If the government only exercised the powers granted by the Constitution, and did not continue to mortage the future and sovereignty of this nation, there would be no Tea Party.
All you haters have brought this upon yourselves, asking for and receiving handouts that only borrowed-and-never-to-be repaid money could possibly purchase.
Your belief that a government, any government, can just keep giving you things is like a kid believing he'll get Christmas gifts his parents could never afford, because they really come from Santa.
From Wikipedia: TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group".[10] Democratic Party activists have pointed out that Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[11] According to Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com, while there are no apparent records of Scott Rasmussen or Rasmussen Reports making contributions to political candidates and its public election polls are generally regarded as reliable, "some observers have questioned its issue-based polling, which frequently tends to elicit responses that are more conservative than those found on other national surveys."[1
"I love that Bernie is troubled by the local activists. I know it's mostly the Charlie crush, but it's still enjoyable to read, and read, and read."
I respect and admire local activism. I am fearful of local demagogues who proclaim themselves the leaders of an 1100 person group that never designated them as such. Considering that the tea part is all about restoring democracy, it is the height of hypocracy that their "leaders" would never seek elections.
But I don't think it's about restoring democracy. It's about imposing Joe Hilliard and Kim Schmidtner's views on everyone else.
Again with another grunt from the scrotum-obsessed left.
Given Barry's hilariously crashing approval ratings (could he even beat GW at this point?) I guess scrotum obsession is all that remains. That, and his overweight wife packed into two sizes too small clothing telling little black kids (whom she'll not let her precious darlings go to school with) how they should eat better - presumably to not inflate to her size.
I am not part if this movement, just an observer who finds a lot of the rhetoric of both sides too polarizing.
That said, the GOP should be concerned. They have no natural national leader right now. The RNC's into BDSM and sex lines (ironically while the current issue of National Review has on article critical of that liberal Yale "sex week"), which undermines the "God's on our side" rhetoric. The free spending/charging of the GOP during the Bush years was record breaking (until the Dems/Obama), which undermines the "party of fiscal responsibility" rhetoric. I think a certain segment is tired of "do as I say, not as I do" Republican leadership, and are tired of the election year lip-service to all the Right slogans, and then its business as usual. Whether it is supporting challengers in the primaries, or staying at home, the GOP should be concerned by this movement...What happened in the NorCo council elections may not be replicated nationally. The numerically disadvantaged GOP had always done well by its higher voter turnout statistics....that may be falling apart if they can't get their act together and show leadership and vision....kind of sad when a president whose term ended over 20 years ago is the last Republican who inspired that. The Bush/GOP years were a merely the pendulum swinging back after the Clinton years, then solidified by the politics of fear after 9/11.
I find tea baggers and the right idiots who just believe that somehow the world can be simple, clear, and rid of large organizations, excessive wealth, and talent.
Unfortuntely, large organizations, excessive wealth, and talent breeds more wealth and more inequality. The tea baggers are blind to the fact they are being had by the wealth and the selfish.
".That, and his overweight wife packed into two sizes too small clothing telling little black kids"
"should we talk about Laura Bushes dress size or her traffic accident"
Neither of these comments is necessary. Michelle Obama and Laura Bush are both beautiful women who obviously have bad eyesight. I think their husbands would agree with me.
I think it's ok to knock Obama or Bush around, but let's be nice to their wives. It's Easter, damn it.
With such great unemployment news owing to the hiring of stimulus temps and census takers (yeah, I know the overall unemployment rate hasn't moved), why doesn't the federal government hire all of the unemployed and lower the rate to zero?
The stimulus alone was supposed to have created and/or retrained many more jobs than that. That was one of the reasons I thought it was a good thing at the time. But it did not know what it said it would do.
Having said that, I really hope we are on our way out of the rabbit hole.
"You know the list of all teabaggers and especially teabagger leaders who receive evil government handouts. You know, like social Security, Medicare, SSI disability, Medicaid, Chip program, government pensions, veterans benefit (only active service benefits allowed)"
********************************
I guess I missed the memo where the Tea Party advocated that INDIVIDUALS not accept payments from programs that exist. Or the pledge that Tea Party members would stop receiving payments from a government program while leaving the program in place.
They do advocate limiting the size of government, abiding by the Constitution (imagine that) and that the government should stop spending on things our children (and their children) will be paying for, but you continue to mischaracterize their position.
Stick to your talking points though, it really seems to be working!
Lie, smear and keep the truth away - that's what’s known as the democrat way.
1) Up until now, I've been bothered by the use of the word "tea bagger" to decribe the tea party movement. On Fri. night, conservative John Hinkle used it when introducing Kim Schmidtner, and no one seemed offended. Although I will not use the wrd, I will no longer slam commenters who use it.
2) I have spent the past few days looking at comments from the local tea party site. Many of the individuals there have advocated abolishment of programs like Social Security and Medicare. I believe those individuals, to be internally consistent, should refuse to participate in those programs. I don't believe it is a lie or a smear to call out tea party members who participate in the very programs they claim they want to abolish.
On Friday night, Sam Rohrer got a lot of applause when he condemned SCIP, which probably saved my grandson's life. I'd like to know myself whether any of those applauding would be happy to seee a young child die for want of medical care.
What everyone should be calling for is not smaller government or larger government, but good government. For those of you that wax sentimental about the good old days of pre-1933 or pre-Teddy Roosevelt (progressive Republican in case anyone forgot) let's not forget who was calling the shots in those "good old days". The "titans of industry" also known as J.P. Morgan (the man), John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, etc. were monopolists who oversaw the largest grab of wealth and production the nation had ever seen. The way they got their riches was through the "hands off" policies of the government and on the backs of labor (women, children, gross labor abuse). Progressives like the Roosevelts and the unions fought to bring not just more competition to the marketplace, but humane working conditions and a living wage. Those of you who want to live in this more "pure" age of capitalism would have been the dogs that the unchecked power of these corporate titans tread on.
1) Regarding the word "Teabagger": I'm sure Hinkle misspoke, and I'm sure most in attendance realized he misspoke. Hinkle certainly didn't use the term to deride the group or Schmidtner.
I don't think you can take a few instances where the word is inadvertantly used by a conservative and then give the haters a pass to use it. Should we all be able to use the "N-word" because a few rappers may use it in song lyrics?
2) You cannot use your grandson as justification for keeping the SCIP program. I don't say that on my own logic, it is the logic of none other than the President of the United States.
You see, the President has conducted a year-long assault on private insurance companies in America. In a nation of 300 million, these private companies have surely saved millions in situations similar to your grandson. Yet despite those millions of success stories, the democrat party is in the process of destroying private health insurance.
Why is it ok to deride private companies yet unfair to ask government to limit its activities?
Admittedly I know nothing about your grandson's case, but I would also argue that the doctors/hospitals involved were the ones who actually saved your grandson and others like him - not insurance (private or otherwise). They also provide services for the uninsured.
"I believe those individuals, to be internally consistent, should refuse to participate in those programs. I don't believe it is a lie or a smear to call out tea party members who participate in the very programs they claim they want to abolish."
*********************************
OK, but let's be fair. If you want to hold people to the standard of being "internally consistent" and not participating in programs they want to abolish, let's let them also opt out of paying for them as well.
For example, I'd gladly forego my social security and medicare as long as I can keep my share (and my employer's share) of what's being paid in on my behalf.
I'll also take what I've paid in to date (whatever the government is holding in my "account"). But in the interest of fairness and good will, I'll allow the government to keep the earnings that have accumulated on "my account" over the years.
That's certainly fair.
Until that happens I don't think it's fair to chide people for accepting the paltry payments they get in return for what they paid in.
In addition, I'll go a few steps further: I'll put the monies in a segragated account to be used for living and medical expenses upon my retirement. I'll also do what's legally necessary to make sure I can't spend the funds elsewhere before I retire.
That's more than even the government will do, and I'll be able to pass on anything that's left over when I die to my children.
I'll gladly take that option over your government-sponsored Ponzi scheme any day.
"On Friday night, Sam Rohrer got a lot of applause when he condemned SCIP, which probably saved my grandson's life. I'd like to know myself whether any of those applauding would be happy to seee a young child die for want of medical care."
***********************************
Really Bernie, that's the choice?
Either you support an expansion of government paid for with money we don't have or you're in favor of watching young children die?
That's the same false choice and dishonesty we hear from the president on a daily basis.
How about trying to find ways to make private insurance more affordable, without adding provisions and mandates designed to destroy the insurance industry? How about tort reform, to reduce the cost of both insurance and (more importantly) MEDICAL CARE? How about finding ways to make private insurance more portable, so that losing your job doesn't mean you lose your insurance? How about allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines to lower insurance costs for all?
Just because you oppose SCIP and big government "solutions" doesn't mean you'll be happy to watch young children die.
If anything, it means you're smart enough to fear that the government solutions to health care problems will net the same results as big government solutions to problems like poverty and the deterioration of our inner cities.
It also means in addition to seeing your grandson healthy, I'd like to see him able to pursue his dreams to the best of his ability and live a full and happy life. I want to see him be able to enjoy the fruits of his labor - without being shackled by the chains of paying for what someone else tells him to buy.
"Until that happens I don't think it's fair to chide people for accepting the paltry payments they get in return for what they paid in."
Eeeehhhh! Wrong. Most people receive back the "paltry" amount they pay into Social Security within five to six years of retirement. If you live to 85 you're getting 15 years of gravy. Maybe that's why the system is going broke, but either educate yourself about the benefits or stop lying.
Bernie said: " I am fearful of local demagogues who proclaim themselves the leaders of an 1100 person group that never designated them as such. Considering that the tea part is all about restoring democracy, it is the height of hypocracy that their "leaders" would never seek elections. " ---------------------- Bernie, it's a voluntary association of people who can "vote" with their feet if they decide to join or leave. And the "tea part", as you call it, is more about being "Taxed Enough Already".
Wayne, I get the "taxed enough already" lament. What i don't get is a group that purports to wish to restore democracy, but that can't be bothered to elect its own leaders. I don't get a group that seeks nonprofit status when it is clearly engaged in political activity. And I don't get a completely unworkabl limited government resolution that supposedly passed unanimosuly in March. On a federal level, it would be impossible, and I'll demonstrate that next week.
I appreciate that a lot of people are frustrated and do not queastion their good intentions, but they are being led astray to pursue the personal agendas of people they never elected.
Some of them have begun to recognize that in the past few days.
Actually, if you remember, the call for a 21st century "tea party" started with a TV commentator at some mercantile exchange who started ranting about the bailouts of companies "too big to fail" and the talk about bailing out homeowners that bought houses they could not afford. All that while the rest of us, who pay our debts and follow the rules, watched and wonder if we were just being played for suckers...
It's about correcting the abuse of Democracy, the representatives buying the votes of the electorate. IMHO
Most people receive back the "paltry" amount they pay into Social Security within five to six years of retirement. If you live to 85 you're getting 15 years of gravy. Maybe that's why the system is going broke, but either educate yourself about the benefits or stop lying.
*********************************
If that's what you believe, fine. As I said, if you want me to opt out, give me back what I've paid in, relieve me of having to pay anything more in, and I'll take care of things myself.
By the way, millions die without receiving any of their Social Security benefits or die before they get back what they paid in.
And don't those "15 years of gravy" you cite actually represent the earnings on the money I've contributed?
(Gasp) You're not saying that the money I've contributed isn't in a segragated account earning interest, are you? Why, the government would never do something like that!
25 comments:
Watch Congress on CSpan and learn just how depressing it can get.
I love that Bernie is troubled by the local activists. I know it's mostly the Charlie crush, but it's still enjoyable to read, and read, and read.
If the government only exercised the powers granted by the Constitution, and did not continue to mortage the future and sovereignty of this nation, there would be no Tea Party.
All you haters have brought this upon yourselves, asking for and receiving handouts that only borrowed-and-never-to-be repaid money could possibly purchase.
Your belief that a government, any government, can just keep giving you things is like a kid believing he'll get Christmas gifts his parents could never afford, because they really come from Santa.
Economic dunces, one and all.
I find that hard to believe...
From Wikipedia: TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group".[10] Democratic Party activists have pointed out that Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[11] According to Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com, while there are no apparent records of Scott Rasmussen or Rasmussen Reports making contributions to political candidates and its public election polls are generally regarded as reliable, "some observers have questioned its issue-based polling, which frequently tends to elicit responses that are more conservative than those found on other national surveys."[1
"I love that Bernie is troubled by the local activists. I know it's mostly the Charlie crush, but it's still enjoyable to read, and read, and read."
I respect and admire local activism. I am fearful of local demagogues who proclaim themselves the leaders of an 1100 person group that never designated them as such. Considering that the tea part is all about restoring democracy, it is the height of hypocracy that their "leaders" would never seek elections.
But I don't think it's about restoring democracy. It's about imposing Joe Hilliard and Kim Schmidtner's views on everyone else.
Again with another grunt from the scrotum-obsessed left.
Given Barry's hilariously crashing approval ratings (could he even beat GW at this point?) I guess scrotum obsession is all that remains. That, and his overweight wife packed into two sizes too small clothing telling little black kids (whom she'll not let her precious darlings go to school with) how they should eat better - presumably to not inflate to her size.
I am not part if this movement, just an observer who finds a lot of the rhetoric of both sides too polarizing.
That said, the GOP should be concerned. They have no natural national leader right now. The RNC's into BDSM and sex lines (ironically while the current issue of National Review has on article critical of that liberal Yale "sex week"), which undermines the "God's on our side" rhetoric. The free spending/charging of the GOP during the Bush years was record breaking (until the Dems/Obama), which undermines the "party of fiscal responsibility" rhetoric. I think a certain segment is tired of "do as I say, not as I do" Republican leadership, and are tired of the election year lip-service to all the Right slogans, and then its business as usual. Whether it is supporting challengers in the primaries, or staying at home, the GOP should be concerned by this movement...What happened in the NorCo council elections may not be replicated nationally. The numerically disadvantaged GOP had always done well by its higher voter turnout statistics....that may be falling apart if they can't get their act together and show leadership and vision....kind of sad when a president whose term ended over 20 years ago is the last Republican who inspired that. The Bush/GOP years were a merely the pendulum swinging back after the Clinton years, then solidified by the politics of fear after 9/11.
I find tea baggers and the right idiots who just believe that somehow the world can be simple, clear, and rid of large organizations, excessive wealth, and talent.
Unfortuntely, large organizations, excessive wealth, and talent breeds more wealth and more inequality. The tea baggers are blind to the fact they are being had by the wealth and the selfish.
Hey Anon 3:22, MEOWWW.......
Hiss, Hiss, saucer of milk!!!!
MEOWWW...........
This isn't about Obama personally, of course not and a swipe at the first Lady's dress size, WOW!!! Meow www...
OK should we talk about Laura Bushes dress size or her traffic accident resulting in the death of a friend? Was there alcohol involved????
".That, and his overweight wife packed into two sizes too small clothing telling little black kids"
"should we talk about Laura Bushes dress size or her traffic accident"
Neither of these comments is necessary. Michelle Obama and Laura Bush are both beautiful women who obviously have bad eyesight. I think their husbands would agree with me.
I think it's ok to knock Obama or Bush around, but let's be nice to their wives. It's Easter, damn it.
With such great unemployment news owing to the hiring of stimulus temps and census takers (yeah, I know the overall unemployment rate hasn't moved), why doesn't the federal government hire all of the unemployed and lower the rate to zero?
It's a small sign we may be turning around. I hope so.
Bernie O'Hare said...
"It's a small sign we may be turning around. I hope so."
*******************************
Me too!
I just don't know why we didn't think to print more money we don't have to hire more government workers before now.
The stimulus alone was supposed to have created and/or retrained many more jobs than that. That was one of the reasons I thought it was a good thing at the time. But it did not know what it said it would do.
Having said that, I really hope we are on our way out of the rabbit hole.
(Lost Touch With) Reality Jones said:
"You know the list of all teabaggers and especially teabagger leaders who receive evil government handouts. You know, like social Security, Medicare, SSI disability, Medicaid, Chip program, government pensions, veterans benefit (only active service benefits allowed)"
********************************
I guess I missed the memo where the Tea Party advocated that INDIVIDUALS not accept payments from programs that exist. Or the pledge that Tea Party members would stop receiving payments from a government program while leaving the program in place.
They do advocate limiting the size of government, abiding by the Constitution (imagine that) and that the government should stop spending on things our children (and their children) will be paying for, but you continue to mischaracterize their position.
Stick to your talking points though, it really seems to be working!
Lie, smear and keep the truth away - that's what’s known as the democrat way.
Two points.
1) Up until now, I've been bothered by the use of the word "tea bagger" to decribe the tea party movement. On Fri. night, conservative John Hinkle used it when introducing Kim Schmidtner, and no one seemed offended. Although I will not use the wrd, I will no longer slam commenters who use it.
2) I have spent the past few days looking at comments from the local tea party site. Many of the individuals there have advocated abolishment of programs like Social Security and Medicare. I believe those individuals, to be internally consistent, should refuse to participate in those programs. I don't believe it is a lie or a smear to call out tea party members who participate in the very programs they claim they want to abolish.
On Friday night, Sam Rohrer got a lot of applause when he condemned SCIP, which probably saved my grandson's life. I'd like to know myself whether any of those applauding would be happy to seee a young child die for want of medical care.
What everyone should be calling for is not smaller government or larger government, but good government. For those of you that wax sentimental about the good old days of pre-1933 or pre-Teddy Roosevelt (progressive Republican in case anyone forgot) let's not forget who was calling the shots in those "good old days". The "titans of industry" also known as J.P. Morgan (the man), John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, etc. were monopolists who oversaw the largest grab of wealth and production the nation had ever seen. The way they got their riches was through the "hands off" policies of the government and on the backs of labor (women, children, gross labor abuse). Progressives like the Roosevelts and the unions fought to bring not just more competition to the marketplace, but humane working conditions and a living wage. Those of you who want to live in this more "pure" age of capitalism would have been the dogs that the unchecked power of these corporate titans tread on.
Bernie -
Two counterpoints:
1) Regarding the word "Teabagger": I'm sure Hinkle misspoke, and I'm sure most in attendance realized he misspoke. Hinkle certainly didn't use the term to deride the group or Schmidtner.
I don't think you can take a few instances where the word is inadvertantly used by a conservative and then give the haters a pass to use it. Should we all be able to use the "N-word" because a few rappers may use it in song lyrics?
2) You cannot use your grandson as justification for keeping the SCIP program. I don't say that on my own logic, it is the logic of none other than the President of the United States.
You see, the President has conducted a year-long assault on private insurance companies in America. In a nation of 300 million, these private companies have surely saved millions in situations similar to your grandson. Yet despite those millions of success stories, the democrat party is in the process of destroying private health insurance.
Why is it ok to deride private companies yet unfair to ask government to limit its activities?
Admittedly I know nothing about your grandson's case, but I would also argue that the doctors/hospitals involved were the ones who actually saved your grandson and others like him - not insurance (private or otherwise). They also provide services for the uninsured.
Bernie O'Hare said:
"I believe those individuals, to be internally consistent, should refuse to participate in those programs. I don't believe it is a lie or a smear to call out tea party members who participate in the very programs they claim they want to abolish."
*********************************
OK, but let's be fair. If you want to hold people to the standard of being "internally consistent" and not participating in programs they want to abolish, let's let them also opt out of paying for them as well.
For example, I'd gladly forego my social security and medicare as long as I can keep my share (and my employer's share) of what's being paid in on my behalf.
I'll also take what I've paid in to date (whatever the government is holding in my "account"). But in the interest of fairness and good will, I'll allow the government to keep the earnings that have accumulated on "my account" over the years.
That's certainly fair.
Until that happens I don't think it's fair to chide people for accepting the paltry payments they get in return for what they paid in.
In addition, I'll go a few steps further: I'll put the monies in a segragated account to be used for living and medical expenses upon my retirement. I'll also do what's legally necessary to make sure I can't spend the funds elsewhere before I retire.
That's more than even the government will do, and I'll be able to pass on anything that's left over when I die to my children.
I'll gladly take that option over your government-sponsored Ponzi scheme any day.
Bernie O'Hare said:
"On Friday night, Sam Rohrer got a lot of applause when he condemned SCIP, which probably saved my grandson's life. I'd like to know myself whether any of those applauding would be happy to seee a young child die for want of medical care."
***********************************
Really Bernie, that's the choice?
Either you support an expansion of government paid for with money we don't have or you're in favor of watching young children die?
That's the same false choice and dishonesty we hear from the president on a daily basis.
How about trying to find ways to make private insurance more affordable, without adding provisions and mandates designed to destroy the insurance industry? How about tort reform, to reduce the cost of both insurance and (more importantly) MEDICAL CARE? How about finding ways to make private insurance more portable, so that losing your job doesn't mean you lose your insurance? How about allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines to lower insurance costs for all?
Just because you oppose SCIP and big government "solutions" doesn't mean you'll be happy to watch young children die.
If anything, it means you're smart enough to fear that the government solutions to health care problems will net the same results as big government solutions to problems like poverty and the deterioration of our inner cities.
It also means in addition to seeing your grandson healthy, I'd like to see him able to pursue his dreams to the best of his ability and live a full and happy life. I want to see him be able to enjoy the fruits of his labor - without being shackled by the chains of paying for what someone else tells him to buy.
"Until that happens I don't think it's fair to chide people for accepting the paltry payments they get in return for what they paid in."
Eeeehhhh! Wrong. Most people receive back the "paltry" amount they pay into Social Security within five to six years of retirement. If you live to 85 you're getting 15 years of gravy. Maybe that's why the system is going broke, but either educate yourself about the benefits or stop lying.
Bernie said:
" I am fearful of local demagogues who proclaim themselves the leaders of an 1100 person group that never designated them as such. Considering that the tea part is all about restoring democracy, it is the height of hypocracy that their "leaders" would never seek elections. "
----------------------
Bernie, it's a voluntary association of people who can "vote" with their feet if they decide to join or leave. And the "tea part", as you call it, is more about being "Taxed Enough Already".
Wayne, I get the "taxed enough already" lament. What i don't get is a group that purports to wish to restore democracy, but that can't be bothered to elect its own leaders. I don't get a group that seeks nonprofit status when it is clearly engaged in political activity. And I don't get a completely unworkabl limited government resolution that supposedly passed unanimosuly in March. On a federal level, it would be impossible, and I'll demonstrate that next week.
I appreciate that a lot of people are frustrated and do not queastion their good intentions, but they are being led astray to pursue the personal agendas of people they never elected.
Some of them have begun to recognize that in the past few days.
Actually, if you remember, the call for a 21st century "tea party" started with a TV commentator at some mercantile exchange who started ranting about the bailouts of companies "too big to fail" and the talk about bailing out homeowners that bought houses they could not afford. All that while the rest of us, who pay our debts and follow the rules, watched and wonder if we were just being played for suckers...
It's about correcting the abuse of Democracy, the representatives buying the votes of the electorate.
IMHO
Anonymous said:
Most people receive back the "paltry" amount they pay into Social Security within five to six years of retirement. If you live to 85 you're getting 15 years of gravy. Maybe that's why the system is going broke, but either educate yourself about the benefits or stop lying.
*********************************
If that's what you believe, fine. As I said, if you want me to opt out, give me back what I've paid in, relieve me of having to pay anything more in, and I'll take care of things myself.
By the way, millions die without receiving any of their Social Security benefits or die before they get back what they paid in.
And don't those "15 years of gravy" you cite actually represent the earnings on the money I've contributed?
(Gasp) You're not saying that the money I've contributed isn't in a segragated account earning interest, are you? Why, the government would never do something like that!
Post a Comment