What percentage of Tea Party supporters do you think are not going to file for Disaster relief after Irene? Wouldn't that be a Government handout? Maybe the storm miraculously missed all of their homes. How about forgoing social security or medicare? I have the feeling it's only ok when it's someone else.If you are going to talk the talk, walk the walk.
Right so all you dems wont take any tax deductions this year, right?
I haven't heard any democrats arguing that nobody should get any deductions!
Really so you havent heard Obama saying we need to eliminaye "loopholes" and "subsidies" for big oil and the rich corporate jet owners or Buffet saying we should stop coddling the rich and tax them more? What do you think "loopholes" and subsidies are? They're deductions!
A loophole isn't quite the same thing as a deduction, though it looks like one on paper. A loophole is taking a deduction for something that was not intended to be a deductible expense, but that works out as one because of the way the tax code is worded.
A "subsidy," on the other hand, is neither a loophole nor a deduction. It's money handed to the entity that's subsidized (like the corn subsidy to farmers). Subsidies don't even look like deductions, and I'm not surprised that LaLo is trying to say that they're the same, given her history.
But really, neither loopholes nor subsidies are the same as evasions either. Evasion is hiding your assets and/or income (in an offshore account, perhaps) so that they don't get taxed at all. Exploiting a loophole is unethical, but legal. Evasion is a crime.
Lol! No they aren't! They are purposefully put in the tax code! Just like my mortgage interest deduction is actually a loan subsidy to buy a home!
So how did the dems suddenly become a part of what the Tea Party is doing? The post was about the Tea Party, not the dems. It's what the Tea Party would do, no mention of the dems.
No wonder there are fatal flaws in logic and communication in politics.
Key word was hypocrites, another term for democrats and liberals.
"What percentage of Tea Party supporters do you think are not going to file for Disaster relief after Irene? Wouldn't that be a Government handout?"
Well, the question may be moot. FEMA is low on funds, and Tea-Party congresspeople are arguing that if there's no money for relief, disaster victims should fend for themselves.
Maybe FEMA should check to see if a disaster victim is also a tea-partier, and if so, they go to the end of the line for relief? No, I don't advocate discriminating against disaster victims based on their politics; that'd be a terrible idea. But I do wish the relief would come with an enhanced sense of irony.
Since 47 percent of US households pay NO federal income taxes, would you say that those victims should be dragged to the back of the line as well since they aren't contributing to the federal pot? No. I consider myself to be pretty middle of the road but the rabid tea party bashing is starting to wear me out. The tea party's position is simple: spend what you have--that's all. I know that this is a fact of life for my family and our budget. If an expense comes up that we have to deal with and we don't have it in savings then we cut back somewhere else. I don't know why the left feels that this is such an outrageous concept when it comes to government, especially right now when our economy is all but circling the drain. The media has spun Cantor's remarks into something sinister, when in fact he seems to be saying that we will find the money one way or another but since FEMA is running low, it's going to have to come from SOMEWHERE.
Precisely!! When Pelosi touted her pay-go policies all the liberals thought that was brilliant! Well, they should think the Tea Party.has the same brilliance, right? Instead, they refer to the tea party as racist extremists that routinely hold the country hostage, so then they must feel the same about Pelisi and the dems touting pay go right? Which is it libs?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … -budget-r/
No federal income taxes, but the middle class and working poor pay payroll taxes that do cap. The poor pay a higher percentage of their income in the form of payroll taxes than the rich.
You might think the ultra-rich are "tapped out" but their tax burden has never, ever been lower, despite the fact that their income growth over the past decade has been astronomical. This has been made clear by Warren Buffett, a billionaire and beneficiary of recent GOP policies that have favored the ultra-rich over middle-class and poorer people.
Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee.....but the buck stops there.
Hey-Rubio said that gvt "hand-outs" weaken us as a nation......wonder if our hand-outs to other country's weaken them?
Hurricane Irene was pretty bad for those who had to live through it.
However, the financial holocaust that is looming ever larger on all our horizons is going to do a lot more damage to the financial security of virtually everyone on the planet. It is going to wipe out savings and pensions and leave everybody broke and out of a job. Tea Party members are going to get hit as hard as everybody else.
What they do not understand is that the propaganda campaign that gave rise to the Tea Party was paid for by the banks and big corporations. These are not patriotic institutions. They are international in nature and all they care about is getting a good return on their investment. At the moment they are busy asset stripping the likes of Greece and Ireland and they are lining up the American economy for the same treatment.
Tea Party members: by supporting tax breaks for the rich, the rolling back of welfare provision and market deregulation, are - quite literally - cutting off their own noses to spite their own face. The depth of their ignorance in political and economic matters beggars belief. Don't they understand that QE 1 & 2 constituted WELFARE for the banks?
I know that there are still a great many sane people left in the United States. I read their blogs, watch them on the tv and listen to their music. None of the Americans that I admire have a single good thing to say about the Tea Party. As far as I am concerned Tea Party members are all stark raving bonkers.
Don't sugarcoat it, tell us how you REALLY feel about the Tea Party:)!
Seriously, if anything reminds me of Nazi Germany it's TP faithfuls' sheeplike allegiance to a perceived (but false) ideal being perpetrated for goals much more evil than advertised.
It's comforting (a little) that the TP is rapidly losing support from the American people -- all except for a rabid few who seem to command all the media attention.
The problem with your line of thinking is that the money they ask for belongs to government. I would wager that a lot of the Tea party people actually pay taxes so it is there money to begin with. Liberals have this strange idea that government is a business and it makes money, the opposite is true, government is a consumer and consumes money.
The money is not the governmnent's.
It's the citizens'.
The government just collects it and redistibutes it according to the wishes of the taxpayers.
And therein lies the rub.
Not everyone agrees on how the government should be spending the citizens' money.
It does seem, however, that everyone in the country -- except Eric Cantor -- agrees that government money SHOULD be used to help AMERICAN victims of major disasters.
Yes, I know whose money it is. And no Barrack Obama also thinks that some citizens are not as deserving of the money. He chose not to help the citizens of Texas. But like I have said before, we will not be helping him either.
I'm curious as to what a patriot should do after the government steals their money.
Of all things that a Country should do, taking care of the defenseless is one of them. It does not have to come from Government! Americans are the most generous people on the planet, we could take care of ourselves. If the government would just get out of our way!!
ps: I helped my neighbors clear their yards after the hurricane. Did YOU?
Actually, you aren't the most generous people on the Planet, that accolade goes to Australia, followed by New Zealand, Ireland, Canada and Switzerland. You only make it to sixth place, two above the UK.
Whenever there is a tragic occurrence the United states is always there to lend a hand.
Anywhere in the world, we are always there. Logistically we provide food and aid to anyone in the world that finds themselves devastated by disasters.
Not to mention that we provide defense to the entire European community. Why doesn't Europe defend itself?
"Not to mention that we provide defense to the entire European community. Why doesn't Europe defend itself?"
It does. It just defends itself a lot more efficiently than we do. France and the UK each spend more on defense than Russia does, but we spend more on defense than France, the UK, Russia, and China (and a few other countries to boot) combined. This nonsense about "Europe doesn't/cant defend itself" is silly. They can defend themselves, and I'm sure they'd be able to mobilize even larger armies if they were to be genuinely threatened.
But none of the European countries have faced an existential threat since the soviet union collapsed. (By the way, neither has the USA.)
But noticeably absent in the UK when recently floods devastated whole communities!
Not that we actually needed any help, it may surprise you but we get along fine.
As for defence, we have the best army in the world, US Generals say so, and rather than being defended by the US our armed forces are actually defending US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan!
Your bases on UK soil are not for our defence, they are there for your defence. It's not for nothing that the UK is known as US Aircraft Carrier Great Britain.
Now, now, John.
You know as well as we all do the United States is the greatest, mightiest nation on earth. Probably in the solar system!
Our army is better than your army.
Our navy is better than your navy.
Our air force is better than your air force.
Our marines are better than your marines.
I'll grant you you have better pubs. But that's as far as I'm willing to concede.
Naturally you Brits are jealous of us. Who wouldn't be?
I mean, really!
Plus they call fries "chips" soccer "football" and cojones "bollocks".
Britain will always be inferior to the U.S. until they learn to talk English good.
I'm sorry Mighty Mom, but being an Englishman in America I must respond to this comment. You seem to forget that Britain has the best Fish and Chips - and we wrap them in newspaper - now there's an advanced civilization for you! Malt vinegar rules!!!
I hear ya on that one, SimeyC.
I gotta give props to British fish & chips.
They just don't tast right if they're not wrapped in newspaper.
Kinda like bagels don't taste right outside of New York (it's the water).
But I do have to ask a rather indelicate question here.
What in heck is with "Spotted Dick" ???
Throughout NATO's existence, U.S. leaders have complained about the tendency of the alliance's European members to skimp on defense spending and take advantage of America's security shield to free ride. The free-rider problem, bad even during the Cold War, became worse when that struggle ended.
In the past few years, especially since the onset of the global economic crisis, the problem has become much worse as European nations struggle to deal with increasingly burdensome social welfare states. Military spending in Europe has moved from the realm of inadequate to the realm of pathetic.
America's already huge defense budget continues to grow. Counting the costs of the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. spends nearly as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. This year, defense spending will be roughly five percent of America's almost $15 trillion GDP.
This money could be better spent improving our own Nation.
"The free-rider problem, bad even during the Cold War, became worse when that struggle ended."
Well, when you compare the UK's defense budget to the USA's, the UK's budget does look rather small. But it's still larger than Russia's. Our defense budget dwarfs those of pretty much every other country.
The question to ask ourselves is: should they be spending more, or should we be spending less?
"This money could be better spent improving our own Nation."
Indeed it could.
Amen! Our defense industry, Defense Department and our foreign policy establishment keep finding new excuses for continuing to waste taxpayer dollars.
America chooses to have a huge defence budget because the big corporations spend millions of dollars lobbying congress to spend the money. One of the reasons America chooses to invade other countries is because a lot of money is made by contractors: such as Dick Cheney's Halliburton, from waging war. If you want to know where America is going to invade next simply find out were Halliburton is buying up warehouse space for the stock-piling of munitions. It is usually a pretty good indicator.
So European defence spending is always going to lag behind America's. It is forever playing catch-up with the policies promoted by the vultures/hawks on capitol hill. Maybe America should give Europe about five year's notice before starting a war against a country that has rejected the US dollar as first reserve currency: like Iraq did and Iran is still doing,
Or maybe it would be better if European countries refused to be dragged into: and therefore refused to legitimize, Amerca's imperial wars altogether. Which would suit me fine.
Oooooh, Hear Hear!!
Elect a Republibagger, we are at war with Iran, no ifs ands or butts. With the exception of Ron Paul of course.
But, I read that the stuxnet attack was already an act of war?
Can we please stop letting Isramerica get away with all its criminal acts?
"Why doesn't Europe defend itself?"
Good question. Originally, we kept troops in Germany because nobody wanted to see Germany re-arm after WWII. Seventy years later, Germany is re-unified, the USSR is no more and our troops are still in Europe.
Yeah, seventy years later, those stationed in Europe are the lucky ones!
American troops aren't stationed over here to defend Europe. They are stationed here to justify your massive defence budget: which is bigger than China's and Russia's combined, and because the military industrial complex wants them here to protect the staus of the US dollar as the World's first reserve currency (a form of taxation that the American central banking system imposes on the World).
Tea party hypocrisy is fairly well known. I've got a coworker who leans left, but the social group she runs in is tea party. She said one of the woman screams about health care reform being wrong, while she ignores a $60,000 hospital bill because she thinks the cost is unfair. She sat over breakfast listening to five of them rail against welfare, while every one of their grandchildren benefits from WIC. The list goes on, and on and on. Everyone wants their pot full of government chicken while living in fear that someone else will benefit.
"Entitled" is what it's called. Everyone wants cut backs, as long as the cut backs don't effect them, because, after all, they supposedly paid into all these programs and deserve every entitled penny they can leach out of it, but no one else deserves anything.
Tea partiers and liberals are equally guilty. It's human condition, not a political bent.
Entitlement is about being a victim, bitter, and wanting someone else to pay. It is independent of a political party, but rampant throughout humanity. And it stinks.
Are you saying people who draw Social Security and who are eligible for Medicare are "victims and wanting somebody else to pay?" That's a strange way of looking at these programs. I'm getting Social Security benefits and I'm eligible for Medicare and I'm not bitter nor am I looking for a handout or "freebie." I am entitled to these benefits because they were enacted democratically and because I have contributed to both programs. If memory serves I paid the maximum FICA tax for approximately 42 years. (Actually, I'm still paying it on earnings from part-time employment.)
And I don't appreciate your insults LOL or Mr. Carter.
Attitude is what determines victim or entitlement issues. Obviously I didn't directly infer anything to you personally. The programs are established for their reasons, and despite the complications and controversy, they fill them to some degree. However, I think my point is clear enough about attitudes of entitlement and victimhood. And once again, I did not infer that you display any attitude. That is something you apparently took on for yourself. I have no bone to pick with you.
I agree, although I will say (only because I read Ralph Deeds' comment) that I don't throw SS or, Medicare into that assessment. For the money I've put into it, I doubt I'll ever get anywhere near that much back. However, I see that as my money. I do have a right to collect some of it back when I reach the age to do it.
I think my response to Ralph above covers most of what I feel about the subject. And I point no fingers. I observe and comment.
Funny that no one thinks of 401Ks (or whatever one's retirement fund is called) as an
"entitlement" or "hand out". They're really not that different from Social Security, only that SS is administered by a government agency but is NOT part of the Federal Budget or funded by the U.S. Treasury. In fact, Social Security is the ONLY government program that works (and still works) exactly as it was designed 80-some years ago and funds itself through FICA and interest earned.
Oh really? Then how come when the tea party didn't want to raise the debt ceiling Obama said people might not get their social security? The fact is the government spends that money and gives in its place a special treasury bond. The sysyem isn't funded at all! If a private company did this, the ofgicers would go to jail!
Here's one you'll love. Obama lied. Bald faced. I think he was playing to our emotions. Five minutes after the news here broadcast that statement there was an interview with an official from the SS administration. He said the Social Security checks would roll, no matter what happened with the budget. Separate funds entirely.
What else is new? Obama and all the dems lied and Bachmann was right! We were never going to default! But Obama got what he wanted 2.5 trillion more dollars to buy votes with!
John P. Judis sums up the modern GOP this way:
"Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999. If there is an earlier American precedent for today's Republican Party, it is the antebellum Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard, federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from the union over slavery."
Even The Troops Are Waking Up
Exclusive Audio: Inside the Koch Brothers' Secret Seminar
A close-up view of the oil billionaires' dark-money fundraiser and 2012 strategy session.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/09 … inar-tapes
by Doug Hughes5 years ago
This is from the most recent poll from Pew Research."As the Tea Party has evolved from a grass-roots movement to become a major force on Capitol Hill, public views of the Tea Party have grown more negative... The...
by Dr Billy Kidd3 years ago
Tea Party activists in the House of Representatives want to shut down the U.S. government. They say it'll teach America who really is in charge. What's more, they say that not passing a federal budget by the Oct. 1...
by Gary Anderson5 years ago
I have been watching the Yahoo boards and people are furious at the Republicans, especially the Tea Party. They are getting the lion's share of the blame for the debt downgrade. Here's why:1. Obama wanted a grand plan....
by SparklingJewel5 years ago
I am forwarding this....______________________________Tea Party Patriots push back against the liberal media and expose these “Occupy Wall Street” protesters for what they are: America-hating...
by Doug Hughes5 years ago
"..._Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can't afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can't afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more...
by Holle Abee6 years ago
According to CNN:50% of likely voters say they'll back a Tea Party candidate.Obama's approval rate - 42%, while 54% disapprove.Only 37% say they're more likely to vote for a candidate backed by Obama.GOP has a 9-point...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.