Forum Post: Tea Party is for smaller government - POWER TO THE PEOPLE.
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 5, 2011, 11:39 p.m. EST by mynameisfred
(115)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
A smaller less greedy government is what we are after. PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE MORE POWER THAN THE GREEDY GOVERNMENT. You must agree with power to the PEOPLE,,,, right?
The issues is not a smaller or bigger government. The issue is whose government is it. Large or small, this government, this state, the United States as presently organized is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate power, so it's not really an issue of how large or small the government is, but who it actually belongs to, who actually rules.
wrong - small govt gives power back to the people. the less money govt has - the more we have.
Perhaps, but ultimately big or small, it still depends on whose government it is. Here are the choices:
a) a small government owned lock, stock and barrel by the 1% b) a big government owned lock, stock and barrel by the 1% c) a big government which was clearly democratic an run by us the 99% d) a small government that was truely ours.
No matter how big or small, if it's run by the 1% it's not ours.
less government less money for them to be doling out for favors. Your never going to change human nature the best you can do is limit their options. We should be limiting theirs. Unfortunately, they are limiting ours increasingly every day. i.e. Obamacare!
From my observations, smaller government is being promoted as removing regulations that have been instituted in response to abuses, while at the same time increasing government controls over personal behaviors and choices. I can't support that, because I'm old enough to remember the mess that business was making before those regulations were put in place, and I dont want the goverment in my house, my doctors office, or invading my privacy so someone can enjoy a false sense of security. These are problems I'd like to see addressed, but only after we get equal justice, freedom to protest as we are guaranteed but denied, and corporate interests out of government.
Corporations are OWNED by the People.
Yes, right... I had 20 shares of a stock... My quarterly dividend payment....drum roll, please....
$9.00
You cant count people like us, as there are that handful who own large large chunks and controlling interests.
20 shares of stocks? That's it? You want a return on 20 shares of stocks? Are you 11 years old?
And im supposed to buy stocks using what? Oh, thats right...it about buying and selling, oh no, its making sure you do it at the right time, oh wait, you make the right time by dumping huge blocks onto the market then rebuying them for less, but crap, i only have twenty...
And, no, i am not 11 years old... And there is no need to be an snarky shit... My point was that if you dont own a whole lot of flippin stock, you dont count...
Guess what? I didnt own SHIT either. I started slowly. Walked into a stock brokers office and asked for FREE ADVISE. I worked for a small company and was put on their 401K plan. Started with $40 bucks the first month. 15 years later I had $80,000. 20+ years later I have around $200,000 in STOCKS,, ,started with $40. So my snarky shit has some value. Wake up and think richer rather than whine and think poorer.
So you gambled and got lucky...so did most of the guys i worked with whose retirement plans included managed funds-- right up til the market crashed in 2004 and they watched their money disappear before their eyes. Like you, i was more lucky--knowing nothing, the choices i made were the only two that did not lose money. I sold my stocks and will never allow my retirement depend on the whims of a bunch of speculators and gamblers. Which all has nothing to do with the thread...
One little secret. You only lose money in the market when you SELL it low. Crashes are the best time to BUY more stocks. Never sell on the down side. Of the 30+ market crashes, every one of them, EVERY ONE, has come back and grown larger. This not luck it is fact. Never sell on the down side.If your guy friends lost money,,, they were stupid.
Tell that to the guys 6 months away from retirement...
You dont get it. And you dont want help making money.
No,sir, you do not get it, and i dont recall asking for your help with anything, but thanks...
You can get smaller government by abolishing State governments and subsuming those operations into the Federal government. This will reduce overhead and costly duplication of services.
CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING: ABOLISH STATE LEGISLATURES 50 state governments, 50 different state tax codes (income or sales), 50 different state laws.
But only 1 Federal Government.
Want less government? It is not the Federal government we should get rid of. It is 50 redundant state governments we should rid ourselves of!
State legislatures are a redundant, unproductive middle management. In times of severe deficit shortfalls, we should excise this expendable fat from government, and stop paying state politicians. They don't do much more than their federally elected counterparts. They remind me of the tribal war lords in Afghanistan. When companies merge, middle management is the fat they trim. Voters should demand the same of government: Abolish state legislatures. Federal representatives are equally qualified to do state legislative functions, and can be paid a 10% bonus for doing so.
Think of not only the cost savings; think of how good this would be for businesses. You won't need to have accountants and lawyers who are experts on different state tax codes in different states. Do you know how much it costs to hire an accountant or a lawyer in each different state for your business?
Uniform, simplified taxation and business laws leads to freer and more efficient markets. Think of the redundancies of different state benefit processing centers all trying to do similar but unfortunately slightly different things.
We need a constitutional amendment. Yes! Smaller governments! Get rid of state governments. One United America.
@ socrates
America needs LESS centralization NOT more. More local powers NOT less.
The US Federal government is overreaching in almost every aspect of society.
Centralization and uncontrolled federal powers has got America into this mess.
America was designed to have a small Federal government with states that could respond more effectively to its residents.
Just take a look at the European Union for an example of Orwellian centralized fascist bureaucracy gone mad.
NO THANKS.
Is it less government or less centralization that you guys want? If you want less centralization then by necessity you have 50 more government, and redundant State politicians; ie. you have MORE government.
If you are afraid of big government, then it is better to have just one government to be afraid of, than to have 50. State governments are pretty big too: just look at California. They put a lot more people to death than the Federal government: just look at Texas and Florida. It is much easier for the people to control one central government than to control 50 errant state governments.
In this day and age, yes we are right to continue to fear Big Brother, but even more important we should fear Big Businesses, the Big Sister of Big Brother.
There are many laws that the founding fathers put in place to check the Federal government, unreasonable search and seizure for instance.
However the founding fathers did not foresee the rise of Mega Businesses. Believe me, if you work for any company except your own, the company can search you willy nilly without regard for your privacy. Just look at supreme court rulings.
In conclusion, your concerns are valid but misplaced. (Notice the founding fathers did not and could not place the same checks and balances on state governments.)
Obama has been very intent on eliminating state government. But this love the immigrant thing is not what you suspect: the 50 billion dollars in drug money that moves across our borders; and worldwide in places like Afghanistan, is all funneled to Wall Street. And in the meantime, millions are enslaved to drug lords and addiction.
Getting rid of State Government would make Federal government EXPONENTIALLY bigger.
Not true, look at M&A evidence, when companies merge they are usually less big than the sum of the constituents; but the merger allows the companies to increase profits.
I want a government that can fuck up the largest corporation if that corporation intrudes on people's individual freedom and liberty. Both corporations and government need a cold shower and some shrinkage.
Never going to happen, corporations buy the government.
"never gonna happen" - see FDR, Teddy.
Yea..that's true. We'll have to change that..
By decreasing government, I'm not ready to give anyone that much power.
I'll give you smaller government..Give me the breakup of TBTF banks.
Smaller government leads to less regulation and less oversight. To ask if one agrees with less government is to favor Big Banks/Business and the policies that sent this country spiraling out of control
http://wp.me/p1qDpl-dP
I dont now how old you are, but I will make some assumptions. 10, 15 or 20 years ago did you every need to go to a bank to get a loan for a house? It wasnt easy. They DEMANDED you have a huge down payment. They DEMANDED to know you had a job. They DEMANDED to know you had the income to PAY FOR THE HOUSE. They DEMANDED a LOT. Then,,, Rep Barney Franks, and other liberals in congress told those banks, "People should own their own homes. If you want to continue to operate you change the old rules you have used successfully for 150 years and allow people to buy a new home,,,,,,,, even if they cant afford it." The banks said,,,,, "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. Allow anyone to buy a house they cant afford?" "Franks, "YES". So the rules changed. Any idiot could get a loan. People making nearly nothing moved into $300,000 homes. HAPPY DAYS. Small banks forced to give the loans sold those loans to larger banks since the larger banks wanted to make Barney happy too. All these banks had bad loans for the first time in HISTORY. I would "assume" you saw the news stories on the nightly news. "They are taking my home because I cant afford to pay for it,,,,,boooo hooooo." DAH,,, what did you expect you losers. Everyone was happy until this happened and Barney finally said, "I didnt know how bad it was because nobody told me." IDIOT. So, Lord, there you go. You did watch the news? You have tried to get a loan 15 years ago,,,,,, ? You know I'm right,,,,,,? Read the papers.
I wish I knew what point you were trying to make. Here are facts. Banks, thanks in large part to less regulation/oversight, handed out loans to unqualified candidates because they were packaging those loans and selling them off. Essentially, betting that the loan would fail at someone else's expense.
Furthermore, your sensationalism is exactly what is wrong with the system. Extremists employ sensationalist tactics to promote fanatical policies that hurt the average American.
One of the tenets that right wingers hold dearly is that congress forced banks to make bad loans, and that is the root of the problem.
Rather than argue that, I would just like to know why they don't attack all the evil that was done since then, like credit swaps, which were clearly illegal-- simply creating a new name for an illegal. practice.
I TOLD you why the loans were being packaged. The BIG banks were FORCED by Franks to play his game. The small banks were told to play the game. The small banks got with the big banks so the loans would move in the system and everyone got a grade 'A' from Barney and company. If they didnt play the game the libs were going to hammer all the banks for not giving loans to people that EVERYBODY,,,, including Franks,,,, knew they couldnt afford. Once it got top heavy there was no place to go but FALL. If the libs had left the house loan business alone this would never have happened. Talk to any banker about the pressures they had to comply with the Franks regulations. it was all about making points with Barney. Look at history and the players and you can see what happened. Go into a bank today and ask for a loan for a house. YOU AINT GOING TO GET ONE.
Hi Fred. You know, one of the reasons (besides massive layoffs that followed the bank scandal) that so many people couldn't pay their mortgages was because of the tremendous amount of credit card debt in this country. All that credit is an extension of the money supply, created by the banks when they want to, and it plays in to the value of a dollar, right?
Now if you remember way back, you also remember that you didn't get a revolving credit account too easy either, right? But something changed, and it wasn't the government forcing it, either. Do you remember getting a credit card every week in the mail? Telling you just call us to activate? Didn't matter how many you already had, they wanted to give you more. How about the way they send them to college students? For cryin out loud they don't even have full-time jobs, but the banks sent them credit cards!
If so many foolish people weren't sucked in by predatory practices in the credit card portion of the banking industry, perhaps things wouldn't be so bad today. You probably don't personally remember this far back, but this is an old tactic--it used to be called the "company store" People in mining towns know about it.
The government is "supposed" to represent the people.
This will be solved after we vote out the pricks that people elected into congress.
Well yes. That is what we are after as well. The first obstacle we must overcome is the people who buy and sell politicians like an overvalued commodity.
I dont get you people. If you really are a teacher, do the math. Tens of thousands of "people" that buy ONE powerful politician. Why would you protest against thousands of unknown named people when you KNOW the names of the politician. Your tearing down a house just because you saw one dirty mouse in it. Kill the mouse. Protest against the ONE guy TAKING THE money. Your teaching math is way off. I just dont get you guys. Protest in the halls of congress, not in a park where there isnt a rich person for miles to see it.
There is a protest in DC. The briber and the one taking the bribe are equally guilty. None of this will change until we make bribery illegal. Strange concent huh?
MLK did NOT make his "I had a dream" speech in Zuccotti Park or near the ports in Oakland. It was in DC and I dont see the OWS having one DIRECTIVE of going to the halls of congress. OWS does NOT want to make the rich liberal democrats in congress or the White House, hence, Zuccotti Park and some stupid port. This movement is being directed by obama, liberals and unions to distract from raising taxes which has been a failure for 50 years. We have spent billions on education and America's score card is a big failure. We have dumped TRILLIONS is social programs and the poor keep getting poorer. I would never support this movement until they direct attention toward the rich liberal democrats in congress than owns jets and masions while asking your shed tears for their re-election. Followers of this movement are being used.
There is a protest in DC
The halls of congress is NOT, DC. I can tell you are one of the liberals wanting a tax increase and you have no real concerns about changing the real problems. it is about taxes as I suggest.
Here is what some famous and powerful repulicans had to say about taxes:
The following is from a report "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century", created by a right wing organization called "New American Citizen" under the "Project for the New American Century" written prior to the end of the Clinton administration. It is available online. The membership includes Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Jeb Bush, as well as people representing military and corporate interests, and more than 30 of the contributors to the report were given positions in the Bush administration.
[(excerpt from Introduction, pg iii, para 1) For the first time since the 1960s the federal government is running a surplus. For most of the 1990s, Congress and the White House gave balancing the budget a higher priority than funding national security. In fact, to a significant degree, the budget was balanced by a combination of increased tax revenues and cuts in defense spending.]
The report further states that some defense spending was actually hidden within other parts of the budget by the Republican led Congress of 1994, with a net result that defense budgeting stayed flat, rather than decreasing (pg 69, Trends in Defense Spending, para 3).
In summary, the authors and publishers of the report are on the ideological right. The report clearly states that by the end of the Clinton years there was not only a balanced budget, but a budget surplus. The cited reason for these facts were the taxes put in place under Clinton coupled with a fixed level in defense spending.
And then, if you check it out, 19 terrorists were allowed to enter flight school in Florida, while Clinton was president. Those 19 terrorists HATED American liberalism so bad, they only want to learn how to fly planes into buildings,,,, not land. They hate America liberalism and entered flight school BEFORE George W Bush was nominated by the GOP. They thought Gore was going to be president. But anyway, Bush took the oath in January and in early Sept of that year, they used the lessons they learned under Clinton. America was spending billions of dollars patroling the no-fly zone while Sadam continued to kill millions using gas (WMD's) on his people. I dont know about you but I hated the Rape Rooms with 10 year old girls held for Sadam and his sons. So, the stock market crashed on Sept 12 thanks to Clintons security for America. Thanks Bill, thanks American liberalism.
None of which has anything to do with the topic of TAXES. Nice try though.
You were talking about defense spending.
No, they were talking about defense spending and taxes.
The Tea Party are stooges for corporatism, begun by the health insurance industry and richly financed by the corporate elite. Though full of well-intentioned men and women, the thrust of its policies is to remove any few remaining governmental checks upon corporate rapine.
[Removed]
Direct Democracy keeps the elect supported by the people, and in check
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/content/join-direct-democracy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
I would be fine with this, but as long as it doesn't effect National Park Service, Smithsonian, Library of Congress, etc. These are highly "uncorrupt" government agencies - and I'm sure there are many more out there. The funding for these has been SLASHED in recent years.
As far as corruption, Congress is a totally different matter.
Uncorruptable is only a small portion of the problem. Look at the failed policy at Arlington Cemetary. None of the agencies are without major problems.
[Removed]
Government should be a referree for Oversight and Accountability. NOT to dictate our lives.
Remember the Tenth Amendment?
We all know the REAL agenda for OWS is simply to raise taxes. Plain and simple. Help obama force people to pay more taxes. The Tea Party, on the other hand, wants the real power to go to the PEOPLE. OWS is a fake movement directed by the White House and unions.
I would argue that the Tea Party movement was funded by Dick Armey and the Koch brothers to yield political power to affluent America.
[Removed]
Visit LetsGetTheFactsStraight.com
I hit a button with this posting.THe OWS movement is really about helping Obama and his big government agenda. The movement took the spotlight off of obama's tax raising agenda so he can do his tricks behind the scene. its about raising taxes,,,, period.
With a smaller government, corporations cant corrupt the politicians. Smaller government is what we really want,,, right?
Hey Fred, looks like I came a bit late to this party.
I'm really interested in talking to people from the Tea Party, but it looks like you'll have to leave some of your preconceived notions at the door, however. You see, I don't really think I want more Obama.
( I don't want the Koch Brothers' surrogates either. I got a problem here, unless we can figure a way to get more candidates than 2.)
I'm trying to figure out what the tea party stands for; I'm sure they don't really believe in "Death Panels" and candidates that want to help the terrorists and "pal around" with them. I also doubt for a minute that any real tea party member wants to believe that the president isn't American, especially after they produced his long form birth certificate.
Fred, I know you are not one of those people holding a sign with a picture of Obama made up as Hitler.
Those aren't things that real Americans care about, are they? That's stuff that politicians say to us because they think we are all stupid. It's part of the way the big money always wins. Get the dog to chase his tail and steal the bone when he isn't looking...
So, I don't believe you are like that stuff they show on the news. Now don't believe I am an Obama zombie. Let's talk.
I'd like to know what you really think you are going to get out of having a small government? I mean what's in it for you or me or any American? Who does it benefit? Don't forget that every decision will create winners and losers. So, since you are in favor of this, please explain to me how you and I win from following this course of action.
You are either smart or your playing smart and you like games. I'm not in the Tea Party but similar beliefs. My main issue is the need for a smaller government. I pay my fair amount of taxes. Not willing to pay more while, fat ass lazy people sit and watch TV all day eating 20 gallons of ice cream, DR. Pepper and (diet Dr Pepper), smoking a ton of cigarettes and the only excercise they get is walking out to pick up the next government check I paid for. The liberal agenda has failed. We are creating a society of lazy people DEMANDING a handout. The government DEMANDS I bend over. No corporation has demanded one penny from me. I dont hate insurance companies. I recently got a MRI scan. It cost $4,000 using a machine that was paid for within 4 months of being brand new 4 years ago. I dont like paying huge medical bills so they can line the hospital walls with signs in spanish. The Mexican with no money goes in for tests before me,, the guy with cash and insurance. I hate rich liberal democrats in congress that live in huge mansions, fly in their own jets, fly over at 40,000 waving at the little poor liberals that continue to vote for them. Not that I love rich republicans but the hypocricy of rich democrats (Sen Claire McCaskill (D-MO) owns a jet and never paid required taxes on it) pointing their fingers at us saying WE need to pay more taxes. I hate a president that creates his 'ObamaCare' medical plan that FORCES us to use, yet,,, gives waivers to many liberal leaning corporations that now dont have to purchase it. I think the OWS movement is a plan created by the White House to take the heat off of Obama. Not one liberal politician has been targetted by protesters,, only corporations.
I have worked 40+ years. I paid income taxes back in the 70's when i was making $2.44/hour and didnt complain. NONE OF US COMPLAINED. The reason,,,, EVERYONE PAID TAXES. Today 52% of fat ass lazy Americans dont pay one penny but demand and get a federal REFUND. R-E-F-U-N-D!!!! Every person, regardless of their income should pay something to society. Pay could be in the form of work,, cleaning parks,,, Zuccotti Park would be a great start. Create something rather than take something. I cant image what our great grandparents would say after the hard work they did to BUILD America. Smaller government will cut BACK on many uncontrolled social programs that waste money. The wasted money can then be used toward programs with good results. We need a Social Security and some forms of a Medicare programs, but end the waste first and get it under control. Allow people to take a portion of their ss payments and use in a privatized system. A percentage could be directed so you are not retiring on crap money of $800/month. I could go on an on. The liberal agenda has failed for 50 years. The rich do get richer and the poor do get poorer. But you get what you vote for. I vote for richer,,,, not poorer.
Ok. Looks like you are really ticked off. Looks like you want America to be fair, and you don't think you are getting a fair shake. Right? You came to the right place, because we're all really angry about the same thing, even though we may not all see things the same way.
You might wonder if I'm just playing games. No. that is a waste of time. I'll tell you what I'm really about. You are part of the 99%. Most of the tea partiers are too. I believe if we are going to fix this country we need to get together and find out what we can agree on. If you can remember 2.44 an hour, you can remember that politicians used to compromise for the good of the nation and its people. That hasn't happened for a long time, now.
You hit on a lot of good points and I want to address them, but first things first. I asked what good smaller government will do for you and me. As I see it, you are saying less waste in government will mean better use of our tax money. I don't know anyone who is against that. Bill Proxmire from Wisconsin was good with that. Don't see any Bill Proxmire's around any more...
Now I see you don't want to do away with social security or medicare. I'm with you on that too. You do realize that these right wing republicans and tea party people are looking to cut your medicare and social security, right?
Now I'm just as dissatisfied as you are about National Health care. It started out to be something that would have been good for the 99% but in the end it was just a sham. You don't like to be forced to take it when corporations got out of it. Well you know who you can thank for that, right? Whether you like Obama or not, it wasn't up to him. He sold us on a great program when he ran, but when elected he didn't act on the mandate. Instead he let the lobbyists have whatever they wanted. Together with the right wing they blocked it and pretty much destroyed it. I want it to be like medicare. For everyone, including congress. Anyone can opt out if they want to buy personal insurance.
You talk about lazy people not working and getting a free ride. Right now there are lots of hard-working people who are out of a job, out of a home, and out of luck. The government could be getting jobs going. Let people work if they want to. For those who don't want to work, sorry, no freebies if you arehealthy enough to work. That sounds fair. Yet you realize that the GOP and Tea party are blocking anything from being done, right?
You said that no corporation has demanded one penny from you; technically, this is true. Actually they get it from your representatives. For instance, everyone knows that oil companies arre making record profits again. Do you know they are getting $6,000 a minute from taxpayers? That's what tax subsidies for oil companies are costing us. When it was brought up as a potential cut, the tea party and the republicans refused to remove it. According to Senator Bernie Sanders:
Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
(http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/03/ten_giant_us_companies_avoidin.html)
There are lots of them but this is enough to make my point. They privatize their profits and socialize their losses.
You mentioned how Senator McCaskill has a private jet and takes a tax break on it. So do many others. Rush Limbaugh's jet cost $232,000,000 and he takes welfare in the form of a tax break on the jet, too. At least McCaskill's party wanted to do away with that loophole, and many others. The Tea party and the republicans refused to touch them.
Fred, you are not so much different than every one else in here. The biggest difference is that you see poor people getting a handout and you get annoyed. You are right they should work. But the money guys aren't hiring. What should they do? Just go die? People who refuse to work are something else. There are states that require work for welfare, "Workfare." I wish you would spend a little of that anger on the guys in congress right now who want to cut our benefits and won't do anything to make jobs available.
Oh and this one last thing... don't you also believe you should be angry at the corporations and the wealthy that don't want to pay their share? They've got it coming just as much as those folks you figure are lazy, don't you think?
I started posting and for some reason it disappeared. I will start over. Busy at work today so my time is limited. And I type fast in Notepad with no spelling check. I will try to reply to several of you comments.
You mentioned politicians compromised in the good ole days. Our side has 'compromised' north of $15 TRILLION. If that is not a compromise then PLEASE give me an example of what a compromise would look like.
You mention Right wing and Tea Party wants to cut medicare and social security. If that was really the case how did congress approve a cost of living increase? The same "Republicans" want to kill grandma and starve kids has been said for 40 years. If a $15 trillion debt does not show we have caved, what would prove our case?
You mention the GOP and Tea Party are blocking anything from getting done. Again, I would toss $15 trillion in your face, first. Second, obama's new jobs act is clearly a re-election ploy. Everything he has mentioned, "public construction programs" and more teachers relates to one issue and one issue only, UNIONS and a payback for electing him. Every highway construction job will come with Davis-Bacon requirements, raising the cost of construction. Do away with Davis-Bacon and I MAY reconsider. Teachers unions want to be more powerful. Hell yes I want to block his plan. Pretty darn simple if you read between his lines.
You mention corporations not paying taxes. I own a moderate amount of stocks. I'm a stock holder,,,,,, an OWNER. I pay taxes on my stocks, therefore the corporation does pay taxes. Corporations pay taxes on everything they do. Taxes on,,,,,, property, equipment, infrastructure, utilities, employees, benefits, purchase of raw materials, transporation, sales, etc, etc and etc. You cant say corporations dont pay any taxes,,, they pay tons of taxes. And, if they fail to comply with one of millions of regulations, they are fined. How about all the attorneys they must hire just to read 600,000 pages of DOL, EPA, IRS laws. I dont see how many corporations make it.
Oil companies. Huge profits do make me wonder. However, just like utility companies, having a huge surplus allows them to have leveage in mega loans they need for new infrastructure. Our utility company has a large amount and when they go to get a loan for a new power plant they get a great interest rate because of their rating. We pay less in electricity, here, because we get better loans.
MCCaskill and Rush. The primary point I will make first. Rush owns a golden microphone,,,,,,,ummmmm,,,, a microphone. He was not elected to represent anyone. McCaskill is a liberal democrat waving her tax finger at ME telling me to pay more in taxes while she doesnt. Love or hate Rush, I only listen to him from time to time. Im not a ditto-head. McCaskill paid ZERO taxes on the jet. If dems cant see this as being,,,,, sorry, I will stop here,,,they dont see anything but a caring politician that really CARREEEeeeeessss about them, while she returns to her mansion in her jet.
Finally, for this session of time. I gave you my reply to how much corporations pay in taxes,,, including me, an owner of stock. I'm not angry because they pay a great amount in taxes while attempting to comply with millions of rules and restrictions. THEY PAY MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE. And, you and I know how much a person in congress makes. Yet they are all multi-millionaires. They all own stocks in the companies they claim to hate. Corporations are created by one guy with a dream. he wants to create something for him and his family. You and I can do the same. Corporations hire people, give them new skills that often result in a person leaving and starting another corporation. Is there corruption in corporations,,,, hell yes. But far far more in the halls of congress. OWS is not looking that direction because they dont want to piss off tax raising bunch.
Yes I want smaller government. Accountable. Fair. If a poor person wants to vote for liberal democrats,,, go for it. You get what YOU voted for.
Bailouts began under Bush and continued under Obama. We won't agree on this because you apparently believe the economy would have survived intact without the funds. The right started the payout under Bush. I think that is the side you are claiming. Your side, if you are on the right, deregulated wall street and allowed practices that brought down our economy. Compromise? No. If you want to talk, get real.
Social Security:
"Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP’s most outspoken advocate for cutting and privatizing Social Security, has already benefited from Social Security himself, in the form of survivor benefits he received after his father’s untimely death."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/20/paul-ryan-already-benefitted-from-the-social-security-fund-he-now-wants-to-gut/
I don't know how you could have missed the Ryan budget. He would have cut social security to ribbons.
"Ryan’s so-called Roadmap for America’s Future budget plan proposed machete-like cuts — most notably to social services like Medicare and Social Security. Paul’s idea was to invest portions of Social Security funds in Wall Street, essentially forcing future recipients to make unsecured investments with with money they’ll later need for retirement — and endangering survivor benefits like the ones he received."
Ibid.
Now if you really believe the GOP is going to take care of social security and medicare...you are going to be one hell of a surprised and angry fellow if they get their way.
BTW the "death panels" for grandma come from the tea party, not the democrats. Ask Sarah.
You complain that trying to do a jobs plan is only a re-election scam. In the first place, who gives a damn? When you talk like that you make it sound like you care more about getting rid of Obama than you care about the people that got destroyed by the crash. Is that what you mean to sound like?
Right now smart money says the govt needs to create jobs. Our economy is 72% consumer economy. It would help greatly if more people had some money to spend. Hiring them to work, like you said before, would be better. It would be fairer for us that they are working and better for the economy because of the velocity of money.
Corporations paying less federal taxes than an individual is just obscene. Again you are just making bad excuses. Your personal tax on your investment gains is separate from the corporation. How can you just make excuses for them? You complain because the poor get earned income credit but you don't even concede when exxon scores hundreds of millions as a tax return while taking subsidies from the taxpayers.
I suppose you also like it that the Koch brothers, who own 50 billion between them, and made 11 Billion in the last two years, AND they classify as a SMALL BUSINESS. We have to give small businesses a break...
McCaskill was going to vote to take away the tax loophole for the jet! You guys on the right wouldn't!! You got nothing there. It's the right that keeps it in place.
At this point I don't see that you even recognize a thing I said to you. I've tried to listen and learn from your perspective.This is what I've learned: You want an accountable government that is "fair." You don't even know what your tea party heads are doing in plain sight, yet somehow you want to keep them accountable. You want fairness, but you have so much sympathy for big business and none at all for the poor. You find it ok that we pay hundreds of millions in refunds to Big business because of the rigged tax code, but scream bloody murder over the pittance of earned income credit. You live in the fantasy that blames Obama for all the bailout when everyone knows Bush started it.
The bottom line is this. If you can spin the blarney you just put out here in response to a reasonable and supported argument, then there really is no hope for us to agree on anything actionable. you have convinced me that there is no hope in working with the tea party. To pursue this any further would be a waste of time. The movement should not waste momentum on the tea party.
Good by.
[Removed]