|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 8, 2013 3:20:50 GMT
First off....you didn't answer the question. None of the statements you make have a thing to do with what the Tea Party stands for.
And your comments don't even describe the problem. The real problem is that the burden of paying for Obamacare is on the middle class. Obama and the Democrats did that; not the Republicans. Plus I don't get how you're blaming the Tea Party for playing World Cop....as you call it....when your very own man, Barack Obama, has escalated that BIG TIME. Not a word of criticism for him, though, from you.
The last comment about agreeing with the U.S. Constitution is laughable.....coming from someone who actually defends this administration at every turn.
A much as I condemn the Obama administration for continuing the US role of World Cop he hasn't been nearly as bad a the prior administration that launched two wars and left two major wars that added roughly $1.5 trillion national debt.
I've also agreed that the funding for "Obamacare" is wrong. The costs should have been levied on the wealthy in America as opposed to the workers of America. The wealthy investors that pay Capital Gains taxes pay less than 1/2 the tax rates of working Americans on their income.
I've also condemned the entire "Obamacare" program as, at least from my perspective, the problem could have been resolved by simply fulfilling the original Mission Statement of Medicaid. I proposed this in 2009 and haven't backed off from it one iota. The Mission Statement of Medicaid in the 1960's was to provide health care for those that couldn't afford it but that Mission Statement has never been fulfilled due to a lack of funding by the US Congress and the States. If the Mission Statement for Medicaid had been fulfilled since the 1960's there wouldn't have been a problem in 2009.
The Tea Party refuses to address the elephant in the living room when it comes to over-spending by the United States government which is the DOD budget. That budget is at least twice what is necessary for the US military to be the finest military in the world to provide for the defense of the United States and a deterant against any foreign invasion or attack especially considering that not a single nation in the world threatens to attack the United States today.
Instead the Tea Party movement targets Social Security that has never contributed even one dime to the national debt and, in fact, over-taxed working Americans since the 1980's with the promise that the over-taxation would prevent their benefits from being cut in the future. The Social Security Trust Fund has almost $3 trillion in reserves and it's greatest problem is that the benefits are too low, not too high, but it does require additional funding to continue paying benefits in about 20 years. Why haven't wealthy investors ever been required to pay into this fund? If we eliminate the cap (currently about $110,000/yr) and impose the 12.4% Social Security tax on all income regardless of source the funding of Social Security is solved.
Better still we could privatize Social Security but the Tea Party movement has never made any realistic proposal to do this where benefits could be increased for those collecting Social Security welfare checks as well as starting young workers on the path of investments that would result in privatization within the 40 year time span that would be required. Privatizing Social Security will take at least 40 years and it will cost about $40 trillion but the Tea Party movement refused to pay the costs of the transition. Sometimes it costs money to save money but the Tea Party is apparently completely ignorant of this fact.
The Tea Party wants to reduce welfare spending and so do I. The difference is that to reduce welfare spending requires reducing poverty that the welfare mitigates. The Tea Party refuses to address the problem which is poverty and instead chooses to leave the poverty in place while refusing to mitigate it's effects. We have to address the PROBLEM and the Tea Party won't do that.
The Tea Party are also hypocrites when it comes to the Constitution. They complain about Social Security/Medicare/Obamacare calling them unconstitutional because they lack specific enumeration in the US Constitution but endorse immigration limitations when the US Constitution doesn't enumerate any role or responsibility of government to control immigration. The word "immigration" is not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution and controlling immigration is not an enumerated power of the federal government.
From what I gather most in the Tea Party are opposed to ending the War on Drugs but once again no where in the US Constitution does it provide any authority for the federal government to prohibit the American People from using growing, processing, possessing or using drugs of any kind.
Many, if not most, in the Tea Party movement are opposed to same-sex marriage even though the 14th Amendment prohibits denial of equal protection under the law and Article IV Section I requires all states to give full faith and credit to official records of another state that would require them to recognized same-sex marriages from other states.
The examples of when the Tea Party movement is hypocritical related to the US Constitution are almost endless.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 8, 2013 6:22:58 GMT
Considering that Bush and Obama are considered by many to be the two worst presidents in the history of United States it's hard not to make a comparison. When comparing violations of the US Constitution a person has to nit-pick the details because both violated the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments as well as provisions in the original articles. It really is a matter of the "Pot" and the "Kettle" with few exceptions.
About the only place where President Obama is clearly superior to former President Bush is in civil rights and the Tea Party Republicans are trying to reverse even what little former President Bush did for civil rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 8, 2013 6:55:26 GMT
Where in the world are you getting your "many, if not most," and "most" declarations about the Tea Party? Marijuana? I think that's more of a concern of yours and NOT the Tea Party. Again, I think you have a lot of fun mischaracterizing them....but you don't seem to know much about them. And how does one become a Tea Party member anyway? Is there a membership to sign up for? Is there an oath to take somewhere? No....on either count. It's simply a grassroots movement based on a belief system that recognizes we need to get back to some fiscal sanity and smaller federal government. It's a concern about the future of our children and grandchildren. IF you don't believe in that fine; that's your perrogative. But many of the citizens do. And it's not anything to be demonized for.......
I oppose ALL drug prohibition laws and not just marijuana prohibition laws. Abolishing all drug prohibition laws would result in a direct savings of over $2 billion in federal expenditures by closing the DEA and would indirectly reduce both federal and state law enforcement spending significantly by reducing violent crime that is associated with the black market in drugs in America. All together the elimination of all drug prohibition laws would result in between $10 billion and $25 billion annually and would shrink government at all levels.
Fiscal sanity and a concern for the welfare of our children and grandchildren requires balancing the US budget today plus enough revenue to pay down the national debt. That is going to take both tax increases as well as pragmatic reductions in the size of government. It cannot be a "slash and burn" approach. Pragmatic reductions can be made but they need to be based upon sane reasoning that I haven't seen coming from anyone claiming to represent the Tea Party movement.
Here are some sane ways to reduce the size of government
Reduce welfare by reducing the poverty in the United States. The single greatest cause of poverty in America is the denial of equality of opportunity based upon race, gender, and ethnic heritage so I suggest we work to eliminate that discrimination. As that discrimination ends then poverty will be reduced and the need for welfare to mitigate the effects of poverty are also reduced.
Eliminate Social Security/Medicare by addressing the problem that was identified in 1935 and confirmed in 1965 that about 1/2 of the people at retirement age haven't invested throughout their working career to build personal assets to provide income when they're too old to work. It requires about 40-45 years for the average person to invest and build those assets and it is logical to use the money they contribute to Social Security/Medicare to accomplish that. That means that during that 40-45 year timeframe that new taxes are required to pay for those that are already dependent upon Social Security/Medicare because of the taxes they've already paid. I estimate that cost at $40 trillion in new taxation.
We can dramatically reduce federal spending to limiting the role of the US military to defending the United States from attacks by foreign nations. We could dramatically reduce federal spending by ending the role of "World Cop" that was never a delegated responsibility of our government. The DOD budget could be slashed by 80% and we'd still be spending more than any other nation in "real dollars" on our military at a time when no nation on the planet has any intention of attacking the United States.
Oh, there are responsible and sane ways to dramatically reduce the size of our government. Some do cost money in the "short term" such as privatizing Social Security/Medicare but they pay big dividends down the road for our children and grandchildren.
Most importantly though is to end the deficits by raising enough revenue immediately to pay for the currently authorized expenditures of our government. That is a proposition that I haven't heard coming from anyone claiming to be a member of the Tea Party movement.
|
|
|
|
Post by maniacalhamster on Oct 8, 2013 16:26:14 GMT
Where in the world are you getting your "many, if not most," and "most" declarations about the Tea Party? Marijuana? I think that's more of a concern of yours and NOT the Tea Party. Again, I think you have a lot of fun mischaracterizing them....but you don't seem to know much about them. And how does one become a Tea Party member anyway? Is there a membership to sign up for? Is there an oath to take somewhere? No....on either count. It's simply a grassroots movement based on a belief system that recognizes we need to get back to some fiscal sanity and smaller federal government. It's a concern about the future of our children and grandchildren. IF you don't believe in that fine; that's your perrogative. But many of the citizens do. And it's not anything to be demonized for.......
I oppose ALL drug prohibition laws and not just marijuana prohibition laws. Abolishing all drug prohibition laws would result in a direct savings of over $2 billion in federal expenditures by closing the DEA and would indirectly reduce both federal and state law enforcement spending significantly by reducing violent crime that is associated with the black market in drugs in America. All together the elimination of all drug prohibition laws would result in between $10 billion and $25 billion annually and would shrink government at all levels.
Fiscal sanity and a concern for the welfare of our children and grandchildren requires balancing the US budget today plus enough revenue to pay down the national debt. That is going to take both tax increases as well as pragmatic reductions in the size of government. It cannot be a "slash and burn" approach. Pragmatic reductions can be made but they need to be based upon sane reasoning that I haven't seen coming from anyone claiming to represent the Tea Party movement.
Here are some sane ways to reduce the size of government
Reduce welfare by reducing the poverty in the United States. The single greatest cause of poverty in America is the denial of equality of opportunity based upon race, gender, and ethnic heritage so I suggest we work to eliminate that discrimination. As that discrimination ends then poverty will be reduced and the need for welfare to mitigate the effects of poverty are also reduced.
Eliminate Social Security/Medicare by addressing the problem that was identified in 1935 and confirmed in 1965 that about 1/2 of the people at retirement age haven't invested throughout their working career to build personal assets to provide income when they're too old to work. It requires about 40-45 years for the average person to invest and build those assets and it is logical to use the money they contribute to Social Security/Medicare to accomplish that. That means that during that 40-45 year timeframe that new taxes are required to pay for those that are already dependent upon Social Security/Medicare because of the taxes they've already paid. I estimate that cost at $40 trillion in new taxation.
We can dramatically reduce federal spending to limiting the role of the US military to defending the United States from attacks by foreign nations. We could dramatically reduce federal spending by ending the role of "World Cop" that was never a delegated responsibility of our government. The DOD budget could be slashed by 80% and we'd still be spending more than any other nation in "real dollars" on our military at a time when no nation on the planet has any intention of attacking the United States.
Oh, there are responsible and sane ways to dramatically reduce the size of our government. Some do cost money in the "short term" such as privatizing Social Security/Medicare but they pay big dividends down the road for our children and grandchildren.
Most importantly though is to end the deficits by raising enough revenue immediately to pay for the currently authorized expenditures of our government. That is a proposition that I haven't heard coming from anyone claiming to be a member of the Tea Party movement.
So basically if i were to watch a bunch of your people with some label like "the Real Tea Party" , take to the streets....it would be basically the same only with leftist ideals and proposals.. basically a left wing tea party wannabe group... |
|
