War declared on Tea Party

reply to post by tnhiker


That's the threat that faces any sort of successful, or even looking like it might be successful, political movement... It'll attract "names" who want to remain "names"... That's why it's up to the grassroots to be very wary of who they allow to speak for them.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Did your employer voluntarily pay unemployment insurance or is it taken by the force of law? Once it is taken from you it is no longer your money. It is their money when they take it.

That should answer your question. I understand your viewpoint, yes we have all been forced to pay into to it so why not take it? Well because people are FORCED to pay into it. Why can't it be voluntary, like every other insurance out there?

I never called anyone who uses the programs a bum, you said that. I simply said I do not understand them. Why do they think the only options are having a m-f, 9 to 5 job or collecting unemployment? Use your brain, take a good look at your surroundings, find a way to survive.

I understand making use of a system you are forced into, I don't fault anyone for feeling like they have a right to it seeing how the money was forcefully taken from them, I just don't understand the thought process that they "need it" and I will not participate in it because it is the product of theft.



ETA: I would be in a much better position right now if all of "my money" that was forcibly taken from me was in a bank account earning interest then I would be under any government program hoping to find a job before benefits end when there are no jobs to be found. What happens when the benefits end and you still don't have a job? Do you think it is better that the government gives you a little bit of your money back when they think you need it or is it better that you get to keep your money and invest and use it as you see fit?

reply to post by beezzer


sometimes I wonder where you come up with this stuff. your definition of progressive is way off base. normally I would say I'm astounded by your definition but since the tea party came along I've learned to lower my expectations concerning the mental capacity / veracity of my fellow American. let's clear some things up. if and when you broke your leg, a progressive would make sure you had access to the best medical care regardless of your social / financial situation. a progressive would do everything to ensure your return to a full life. in other words, with us you wouldn't be able to tap out some preset limit. we'd keep working with you until either you got better or we had returned you to an acceptable quality of life. that quality of life would be the patient's & his doctor's decision not some "suit doctor insurance company whore" sitting in an office 1000 miles away. progressives don't see color, sexual orientation or creed; ALL people recieve the SAME quality of care regardless of who they are and who they love. progressives have faith in their fellow human. we don't assume that everyone desires to rip off the system. (why are right wingers so paranoid btw?) and let us not forget that it is the progressives who lead the charge in medical research including daily breakthroughs in care as well as cures. without the progressives this country would stagnate and die. but then again, somedays I have a feeling that is what the tea party is all about --- survival of the fittest / richest / whitest and all others be damned.

Originally posted by seagull

The next question is: Will the "tea party" remain this way? Who knows.

Only if we stick to our principles.

reply to post by LooksLikeWeMadeIt

Ahhh, there's the race card. And spending other peoples money for that finest care?

Nope. Sorry.

reply to post by sageofmonticello


On the surface, your argument is sound but when put into practice it falls short.

First off, we have a moral obligation to the needy. Regardless of circumstance and such, we are a civilized society and are far beyond living in a "Mad Max" every man for himself society.

Second, we are forced to pay for things that everyone takes advantage of regardless of income level or wether or not they are employed. Things like police, fire, roads, road construction...etc, are just some of the services we all pay for because it's what we do in a civilized society!

So by your standard, people who use these services are irresponsible and are theives of the system. Well, that means we are all guilty.

Why can't it be voluntary, like every other insurance out there?

Because no one would pay for it and that would leave a large section of the population out to dry! Again, we have a duty to care for people in need. Imagine what would happen to the economy if people had nothing to fall back on.

Let's also not forget that almost 40% of Americans are on food stamps. That's a whole lot of lazy, irresponsible people!


ETA: We would all be in a better place if our money wasn't used to send foreign aid, start wars and bailout failed corporations! Where do we want to start? Let's start there before we take the food out of people's mouths.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by sageofmonticello

 

I commend you for you choices, and good luck to you!

The difference between me and somebody unemployed that is living off the state/feds. I will not steal from another person for my benefit. I will not take possession of stolen money just because life has gotten hard for me.

When will people realize that IT"S YOUR MONEY!!!!

It's not stealing from anyone. It's not the governments money. We all pay into it and therefore have a right to use it when needed! Does the tax money to pay for such programs come from the government? Does it come from everyone else's taxes except mine, therefore I am not allowed to use the system?

I am not and have not been unemployed since I was 18yrs old. Do you mean to tell me that I would be a bum to take unemployment (also paid by your employer in the form of an insurance policy) even though I have paid into
it for years?

edit on 30-8-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

Most people realise that when there is a gripe about those recieving government assistance, it's not those who need temporary assistance that people have a problem with.
It's the ones who are life long recipients. Those who have never worked and paid into the system, those who breed to get paid, those who drive nice cars, live in two story brick homes and pay for their food with foodstamps/ebt. Those out there that bleed the system.
It's not those in TEMPORARY need that are the problem, its the parasitic, freeloaders.

reply to post by Quadrivium

Most people realise that when there is a gripe about those recieving government assistance, it's not those who need temporary assistance that people have a problem with. It's the ones who are life long recipients.

When I hear people debate this issue I rarely hear someone say that it is just a small portion of those recipients that hurts the system. The argument against welfare is a blanket one, and it encompasses all who have or do use the system.

I agree with you, but we cannot hang the people out to dry because of a small number that take advantage.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


I am sorry, but you picked the wrong one.

You are very limited by your perspective AND you are putting words into my mouth. You assume the only way to pay for that stuff is through the theft of income tax. Many voluntary taxes can pay for the institutions you say must be paid for by theft. Or do you actually suggest that police, fire protection and roads did not exist before the income tax?

You say we have a "moral obligation to the needy" well, do you not understand that the income tax takes from the needy and gives to the rich as well? It doesn't work one way as you seem to think. Have you not heard of corporate welfare? Rent control? These programs take from poor tax payers and gives to people who have more.

You speak of morals but ignore the immoral act that the income tax, employment tax or any other mandatory tax represents. Theft by FORCE. Does theft by force not bother you?

If nobody would pay for their individual unemployment insurance, how is having it in place in the interest of the people? Sounds like you think nobody wants unemployment insurance yet here you are defending it? sounds like you want it and are happy paying for it. I just want the option to not be robbed. Is that asking to much?



ETA:
I never called anyone lazy or irresponsible, I said I did not understand them and i said that they had a different option. You are calling them lazy and irresponsible, I am saying they accept only two options and ignore the third that I suggested.

So you have now said I have called people bums and I have called people lazy and irresponsible. I haven't said any of this, you have. Is it so hard for you to realize that I haven't even hinted at this? You seem to be operating under many assumptions of me. How about you try to objectively discuss the topic instead of placing your prejudices on me.

They've got you to the point where, whenever you want to get anything done, war is the only analogy you know how to use. The only metaphor. That isn't just you, though; it's me too.

So you've got a funny paradox happening. It's odd. In a way, they know that war as a paradigm and a metaphor doesn't work, which is why they want you to keep using it yourself. But in a way, they obviously believe in their own propaganda, because they keep believing it themselves.

Here's my advice, though. Don't waste your time on "war," as a paradigm, an analogy, or a way of thinking. War spends all of its' time dashing itself against the rocks of whatever it is that it opposes; that's not the way to get real affirmative, or positive action done. You want something else.

What you really want to do, is look at each of these disabled people, if you know any of them, and figure out things...unconventional therapies usually work best, you will find...which will help those particular conditions. For disabled people, that might be physical exercise, or it might be something else. It just depends.

There's lots of stuff. I'm currently messing around with binaural beats, and have been for a while now. They calm you down, clear your head, can stimulate you, and do lots of other things.

Watch this movie, as well. It's about a particular form of therapy that obviously isn't popular, but which has helped a lot of people. It might help some people with their pain, at least.

When I hear people debate this issue I rarely hear someone say that it is just a small portion of those recipients that hurts the system. The argument against welfare is a blanket one, and it encompasses all who have or do use the system.

I agree with you, but we cannot hang the people out to dry because of a small number that take advantage.

edit on 30-8-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

Small number? Not sure where you live, but look at the States that are considered "welfare States" how do you think they came by that term. Its seems you may be out of touch with the way things really work. Not trying to insult you, its just seems you may be a little nieve.
The entire entitlement system needs reform. Strict guide lines need to be set and ENFORCED.

reply to post by sageofmonticello


In the past, just as today, Sheriff's (AKA police) were elected officials being paid out of the community hopper. He could appoint deputies and they were paid by the community as well. So yes, they did exist before the income tax. But they were still paid by tax money. Those taxes were administered locally instead of a massive income tax.

If you read my ealier post in this same thread you will see that I in fact talked about the corporate welfare and the taxes that rich people don't pay. I talk about the small person and such. Thanks!

If nobody would pay for their individual unemployment insurance, how is having it in place in the interest of the people? Sounds like you think nobody wants unemployment insurance yet here you are defending it? sounds like you want it and are happy paying for it. I just want the option to not be robbed. Is that asking to much?

It's common sense. Let's break it down with a little roleplaying.....

"Hey Bob, you have a choice to pay for this unemployment program, or not. What will you do?"

"Well Bill, since I am employed it would be a waste of money. So I don't need it."

"What if you lose your job?"

"That would probably never happen, but if it did I would just find another job. Therefore I have no need to plan for the unexpected!"

"What if there are no jobs, Bob?"

"ummm......"

See the fallacy in that thinking? Yes, I am glad there is a safety net for all of us and I gladly pay a small, very small amount to ensure that I can feed my family in case something happens. And poo happens everyday to many of us. You call it theft....fine. I call it good sense. I do not want my neighbor starving or living on the streets because of hard times.

Maybe we should have an option to opt out of any social programs such as this. That's an idea. Just make sure you don't come crying to me when you lose your job, don't have anything to fall back on, and there is no other job to be had.

reply to post by Quadrivium


Fair enough. That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

I would welcome you to read up on what a "welfare state" actually is, and learn some of the benefits it can have.

Empirical evidence suggests that taxes and transfers considerably reduce poverty in most countries, whose welfare states commonly constitute at least a fifth of GDP.[20][21] Most "welfare states" have considerably lower poverty rates than they had before the implementation of welfare programs.

There is very little correlation between economic performance and welfare expenditure

Like I said before, if you or anyone else has a better plan, please share. I have no problem paying a small amount to help people out, and I may need it someday. Otherwise we might as well live in the Wild West and to each their own. That really sounds intelligent and 21st century to me!

I'm not religious, but ask yourself what Jesus would do.

Link

Originally posted by LooksLikeWeMadeIt
reply to post by beezzer

 

sometimes I wonder where you come up with this stuff. your definition of progressive is way off base. normally I would say I'm astounded by your definition but since the tea party came along I've learned to lower my expectations concerning the mental capacity / veracity of my fellow American. let's clear some things up. if and when you broke your leg, a progressive would make sure you had access to the best medical care regardless of your social / financial situation. a progressive would do everything to ensure your return to a full life. in other words, with us you wouldn't be able to tap out some preset limit. we'd keep working with you until either you got better or we had returned you to an acceptable quality of life. that quality of life would be the patient's & his doctor's decision not some "suit doctor insurance company whore" sitting in an office 1000 miles away. progressives don't see color, sexual orientation or creed; ALL people recieve the SAME quality of care regardless of who they are and who they love. progressives have faith in their fellow human. we don't assume that everyone desires to rip off the system. (why are right wingers so paranoid btw?) and let us not forget that it is the progressives who lead the charge in medical research including daily breakthroughs in care as well as cures. without the progressives this country would stagnate and die. but then again, somedays I have a feeling that is what the tea party is all about --- survival of the fittest / richest / whitest and all others be damned.

edit on 30-8-2011 by LooksLikeWeMadeIt because: added some adjectives

edit on 30-8-2011 by LooksLikeWeMadeIt because: added more

Maybe in your dreams of pure socialism/communism ...

But it's never worked out the way you say it should and it never will.

"Progressives have faith in their fellow human"? A total fabrication. Progressives have faith in only the government. No progressive would "do everything to ensure your return to a full life", or any of the BS you posted. Instead they would walk right on by hoping that someone in the government would come by soon to take care of the problem because it was making them feel bad.

Progressives are perpetual believers in Robin Hood - where it's good to steal from the rich and give to the poor - right up until they get a little money of their own (progressive hypocrisy exposed). The proof in this statement is that while so many progressives say that they should be taxed more, NONE of them EVER sends in extra money to the IRS on their own (more progressive hypocrisy exposed).

Look at your last sentence - " ... I have a feeling that is what the tea party is all about ..." "Feeling" - what progressives are soooo good at. Go ahead and feel your way through life. Tea Party members will spend theirs thinking about the issues and how to solve them.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247

I'm not religious, but ask yourself what Jesus would do.

Link

edit on 30-8-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

I have, Jesus would give to help people who NEEDED it freely.
But he would not TAKE (steal) from others in order to give to those whom may or may not need it.

reply to post by Quadrivium


Well, I guess you missed the point.

Yes, I understand Jesus wouldn't steal to feed another person, but he didn't have to. He could create food where there was none, he could multiply fish to feed 1000's and make wine for all!

Jesus talked about compassion for fellow Men, and how it is honorable to serve your neighbor instead of trying to covet his wife! That's what I am refering to.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Maybe in your dreams of pure socialism/communism ...

But it's never worked out the way you say it should and it never will.

"Progressives have faith in their fellow human"? A total fabrication. Progressives have faith in only the government. No progressive would "do everything to ensure your return to a full life", or any of the BS you posted. Instead they would walk right on by hoping that someone in the government would come by soon to take care of the problem because it was making them feel bad.

Progressives are perpetual believers in Robin Hood - where it's good to steal from the rich and give to the poor - right up until they get a little money of their own (progressive hypocrisy exposed). The proof in this statement is that while so many progressives say that they should be taxed more, NONE of them EVER sends in extra money to the IRS on their own (more progressive hypocrisy exposed).

Look at your last sentence - " ... I have a feeling that is what the tea party is all about ..." "Feeling" - what progressives are soooo good at. Go ahead and feel your way through life. Tea Party members will spend theirs thinking about the issues and how to solve them.

edit on 8/30/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)

Winner, winner chicken dinner!
(I always wanted to say that)
Well said!

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by seagull


The "tea party" as a concept is against this sort of thing. ...and that just doesn't sit well with those who would like us all to give up responsibility for our own care, and let the nanny-state take care of us.

The next question is: Will the "tea party" remain this way? Who knows.

The TEA party; when reflected as policy, is going to be manifested in massive corporate liberation.

I don't think corporations needs more power over America , it is a byproduct which will probably do
little to curtail the "size" of government as well.

yah well MoveOn.org manifested as Union thugs beating up black supporters of the Tea Party. The Left only came up with the bogus Koch Bros thing after the Soros machine was exposed. There was no Kock Brother paying for my Tea Party signs, but I bet Soros paid for all those purple SEIU T-shirts and signs.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


OK, you really told me Like I said, you picked the wrong one.

Just make sure you don't come crying to me when you lose your job, don't have anything to fall back on, and there is no other job to be had.

Looks like you haven't read the very post of mine that started this whole back and forth. That is exactly what I am saying. I didn't go crying to the government for help when my life got hard and I don't want them to steal my money because they think they know how to spend it on me better than I do. I am specifically asking for the option to "opt out" Thanks for once again ignoring the very words I have written and rather replied to me based on your personal prejudice.

If you read my ealier post in this same thread you will see that I in fact talked about the corporate welfare and the taxes that rich people don't pay. I talk about the small person and such. Thanks!

Your right, I haven't read this entire thread yet, I have been too busy fighting off your attacks at me. Thanks! Maybe I should just ignore you so I can catch up. I actually have no idea why I continue to write to you seeing how you have put words in my mouth, demonstrated you have not read my replies to you, assumed my thoughts and character and haven't spent a second of your time examining my perspective.

Yes, I am glad there is a safety net for all of us and I gladly pay a small, very small amount to ensure that I can feed my family in case something happens.

Then why can't you see the fallacy in your thinking. You must assume you are the enlightened person and everyone else is too dumb to take care of themselves. If you see employment insurance as a good thing, why do you assume that others don't? I am simply asking to not have to fund a insurance scheme that I don't see as a good thing for me.

My unemployment insurance is my savings, hard-work and ingenuity. Why should I be forced into a insurance scheme that I see as morally wrong (funding through theft) and don't want to participate in? I have done just fine for myself without the "safety net" that people like you have forced me to fund.

What happens when the unemployment insurance runs out and they don't have a job? Do you not see the problem with that? What of the millions of american people who have taken unemployment, looked for a job, found none and their unemployment has run out?

They are made dependent on a system that they fund that later leaves them high and dry despite the fact that they fund it. Would they not be better off knowing no safety net exist so they better prepare for an uncertain future? If the safety net was voluntary wouldn't it be better at driving that point home to those that don't prepare for their future?

Whatever, your intentions are clear, you do not intend to have an adult discussion with somebody who sees things differently than you do, you simply want to paint me according to your prejudice. Have fun with that, I couldn't care less. You simply are making yourself look very foolish and I have no incentive to continue to feed the troll you are acting like.


ETA: It seems to me that you are just upset that one of the "needy" unemployed people you are so keen on helping doesn't want or need your damn help. go bark up another tree.

I have to disagree with pretty much everyone's statements here.

The word "Party" as used in the name "tea party" is a misnomer. There is no party.

"Tea party", of course, is referring to that particular incident in Boston in 1773 when a group of colonists dumped tea into the harbor as a TAX PROTEST. The original tea party was not a political party, in the same way the recent tea party is not a political party.

The new tea party was born out of anger over being robbed by the banks and the executive hand in hand; the "bank bailouts". People would post up on the internet that they were having a discussion at their local library, and 100 people would show up. There was no leadership, just equals who shared a common thread; they had all been taken by their politicians. It was a TAX PROTEST.

The tea party, in its historical and recent manifestations, is very simply a TAX PROTEST. It is nothing more than that. Any politician that attaches themselves to the original intent of the movement, and then claims the tea party is also about "this, that and the other", is doing so play on the emotional surge that the original idea produced.

It is sad that the tea party, like other political movements with merit, tend to get hijacked by cult personalities (palin anyone?) and engineered into whatever political movement their handlers care to have it devolve into.