It's no secret that despite the fact that I get more moderate in my political opinions with age, I still absolutely can't stand these Tea Bagger douchebags. They don't even know what they stand for, and a lot of them actually think that Sarah Palin, who doesn't even hold an office and quit the one she had, has a clue about... anything. They get on TV and spout off soundbites about how government is ruining their lives and is intrusive and whatever, but when you ask them how, they can't even tell you. Instead they just say Obama is a socialist (or Nazi or whatever) and go on. Shit, they don't even know what socialism is, or that they participate in it, and benefit from it, every day.
I can buy into the desire for smaller government. I really can. But it's not an ideal that can be realistically applied to everything. A lot of people have no desire to think about that.
Now, there are loud voices saying that the government isn't doing enough about the oil spill in the gulf. It doesn't matter that the government isn't well equipped to do much about it, or that there is no law that simply allows the feds to take ownership of BP's shit and do it themselves.
It's interesting to see these two loud factions from both ends wanting exactly the opposite out of government, and I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't overlap.
I don't think that government at the national level has a spending problem as much as it has a prioritization problem. States and local governments have the problem that they're too reliant on the financial health of their constituents to provide basic safety services and infrastructure. I'm sure these are all solvable problems, but all of the shouting for more or less government doesn't work toward solutions.
I'm very excited about Rand Paul's recent victory, but it bothers me that he's associated with the Tea Party. The Tea Party, however pure its origins were, is nothing but a group of angry Republicans.
If I say I agree with many of the ideas of Ron Paul or the Cato Institute's Downsizing Government plan, I fear many would associate me with the Tea Party. And that sucks, because I could argue with the typical person identifying themselves as a Tea Party member just as much as I could with someone identifying themselves as a liberal thinker.
I don't think it's fair to call all Tea Party participants douche bags. There are plenty of stupid people on both sides of the line, but there are smart ones as well.
Many who voted for Obama can't give you a good reason why they did. It's sad hearing Obama supporters say that they voted for him since they didn't want to vote for George Bush.
I think its fair to say that you just can't stand stupid people and unfortunately stupidity seem to be in control of this country at this moment.
I've yet to see a smart tea bagger. Being loud and angry is not leadership. Shit, it's not even a position.
I don't think the country is being run by stupidity at all. I also know that I wouldn't want to have any elected office right now after things slid so far into the crapper. One thing is for certain, and that is that no one in office right now has been there long enough to really fuck things up.
Teabaggers are an interesting crowd. They claim to want small government, yet they support fielding a massive military/war machine, and seek to have government legislate every conceivable matter of morality. Furthermore, they usually support draconian surveillance measures like the PATRIOT act and an ever-expanding dept. of homeland security.
Even more interesting is that most teabaggers probably voted for Bush, a man who expanded the size and scope of the Federal Government far more than any President in recent memory.
Jeff, calling them loud and angry is ridiculous. Most protesters are loud and many are angry. I know many liberal and left-minded protesters that act the same as these so-called conservative Tea Party members.
I know for many liberals it must be a shock to see conservative minded individuals stand up and protest, especially so, since most have grown up and kept their opinions quietly to themselves.
Brian, you like so many others continue to blame Bush in an attempt to divert the attention away from the current administration. Guess what? They’re no better than Bush and their actions suggest they’re far worse.
Under Obama’s leadership and the Democrat controlled House and Senate the size and scope of government has already expanded more than Bush grew it during his entire 8-year term. Obamacare alone is the single largest expansion in government history. In fact, the cost estimates are predicted to fall far short of the actual costs.
Suggesting that Obama is better than Bush is crazy. The current government continues to run out-of-control. Look at the reckless legislative process. Speaker Pelosi said regarding Obamacare, “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.” Are you kidding me? They’re voting on things they know nothing about.
Most Tea Party members probably aren’t much happier with Bush. Many have said he was the lesser of two evils when referencing Obama.
The fact is Tea Party members are not in control, so that begs me to ask the question why haven’t the Democrats fixed what we wanted them to fix? Why haven’t they killed the PATRIOT act? Why haven't they taken steps to control the expanding debt and control spending? Why are they over criminalizing every day life in America? Why are they going to let the single largest tax increase in American history pass on primarily lower and middle class Americans at the end of this year?
We voted for change and the only change I've seen is more lies and further expansion of the unpopular past.
Obama is every thing you don't like about Bush and more.
You're missing my point. They're *only* loud and angry. That's not a platform, that's noise. Furthermore, people aren't even "members" because it's not a party, it's a loosely coupled "movement" that doesn't have any real organization.
Criminalizing every day life... you're hilarious. And you aren't paying higher taxes. That's a fact.
Criminalizing every day life... is not a laughing matter.
"The “guilty mind” requirement (what lawyers call mens rea) historically restricted criminal punishment to those who were truly blameworthy and helped ensure Americans had fair notice of the law’s requirements. No one could be convicted of a crime without the government having proved that he acted with a guilty mind."
A study done on the 109th Congress (2005–2006) found the following:
"Over 57 percent of the offenses introduced—and 64 percent of those enacted into law—contained inadequate guilty-mind requirements, thereby putting the innocent at risk of criminal punishment."
Read up:
Here's a video to watch:
http://www.heritage.org/Multimedia/Video/2010/04/One-Nation-Under-Arrest
I'm not paying higher taxes? I will be next year if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of this year.
You make over $250k? Good for you! The flip side is that you've got more ways to dodge taxes than someone who makes less. My effective tax rate has only gone down since I crossed annual income of $60k years ago.
So I'll ask you again... which laws are criminalizing your every day life? You do realize that the courts have a history, now going back hundreds of years, that overturn laws that aren't constitutional, right? The Bill of Rights has protected us from everything your "conservative think tank" warns us of. I can't believe you'd quote them as a source.
What did I say that makes you assume that I make over $250k? Bush's tax cuts cut the tax rates in all income brackets. For example, if they're let to expire at the end of this year, the lowest income tax bracket will jump from 10% to 15%. They affect all taxpayers.
I didn’t say that any specific law was criminalizing my life. However, the direction we’re taking, by catering to fringe groups and activists, makes it more likely that we’ll criminalize activities that aren’t viewed as a crime by the public. With the thousands of laws passed every year it’s impossible to inform the public of these rules.
The article and video I referenced gave great examples. I don’t understand how that wouldn’t be alarming to ANYONE regardless of political ties. Those are innocent individuals who are being prosecuted.
Other examples: We regularly lock up non-violent, casual drug users. We lock up people for unintended accidents. A friend of mine, while a teenager, did jail time for setting off a dry ice bomb on the 4th of July. Another great example: Koua Fong Lee. He’s serving jail time for killing three people because clearly he stepped on the accelerator of his car instead of the brake pedal. He didn’t intend to kill the three people. It was a horrible accident, but he is not a criminal. Another ridiculous law being considered by many states are helmet laws for skiers and snowboarders. They’re just like bicycle and motorcycle helmet laws and seat belt laws.
With the coming of Obamacare we’re going to see a huge influx of laws that will tell us how to run our lives and infringer on our basic freedoms. It’s going to be easier for the government to pass these laws now that the taxpayers are going to foot the bill for medical care.
You mention the courts as our protector, but our constitution is subject to interpretation, and that depends on who’s seated at the time of the hearing. It’s important to note that most Americans do not have the financial power to battle the government.
Also, there is nothing wrong with reading articles from The Heritage Foundation. They’re well written, well researched and frankly they offer a lot of facts when other sources offer mostly opinion. However, there is also nothing wrong with reading other sources like CNN, MSNBC and FOX News. I read them and I happen to like differing viewpoints, but from what I’m reading I can only infer that you’re closed to the idea.
Yes, I’m very conservative on economic issues, but liberal on most social issues, but since social issues don’t matter if the economy is weak, I’ll tend to always vote for Republicans and conservative candidates even if there social views don’t align with mine. When people can’t put a roof over their head and food on their table, then they don’t give a shit about the environment, abortion or really anything else for that matter.
Those tax breaks that will be allowed to expire are for those making over $250k (or some other high number... but likely not what you or I make).
Why am I not alarmed? Because compiling a list of fringe cases and suddenly believing that the system in place for 200+ years is failing is FUD nonsense.
Respectfully, you do not know what you're talking about regarding the tax cuts. You sound like a politician, when you repeatedly refer to the $250,000 income. Obama talks about a lot of nonsense and mentions $250,000 all the time. Apparently if you make $250,000 you're rich. Fortunately, I have loftier goals than that.
Regardless, let me educate you on something. $250,000 is not the dividing line of any of the federal income tax brackets as Obama, Pelosi and many other politicians infer. In fact, that income level falls in the dead middle of the second to the top tier of income tax rates.
FACT: The "Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001" law expries after December 31, 2010 and that means the provisions of this act will no longer be effective on January 1, 2011. The tax structure as it existing in 2001 will take effect again.
What that means is that Federal Income Tax brackets and rates will adjust back to the 2001 levels.
<pre>Federal Tax Brackets
Income Between** 2010 Rate 2011 Rate
$0 to 8,375 10% 15%
$8,375 to 34,000 15% 15%
$34,000 to 82,400 25% 27.54%
$82,400 to 171,850 28% 30.5%
$171,850 to 373,650 33% 36%
$373,650 and above 35% 39.6%
**Income brackets will increase slightly for inflation.</pre>
The expiration of these tax cuts WILL IMPACT people at all income levels except those who are presently in the second tier in 2010 and will remain in that tier (it combines with 1st tier) for 2011.
Furthermore, it also means that the Estate Tax which is a tax on money that was already taxed will go into effect again. 2010 is the first year where all money is exempt from the Estate Tax. In 2009, the exemption was $3.5 million and the tax rate was 45%. In 2011, with the reinstatement the exemption will be $1 million and the rate will return to 55%.
The Estate Tax is wrong. It impacts more people than you'd expect. The ones it hurts the most are small business owners who want to pass their business onto their children.
Those are the FACTS and that information comes from our government, not some news organization or conservative think tank that you dislike.
Several "Democrats" asked the Obama administration to include in their budget a proposal to extend the Bush Tax Cuts. The request was ignored.
I distinctly remember when these tax cuts passed since my paycheck tax withholding dropped and at the time my annual salary was $50,000.