someone is on welfare it means they do not want to work. that is the most immature position i have ever heard. it is a lazy argument to make because it is easy to say that when most of the people saying that have never ever met a person on welfare, medicaid, or other forms of government assistance. do you think george w bush ever spent more than a few minutes with people on public assitance other than at a campaign stop? i guarantee you he does not know anyone on welfare personally, so he would think privatizing SS would be agood idea. those on welfare are the single moms raising multiple kids on their own working a job where they do not make enough money to pay for daycare and healthcare, diapers, formula, and even food. it is not their choice, and most of the ones i see every day at work are embarrassed when i give them a walking boot and crutches and ask what insurance they have and they have a pause and under their breath say "medicaid" or "ipa" (illinois public aid). people are embarrassed a lot of the time. i will give you that some people milk the system, but that is the extreme minority of my patient population.

Jason P · October 2010

TriumphantAngel wrote:

i only wish the tea baggers were as passionate about the wasting billions of dollars on wars and supporting illegal occupations.

It's not just the "tea baggers" that are ignoring the massive military budget. I would say it is more like 80-90% of the US population.

TriumphantAngel · October 2010

Jason P wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

i only wish the tea baggers were as passionate about the wasting billions of dollars on wars and supporting illegal occupations.

It's not just the "tea baggers" that are ignoring the massive military budget. I would say it is more like 80-90% of the US population.

fox news called them "teabaggers" back in 2009. you mean they got it wrong again? gosh.

i've never researched the actual % of population that support the massive military budget. i say support because if 80 to 90% of the US population are ignoring it as you suggest, then it would be reasonable to come to a conclusion that it's not an issue for them.

do you have any facts to back that up?

personally i don't believe that 80 to 90% of Americans are that stupid.

gimmesometruth27 · October 2010

they even called themselves teabaggers. they had hads with teabags hanging from them and held signs like "teabag obama before he teabags you"...

tea%20bag%20hat.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1275324409441

mikepegg44 · October 2010

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

it is also funny to me that people on this forum assume that because someone is on welfare it means they do not want to work. that is the most immature position i have ever heard.

I will start with the fact that I had a long response to your post but decided to erase it. It doesn't seem like we are going to come to any common ground. But I will give you a few bullet points

**I didn't say people on welfare don't want to work. But we have an asinine welfare system that cuts benefits for people who make a certain amount of money even though a person cannot live on that. I work with them everyday. And that isn't what I said.
**I agree too much money is spent on the wars and the military. I also agree that we need to reign in defense spending, I am all for it. I have said many times that most of the true libertarians would tell you we want nothing more from the military than to potect our shores from attack.

but all that being said...I applaud your caring and compassion, I just don't agree on the best way to help those people that need it.
I would much rather spend more in taxes to my state than to a federal government that wouldn't know its ass from its face. At least Minnesota wouldn't be attacking or invading Wisconsin, so my money would already be spent wiser.

mikepegg44 · October 2010

Commy wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

how does creating temporary jobs fix the economy?

the problem with the economy has to do with the middle and lower classes, the upper class has been just fine.

the middle class can't spend. so the upper class can't sell them all that shit they don't need, so they can't keep up their profits.

this has to do with wages being stagnant for almost 40 years. at first working class people were able to do it alone, say 1979 ish. they were able to comfortably raise a family on one salary. as cost of living went up and wages didn't, both parents needed to work. with combined income they were able to make ends meet, to buy all that crap they were being sold. as time passed and wages stayed the same, even that wasn't enough. so they borrowed. and they maintained the ecnomy, people were buying, people were working....then it all went to shit, and the working class can't do anymore to maintain this robbery. throughout it all the upper class became wealthier and wealthier.

2 things can happen now. reform, where the upper class is taxed and the lower classes see wage increases.....in effect giving the working class the ability to buy again, to keep the economy running, or social revolution, where we take what is ours.

in the meantime, allowing laborers to work, giving them teh ability to spend, will stimulate the economy.

labor runs the country anyway, not management. the pay is backwards.

is a band-aid on an arterial cut

Jason P · October 2010

TriumphantAngel wrote:

Jason P wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

i only wish the tea baggers were as passionate about the wasting billions of dollars on wars and supporting illegal occupations.

It's not just the "tea baggers" that are ignoring the massive military budget. I would say it is more like 80-90% of the US population.

fox news called them "teabaggers" back in 2009. you mean they got it wrong again? gosh.

i've never researched the actual % of population that support the massive military budget. i say support because if 80 to 90% of the US population are ignoring it as you suggest, then it would be reasonable to come to a conclusion that it's not an issue for them.

do you have any facts to back that up?

personally i don't believe that 80 to 90% of Americans are that stupid.

Would it be OK for me to use derogatory terms that were considered acceptable back at any point in history? But if you want to continue to use the term, it doesn't bother me. I just think that using derogatory political terms immediately causes a defensive reaction from the other person you are debating with and significantly decreases your chance to sway opinion.

TriumphantAngel · October 2010

Jason P wrote:

TriumphantAngel wrote:

Jason P wrote:

It's not just the "tea baggers" that are ignoring the massive military budget. I would say it is more like 80-90% of the US population.

fox news called them "teabaggers" back in 2009. you mean they got it wrong again? gosh.

i've never researched the actual % of population that support the massive military budget. i say support because if 80 to 90% of the US population are ignoring it as you suggest, then it would be reasonable to come to a conclusion that it's not an issue for them.

do you have any facts to back that up?

personally i don't believe that 80 to 90% of Americans are that stupid.

Would it be OK for me to use derogatory terms that were considered acceptable back at any point in history? But if you want to continue to use the term, it doesn't bother me. I just think that using derogatory political terms immediately causes a defensive reaction from the other person you are debating with and significantly decreases your chance to sway opinion.

point taken.

i wish the tea party supporters were more outspoken and as passionate about the wasting of billions of dollars on wars and supporting illegal occupations.

thanks for listening.

love,

TriumphantAngel.

gimmesometruth27 · October 2010

Jason P wrote:

Would it be OK for me to use derogatory terms that were considered acceptable back at any point in history? But if you want to continue to use the term, it doesn't bother me. I just think that using derogatory political terms immediately causes a defensive reaction from the other person you are debating with and significantly decreases your chance to sway opinion.

how can a term that they found acceptable when they referred to themselves as "teabaggers" suddenly become derogatory and offensive?? fox news called them that, they called themselves that, it was not until a few months later when that term suddenly became offensive to them.

that is different than most derogatory terms in history, as most of them were derogatory and offensive to begin with. i do not believe that slaves invented the N bomb, nor did gays invent the term "faggot". they never accepted those terms and were hurt by them in the beginning, while the "tea party supporters" accepted "teabaggers" in the beginning...

interesting results from tea party convention vote...

Comments

Categories