It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


If tea party members and conservatives are really concerned about the deficit...

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:52 PM
reply to post by kinda kurious

There seems to be continued confusion regarding the Pie Chart in OP.

Your pie chart is an inaccurate representation of the Tea Party Movement as opposed to a representation of what the NYT (MSM) wants to show.

How sad that ATS has become the sanctuary of the complacent profits (sic intended) over a voice for the skeptical.


posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:06 PM
reply to post by jdub297

As I'm sure you are keenly aware, this is not my thread. There were numerous posts questioning the validity of the data in the pie chart. I simply strived to support the claims made by OP and validate the accuracy of the chart.

Bottom line, there is no ambiguity in the accuracy of values provided in OP's chart.

If you'd like to scuffle with me that is fine, I service what I sell. Otherwise, kindly direct your scorn toward appropriate party. Thanks.

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:09 PM
if republicans dont not help us poor than how come i got a nice trailer home and it paid off? i finally paid it off from my wife workin her jobs and from my disability cheks from a slip on a wet floor and that money got me to pay off my trailer house. i OWN MY HOME! i am proud and it happened while a REPUBLICAN was in office and God loves republicans, christains and folks from texas and those who look like me and us southern good'ol boys and nobody else. its adouble-wide trailer and i think its the NICEST one in our park.

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:17 PM
reply to post by lemonfresh

There are numerous advantages to residing in a transportable domicile.

Notwithstanding the fact that they are prone to tornados.

I could be sincerely happy for you.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:35 PM
reply to post by kinda kurious

Let me see, there KK. Since the INCEPTION of the socialist system.

Has ANYTHING changed? Has the INABILITY of government contributed to the problematic enterprise of socialism?

I am calling you and everyone else out. You still think that government can and will actually make a difference with CHARITY.

Explain to me the world? Explain to me the problems?

Charity is charity! Nothing more, nothing less!

I am what I am. You are what you are.

If you do not believe in charity, you will not be charitable.
If you are an ASS, you will not be charitable.
Morality CANNOT be regulated!
So, let us take an example, how goes the equality you so desire?

You and everyone else is being MANIPULATED!
Everyone in MY WORLD has their own CHOICE!
Libertarianism, you have the RIGHT to do anything, as long as it does not infringe on another's rights.

Why the HELL are you NOT a Libertarian?

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 07:38 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

Dear sir. I am keenly aware of your ability to deflect. I prefer to stay on topic. The OP makes the case that there is a modicum of hypocrisy in the TPM. They seem to shout and demand a reduction in government / spending, yet unwilling to give up any of their entitlements or subsidies.

That is the topic. I realize that you have numerous other current threads regarding what you perceive as "socialism" here on ATS. Should I desire to debate that topic with you, I'll jump in with both feet as always. In the meantime, I kindly suggest you cease the misuse of the headline function. It translates to shouting in an electronic communication venue. Good day.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:40 AM

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
If one is truly a fiscal conservative, they will support measures which would cut social security and medicare spending.

True. I would support cutting both of those behemoths loose. It would have to be done over a significant amount of time though so that people expecting it won't be left in the cold. In their places I would support tax breaks on financial vehicles that would help people save for their own retirement and medical expenses. Close scrutiny and competition would encourage the cost of medical services to lower. Cutting out the middle man always lowers cost. Adding layer upon layer of federal bureaucracy does not.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
A true conservative would support cuts to the military.

Correct again. I would love to see America shore up her borders, focus inwardly and cut back on the policing of the world via the US military.

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:49 AM
reply to post by kinda kurious

Well, the OP wanted to call out conservatives and Tea Party Backers.

Hmmm, it would seem that would be people like me. You know a True-Tea Party backer.

Taxed Enough Already backer. The party created by the followers of Ron Paul. Libertarians. Actual people that believe in true liberty. Not the backers of the 2 headed snake. You know, kinda like you.

So, my views on this are related to the topic at hand.

You know, CONTROL. Thanks for the indoctrination attempt. Not biting.

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Tea party members and conservatives (if there is a difference) seem really concerned about the budget deficit, while at the same time they do not want the government to touch "their" social security and "their" medicare. They also do not want the government to cut defense spending because that is unpatriotic.

Considering that they paid into it, I'd say that they have a right to 'their' social security and 'their' medicare. That's not to say that I support either of these programs, in many ways I do not, but I don't support theft either. If they've paid into it, they're entitled to recover that amount with an appropriate amount of interest.

As for defense spending, I don't think it has anything to do with 'patriotism'. As I see it, the federal government has one primary role: to provide for a strong national defense. Given that, I think the defense expenditures are largely justified. Not all of it, mind you, but the better portion of it. If it were up to me, I'd be more isolationist, but I don't think more than a handful in government support that stance anymore.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in