RE: Shutdown - The tea party`s last move?
October 11, 2013 at 12:59 pm
(This post was last modified: October 11, 2013 at 1:10 pm by Raeven.)
(October 11, 2013 at 12:07 pm)sarcasticgeographer Wrote: I am sick and tired of the misunderstanding on this forum about the motives of the tea party. I have been to many tea party rallies and I understand their motives. The primary goal of the tea party is to reduce government spending and to prevent over taxation. TEA in tea party stands for taxed enough already.
I stand by my characterization of the Tea Party. I do know what TEA stood for. And I actually know quite a few of them, both personally and on various forums I frequent. Certainly there is a common characteristic of wanting less taxation -- but the other characteristics I listed are frequently true as well. They may not be strictly true for you, but they are nonetheless true across a wide swath of your peers.
I don't disagree that the middle class is already taxed enough. But the wealthy among us, including corporations themselves (not really people but treated that way within the definition of Citizens United) historically have never enjoyed such tax favored treatment. So I fail utterly to understand why your outrage does not extend to this huge disparity in taxation.
(October 11, 2013 at 12:07 pm)sarcasticgeographer Wrote: There are a many races represented at these rallies and many good ideas exchanged. Since Obama has not taken any steps towards reducing our debt limit, then yes he is attacked for his fiscal policies. They also attack other republican ideals that have gotten us to where we are today. For instance, Bushes fiscal policies are not very popular either. The main goal is reducing debt spending, that is it.
The mechanism for reducing deficit spending (which is what I think you meant when you said 'debt') is to hammer out a budget. It is NOT to scare the entire world about the stability of its reserve currency by failing to raise the debt ceiling. You really, really need to understand the difference between these things.
(October 11, 2013 at 12:07 pm)sarcasticgeographer Wrote: That being said, politics separates us the people. The very people here stating that republicans are trying to criticize Obama are the very same people who have criticized George W. Bush.
Politics does separate us, the People. Divide and conquer is not a new concept. It's up to us to understand when we're debating competing values -- and when the wool is being pulled over our eyes.
Obama is not immune -- nor should he be -- from criticism. What irritates me is criticism borne from a lack of knowledge, and there is an awful lot of that.
(October 11, 2013 at 12:07 pm)sarcasticgeographer Wrote: I don't see democrats rushing to protect Condeleeza Rice, Herman Cain, Allen West, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, nor any minority who stands against the liberal mantra. Also, there is a great tea party supporter named Kevin Jackson, who happens to be african american. I have seen democrats call him Uncle Tom for supporting the Tea Party. Why isn't that called racist?
Protect them from what? As for calling Kevin Jackson Uncle Tom, I don't know the context of that, but racist terms are thrown about all too eagerly by those who like to stir the pot. That can be true in either party, though I see more of it among Republicans.
(October 11, 2013 at 12:07 pm)sarcasticgeographer Wrote: Also, why do democrats claim that the democrat party isn't about big business? Really? Who is behind the democrat party, names like George Soros, Larry Page and the Google leviathan, most of Hollywood? Since when is Google, George Soros, and Hollywood not considered big business?
The Koch brothers could buy and sell George Soros ten times over. But that said, yes, big money infests the Democratic Party as well. I have advocated in other posts on the forum to get big money out of our political process all together. Think we could make that happen?
(October 11, 2013 at 12:07 pm)sarcasticgeographer Wrote: Anyone who thinks that a $17 trillion debt is not worth worrying about is deluding themselves and something needs to be done about our ever increasing debt.
Why does your side always equate anyone who doesn't agree with you with being advocates for big spending? It's simply not true. The debt IS worth worrying about. But deal with it effectively, by passing a budget -- not doing things like failing to raise the debt ceiling, which ironically INCREASES the debt you're so worried about!
Hey, here's an idea for you: I heard Benjamin Netanyahu speaking the other night about the American budget impasse. He shared that in Israel, they have a different system. If their Parliament is unable to agree on a budget, the existing budget is divided by 12 and extended in monthly installments for up to 6 months. If, after 6 months, no budget is passed, then all the seats in the Parliament go to automatic and immediate elections. He smiled wryly and noted that since that law had been passed, they had never failed to pass a budget.
What do you think?
