The Absolute Truth About The Tea Party!

"Do you get the Tea Party disinfo packets straight from the Obama campaign or is it filtered through your individual unions?"

That sums it up perfectly, ATS should love grassroots movements like the TP, but they're too busy thinking the Illuminati are extremely powerful and control everything. According to you people there is nothing we can do, all hope is lost because everyone is corrupt, even those Conservative/Libertarians who are protesting from pure belief, even they are secretly being paid by Big Biz. It's really sad seeing everyone talk bad about the TP sound exactly like a liberal, there is about 80% good in C/Ls and 0% good in liberals, so give me the TP over any Democrat any day. So if the TP is so bad, shouldn't the MSM support it? Shouldn't establishment Republicans love them? Everyone in DC hates the TP, that's all I need to know. Well I guess since the TP are billionaires, I better vote liberal/progressive/communist because they're for the people. While people who listen to Talk Radio and own businesses who show up protesting the Obama regime are really just being paid by billionaires. All of you people against the Tea Party probably agree with Mr. Bipartisan (John Stewart) that we need to censor ourselves and "stop shouting", that we need to be more "civil" and "bipartisan". You people against the Tea Party should be ashamed of yourselves, as I always like to point out, if you're siding with the MSM, you should be very concerned about your position.

Breitbart TV had about 7 videos of union members doing horrendous things at the WI Tea Party rally, where's your thread saying that unions are Illuminati controlled? Especially since unions are a huge problem and are just a money-laundering scheme for the Communists/Democrats and also used to cause massive in/outsourcing. This is the sort of thread that caused me to make my own website and to rarely come here, it really worries me when informed people use Dem/MSM talking points, it's like people aware of the NWO quoting from the bible.

reply to post by neo96


Again, those dollars only have a valor because of labor of people. Without that they are worthless papers.
Only by having someone doing the labor for you (directly or indirectly) it's that such money would give you any profit.

Originally posted by projectvxn
Rich people sign paychecks.

Rich people earn more than 80% of this nations wealth, they pay 60% in taxes likewise. It's more than a fair trade. What's more, giving tax cuts do the wealthy does not equate to more jobs and opportunity. Reagan lowered taxes from 50% to 28% during his term and that only increased the wealth disparity. Bush senior cut $1 trillion in taxes focused on the wealthy and what did this change? We've seen an increase in jobs being shifted overseas, an increase is wealth disparity, meanwhile companies like GE dodge most of the taxes they owe.

In theory A+B=C. That doesn't mean it will work in exact when applied to real world standards. Trickle down economics is but a theory and that is all it's been. We know full well about the theory of trickle down economics and it's been proven a load of crock as demonstrated over the last 30 years.

reply to post by beezzer


keep saying yes more please to a socialist and you will end up on welfare

is the one i know.

reply to post by bruji76


Ooohhh...


Someone doesn't know how monetary value is calculated.

This is going to be an exercise in futility. One thing socialists never understand is that you can't replace naturalistic systems with processes that attempt to violate the laws of societal entropy.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I'm not a Reaganite.

Reagan contributed to the Tax code in many the of the same ways that current and past administrations did.

I'm for replacing the current tax code(which feeds into this whole class warfare BS) with a National sales tax. Everyone pays a 15%(or 20) tax on goods they purchase. That way you pay for the lifestyle you wish to live in.

reply to post by bruji76



when have reached a point in modern society when people have forgotten that employer and employee are dependent upon each other.

where have now reach that point when the employee(i dont have enough keep giving me more and more) and the employer( who continually has to spend and spend more and more and take more risk and pays for that land and equipment and continually be told who they cant and cant hire,what they can and cant make, how they can and cant make and where they can and cant sell it and how much they can and cant sell it for.

reply to post by WeRpeons


No matter what money you put into something, people's opinions are not affected. After all, the US put extra-ordinary amounts of money into many groups. Doesn't change the fact that some people hate them, some people love them.

So again, please do not account people's opinions with money gained.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Rich people earn more than 80% of this nations wealth, they pay 60% in taxes likewise.

Have a reputable citation for that, because I'm pretty sure you're lucky if they pay 30%? You don't think the rich use every loophole in the book to avoid paying taxes? They have the money to hire teams of accountants to hide, exploit and abuse every loophole to avoid paying taxes.

For instance, the entire company of G.E (made 14 billion in profits last year) paid NOTHING in taxes last year. Yes, you heard me. NOTHING.

Source: blogs.abcnews.com...

Believe what you want. It doesn't change the fact that you're fighting against your own interests. You're fighting for companies who are laughing all the way to the bank at your expense.

Read this to understand how capitalism actually works:

Ricardo quotes Adam Smith, who, according to him, “so accurately defined the original source of exchangeable value” (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chap 5 [An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, first edition appearing in London, 1776]), and he adds:

“That this (i.e., labor time) is really the foundation of the exchangeable value of all things, excepting those which cannot be increased by human industry, is a doctrine of the utmost importance in political economy; for from no source do so many errors, and so much difference of opinion in that science proceed, as from the vague ideas which are attached to the word value.”

(Vol.I, p.8)

“If the quantity of labor realized in commodities regulate their exchangeable value, every increase of the quantity of labor must augment the value of that commodity on which it is exercised, as every diminution must lower it.”

(Vol.I, p.8)

Ricardo goes on to reproach Smith:

1. With having “himself erected another standard measure of value” than labor. “Sometimes he speaks of corn, at other times of labor, as a standard measure; not the quantity of labor bestowed on the production of any object, but the quantity it can command in the market.” (Vol.I, pp.9 and 10)

2. With having “admitted the principle without qualification and at the same time restricted its application to that early and rude state of society, which precedes both the accumulation of stock and the appropriation of land.” (Vol.I, p.21)

Ricardo sets out to prove that the ownership of land, that is, ground rent, cannot change the relative value of commodities and that the accumulation of capital has only a passing and fluctuation effect on the relative values determined by the comparative quantity of labor expended on their production. In support of this thesis, he gives his famous theory of ground rent, analyses capital, and ultimately finds nothing in it but accumulated labor. Then he develops a whole theory of wages and profits, and proves that wages and profits rise and fall in inverse ratio to each other, without affecting the relative value of the product. He does not neglect the influence that the accumulation of capital and its different aspects (fixed capital and circulating capital), as also the rate of wages, can have on the proportional value of products. In fact, they are the chief problems with which Ricardo is concerned.

“Economy in the use of labor never fails to reduce the relative value [*1] of a commodity, whether the saving be in the labor necessary to the manufacture of the commodity itself, or in that necessary to the formation of the capital, by the aid of which it is produced."

(Vol.I, p.28)

“Under such circumstance the value of the deer, the produce of the hunter’s day’s labor, would be exactly equal to the value of the fish, the produce of the fisherman’s day’s labor. The comparative value of the fish and the game would be entirely regulated by the quantity of labor realized in each, whatever might be the quantity of production, or however high or low general wages or profits might be.”

(Vol.I, p.28)

“In making labor the foundation of the value of commodities and the comparative quantity of labor which is necessary to their production, the rule which determines the respective quantities of goods which shall be given in exchange for each other, we must not be supposed to deny the accidental and temporary deviations of the actual or market price of commodities from this, their primary and natural price.”

(Vol.I, p.105, l. c.)


“It is the cost of production which must ultimately regulate the price of commodities, and not, as has been often said, the proportion between supply and demand.”

(Vol.II, p.253)

Lord Lauderdale had developed the variations of exchange value according to the law of supply and demand, or of scarcity and abundance relatively to demand. In his opinion the value of a thing can increase when its quantity decreases or when the demand for it increases; it can decrease owing to an increase of its quantity or owing to the decrease in demand. Thus the value of a thing can change through eight different causes, namely, four causes that apply to money or to any other commodity which serves as a measure of its value. Here is Ricardo’s refutation:

“Commodities which are monopolized, either by an individual, or by a company, vary according to the law which Lord Laudersdale has laid down: they fall in proportion as the sellers augment their quantity, and rise in proportion to the eagerness of the buyers to purchase them; their price has no necessary connexion with their natural value; but the prices of commodities, which are subject to competition, and whose quantity may be increased in any moderate degree, will ultimately depend, not on the state of demand and supply, but on the increased or diminished cost of their production.”

(Vol.II, p.259)

We shall leave it to the reader to make the comparison between this simple, clear, precise language of Ricardo’s and M. Proudhon’s rhetorical attempts to arrive at the determination of relative value by labor time.

Ricardo shows us the real movement of bourgeois production, which constitutes value
[...]
Ricardo establishes the truth of his formula by deriving it from all economic relations, and by explaining in this way all phenomena, even those like ground rent, accumulation of capital and the relation of wages to profits, which at first sight seems to contradict it; it is precisely that which makes his doctrine a scientific system.
[...]
Doubtless, Ricardo’s language is as cynical as can be. To put the cost of manufacture of hats and the cost of maintenance of men on the same plane is to turn men into hats. But do not make an outcry at the cynicism of it. The cynicism is in the facts and not in the words which express the facts. French writers like M.M. Droz, Blanqui, Rossi and others take an innocent satisfaction in proving their superiority over the English economists, by seeking to observe the etiquette of a “humanitarian” phraseology; if they reproach Ricardo and his school for their cynical language, it is because it annoys them to see economic relations exposed in all their crudity, to see the mysteries of the bourgeoisie unmasked.

To sum up: Labor, being itself a commodity, is measured as such by the labor time needed to produce the labor-commodity. And what is needed to produce this labor-commodity? Just enough labor time to produce the objects indispensable to the constant maintenance of labor, that is, to keep the worker alive and in a condition to propagate his race. The natural price of labor is no other than the wage minimum. [*2] If the current rate of wages rises above this natural price, it is precisely because the law of value put as a principle by M. Proudhon happens to be counterbalanced by the consequences of the varying relations of supply and demand. But the minimum wage is nonetheless the centre towards which the current rates of wages gravitate.

www.marxists.org...

BTW, both Adam Smith and Ricardo were pro-capitalists, in case you don't know.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by beezzer
It was an honest reply. If you want to base the Tea Party on ME, then go right ahead. You'd be limiting yourself, though.

Again, I never even hinted that I would base anything on anything. Why is it so hard for people to just respond to what I write instead of the preplanned arguments they already have?

TRY TO PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME.

I simply asked if talking with and reading posts from TEA party people on ATS

COUNTED AS INTERACTION WITH REAL TEA PARTY MEMBERS.

Nothing about basing anything on anyone, nothing about generalizing, nothing about any of the things you have responded with. It is a such a simple question. My head hurts from this, it is almost scary.
I am not sure how to dumb it down anymore. Two responses and neither of them were to what I asked.

I am just asking if talking to you counts as interacting with a TEA party member. That is all I asked, 4 times now. I am sorry if it is not coming across as it should. I really have no idea how else to ask it.

"sinnthea" it counts the same as as handling an irritated rattlesnake in full rattle mode does for all snakes being "bad".

"Teaparty affiliated people" are kicked; provoked; prodded; insulted; told what we ALL THINK"; " The "REAL" reason we don't like Obama" and called names by the overwhelming vocal majority of libs here. Excuse us for coming across as defensive or put off.
ADDED: If you are getting a response from a teaparty person in the first place its probably the result of some liberal democrat busy pointing out how narrow minded,selfish and sold out they were.for their opinions.Quit trying to "blow smoke up our rears"Here. You know very well how conservatives are treated here.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by drew1749

 

No offense received. You're obviously a leftist bigot who hates people who disagree with your party line. Care to share more of your delightful insight?

Yes let us make assumptions.

You are obviously a person who thinks Obama is the anti-christ.

See I can say things without proof also.

My Insight? My insight is this:

Ignorance - The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

So you ignored videos just because you had a feeling that they were propaganda? Right?

Hey project, have you read or heard about Fair Tax? Here is a link to the website. It's all about replacing all income tax with a higher sales tax, it basically solves everything, I imagine you're aware of it.

And for those who haven't seen it, here are "millionaires and billionaires" who have started an organization to further tax them overseas, the Marxian overtones of the name should give you chills, it's United for a Fair Economy. And for all those who don't understand how unfairly "rich" people are taxed, here is a recent WSJ article Where the Tax Money is that shows that the "so-called rich" already pay a very unfair amount of the taxes and that confiscating all of their wealth would fund us for only a few months. A chart shows that the most taxable income comes from the 50K-500K range, so raising the taxes for the "rich" is really just going to be raising it for the "so-called rich". As always, instead of the Left fighting the uber-elitist "rich", they attack the job creators while GE and AT&T get stimulus money and use as many tax loopholes as possible (just like Obama). We spent 2.2 trillion on various forms of "support" even though we only had 2.1 trillion in tax revenue, this hasn't happened since the Great Depression, but TP supporters who point this out are secretly just funded by Billionaires? Here are some quotes from the article:

Consider the Internal Revenue Service's income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the "millionaires and billionaires" Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.

So who else is there to tax? Well, in 2008, there was about $5.65 trillion in total taxable income from all individual taxpayers, and most of that came from middle income earners. The nearby chart shows the distribution, and the big hump in the center is where Democrats are inevitably headed for the same reason that Willie Sutton robbed banks.
This is politically risky, however, so Mr. Obama's game has always been to pretend not to increase taxes for middle class voters while looking for sneaky ways to do it. His first budget in 2009 included a "climate revenues" section from the indirect carbon tax of cap and trade, which of course would be passed down to all consumers. Such Democratic luminaries as Nancy Pelosi have often chattered about a European-style value-added tax, or VAT, which from a liberal perspective has the virtue of applying to every level of production or service and therefore is largely hidden from the people who pay it.
Now that those two ideas have failed politically, Mr. Obama is turning as he did last week to limiting tax deductions and other "loopholes," such as for mortgage interest payments. We support doing away with these distortions too, and so does Mr. Ryan, but in return for lower tax rates. Mr. Obama just wants the extra money, which he says will reduce the deficit but in practice will merely enable more spending.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by bruji76

 

when have reached a point in modern society when people have forgotten that employer and employee are dependent upon each other.

where have now reach that point when the employee(i dont have enough keep giving me more and more) and the employer( who continually has to spend and spend more and more and take more risk and pays for that land and equipment and continually be told who they cant and cant hire,what they can and cant make, how they can and cant make and where they can and cant sell it and how much they can and cant sell it for.

LOL, this is like saying that master and slave are dependent upon each other, and poor master has to spend more and more in having more slaves (and giving them the minimum conditions for survival) and more people to whip them so they work faster.
The thing is master can't afford to keep his status quo without slaves, but slaves would be much better without the masters. Arguing slaves should be treated better doesn't change the fact they would still keep on being slaves as long as there is a master exploiting them.

Originally posted by General.Lee

As far as the Tea Party being created by "billionaires", I've sourced information in the past that showed there was no clear information showing one political leaning was wealthier than the other. It ebbs and flows depending on who is promising the most to big business.

Lets not kid ourselves in the republicans are pro-big business and that the majority of tea partiers are right wing fanatics. Small government and personal responsibility is right wing mentality...no ifs or buts! That by itself would not be wrong but almost all the cuts are for medicare/medicaid/social security/welfare..etc You NEVER HEAR right wingers talking about cutting down on the military black budget, cia, nsa, fbi, dea, etc...

The reality its, the right understands free enterprise better than the left. The left thinks that money for charity just materializes out of thin air. In an ideal society, the wealth of that society is created by free enterprise not government confiscation.

liberal capitalists, socialists and communists will disagree with you. Charity is only necessary because the government spends too much on foreign wars, blogger intrusion and spying, too many tax breaks to wealthy people and multi-national corporations.

I find it ironic that people will bash "big business" and wealthy people but those same people are the first ones in line to take the hand-outs that the government confiscated from big business.

Its not ironic at all! Not everyone can afford to attend harvard and get a doctorate degree. Some people are born retarded or paraplegic and cannot work for a living. Some people get hurt in car accidents, get mentally sick, terminal diseases AND NEED HELP. Not everyone on welfare is a black minority with 10 children. Of course right wingers like to generalise 90% of the recipeints are lazy and want spoon feeding.

The bottom line is, the left is afraid of the Tea Party because they love it when Big Brother has the final say and dictates what everybody does. This way, the "wealthy elite" can be controlled. If the Tea Party takes root, it will be a step in taking control back from the government.

The wealthy ALREADY DO CONTROL the american government. They also control every other government throughout the world with very few IF ANY exceptions. Its called the Old World Order rebaptised under "new world order". A wolf in sheeps clothings.

I hate to break it to you, but the wealthiest among us contribute the most to our economy and society. Let me make this clear; the government doesn't have any money. They take it from US. Then they turn around and create entitlement programs and give us our own money back. By beating down billionaires, you are effectively trying to slay the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg. Does that really make sense? I fail to see any logic in that thinking.

More BS! The financial elite make up a tiny minority of the american population and then they hire tax attorneys to find loopholes to take advantage. Most of the illegal irs legislation is written precisely for wealthy people not to mention other flaws that will take me off-topic.

The result is that the middle class and upper middle class pays by far the most taxes of all. They can't afford plane trips to bahamas, lichenstein, luxembourge, switzerland to deposit the money annonymously.

Originally posted by drew1749

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by drew1749

 

No offense received. You're obviously a leftist bigot who hates people who disagree with your party line. Care to share more of your delightful insight?

Yes let us make assumptions.

You are obviously a person who thinks Obama is the anti-christ.

See I can say things without proof also.

My Insight? My insight is this:

Ignorance - The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

So you ignored videos just because you had a feeling that they were propaganda? Right?

I don't need to watch Janene Garafelo to know she's going to say something stupid. That's like saying , "Why don't you hit yourself with a hammer? Do you KNOW it's goin to hurt?"
I don't think Obama is the anti-christ though nice try changing the narritive. I think he's a progressive who wants to fundamentally change America.
And you are still being biased and uninformed. But follow that party line!

Tea party are just the same than republicans and democrats, all of them are puppets of the capitalists masters.
All of them are the same dog with different collar.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by projectvxn
Rich people sign paychecks.

Rich people earn more than 80% of this nations wealth, they pay 60% in taxes likewise. It's more than a fair trade. What's more, giving tax cuts do the wealthy does not equate to more jobs and opportunity. Reagan lowered taxes from 50% to 28% during his term and that only increased the wealth disparity. Bush senior cut $1 trillion in taxes focused on the wealthy and what did this change? We've seen an increase in jobs being shifted overseas, an increase is wealth disparity, meanwhile companies like GE dodge most of the taxes they owe.

In theory A+B=C. That doesn't mean it will work in exact when applied to real world standards. Trickle down economics is but a theory and that is all it's been. We know full well about the theory of trickle down economics and it's been proven a load of crock as demonstrated over the last 30 years.

Disparity is a joke in case you were not aware you have to look at percentages. For example the average household income increased by $4000 under Reagan. Did the income increase as well of course it did that's what happens when the economy does well people make more money. Lets say you have 2 people 1 person makes 500000 a year the other 50000 a year. Now they both see a 10% increase the one is now making 550000 and the other 55000. Both got the same benefit from the economic times but my god the disparity increased!!!!!!!!! I guess that means we need to take 45000 from the one and give it to the other guy right so we can decrease that disparity? what ever happened to people working hard to achieve there goals? I was laid off my job made great money then what did i do went back to school got another degree and now im making money again am i done no im not. The trick of life is you either except your lot in life or do something to change it. If your poor its no ones fault but your own you acepted it. Helping people is great i for one think we should have healthcare for americans however should we pay for your housing food clothes? I personally think stuff needs to be earned not given.

One more thing why has making money become evil? I dont know about you guys but i plan on making as much as i can i work full time have a business on the side and a family. I do alot of juggling but i set goals and i plan on having lots of toys when i die. So i guess im evil working hard to get what i want see you at the finish line.

reply to post by bruji76


so we have moved on the the slave master analogy ok

how long will a master be able to employ people when the government has its foot and the kneck of the master ready to snap it.

furthermore how long will the master be able to employ people when the value of the dollar gets devalued to the point of where its worthless.

the fact of the matter is as any business owner knows costs increase every year benefits increase every year and the value of the dollar decreases everyday.

and any business lives or dies on profit


and yeah i am saying one cant exist without the other business needs workers the government needs our money to function both cant exist without each other.

no profit no business that means no more people working.

we are the slaves here to the master government.

they are the alpha and omega of our existences.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by projectvxn
Rich people sign paychecks.

Rich people earn more than 80% of this nations wealth, they pay 60% in taxes likewise. It's more than a fair trade. What's more, giving tax cuts do the wealthy does not equate to more jobs and opportunity. Reagan lowered taxes from 50% to 28% during his term and that only increased the wealth disparity. Bush senior cut $1 trillion in taxes focused on the wealthy and what did this change? We've seen an increase in jobs being shifted overseas, an increase is wealth disparity, meanwhile companies like GE dodge most of the taxes they owe.

In theory A+B=C. That doesn't mean it will work in exact when applied to real world standards. Trickle down economics is but a theory and that is all it's been. We know full well about the theory of trickle down economics and it's been proven a load of crock as demonstrated over the last 30 years.

Disparity is a joke in case you were not aware you have to look at percentages. For example the average household income increased by $4000 under Reagan. Did the income increase as well of course it did that's what happens when the economy does well people make more money. Lets say you have 2 people 1 person makes 500000 a year the other 50000 a year. Now they both see a 10% the one is now making 550000 and the other 55000. Both got the same benefit from the economic times but my god the disparity increased!!!!!!!!! Iguess that means we need to take 45000 from the one and give it to the other guy right so we can decrease that disparity? what ever happened to people working hard to achieve there goals? I was laid off my job made great money then what did i do went back to scholl got another degree and now im making money again am i done no im not. The trick of life is you either except your lot in life or do something to change it. If your poor its no ones fault but your own you acepted it. Helping people is great i for one think we should have healthcare for americans however should we pay for your housing food clothes? I personally think stuff needs to be earned not given.

The thing is that not all people have the same opportunities to develop their potential. Some have a big safety net via the capital accumulated by their past status quo but most of people don't. That excessive accumulation of wealth is root for capitalism lack of freedom by most of people, so it should not be allowed in the first place.