2. Democrat Socialist Health Care. Dachau, 1945? I'm perplexed. Is it Holocaust Revisionism or an insane analogy? Are they saying that it was current Democrats that caused ethnic cleansing in Dachau? Or are they saying this is what will happen if we pass health care reform? Well, I guess it is a long bill, but you'd think someone would have pointed out the passage where it suggests this. Or if it was the Democrats that killed those Jews in Dachau by passing health care, there's no telling what they may do. Significantly, this would mean any proposed Democrat Socialist Bill will kill more Jews, like in Dachau, which was established in 1933.
3. Well hear we have Obama dressed like that most unlikable of movie characters: Patch Adams. Come on teabaggers, it's really low to compare our President to one of the most despised film characters of all time. That guy was REALLY annoying.
Seriously though, I compared Bush to the Joker. But that's because conservative geeks would compare him to Batman. I said he was more like the Joker, in the recent film a terrorist, who forces ordinary citizens to choose between their lives, and the lives of others. I drop it there though, because that's just mythos, I don't compare Cheney to Darth Vader either, except to say his Empire was evil. Darth Vader started out as good, and the analogy is weak. Similarly, the Joker was not a socialist, nor a communist...so I guess in that was, he is like Obama. But that's about it, he didn't propose health care reform, the one time he did visit a hospital in the movie it was to blow it up. I don't see any connection. I fear it might just be that they just like to look at our President in white-face with disfiguring scars around the mouth.
4. Put Preparation H on the Bill? I wonder if that's personal message. I heard Glen Beck was hospitalized for complications while having surgery performed on his hemorrhoids.
8. Obama LISTENS to chairman Mao? I'm confused again, is he saying Obama sees dead people, and talks to them? Is it the ghost of chairman Mao tat wants us to pass meaningful Health Reform? You'd think if that was his intention he'd want to do it for the Chinese, when he was alive.
11. Who will Pelosi bow to, the cross of eternal salvation? Or the goat with the dollar sign and the scary flames? Wait...Obama betrayed JESUS? No wonder they don't like him, I mean if he betrayed Jesus. Great another analogy. Was he Pilate? the Jews? Romans? Judas? Or maybe just the antichrist and Satan all rolled into a nice package of evil?
12. Attack of the Astroturf? Well, I guess they ran out of phrases, so they decided to give a little honesty a try. I didn't glean any other political messages from this event, except that these protesters are as crazy as John Boner, and Michelle Batshit.
"Is it Holocaust Revisionism or an insane analogy?"
I have to wonder if the person with the sign even has an analytic brain cell in their head. It simply reeks of stupidity, that's all.
Wonder how a poor Jew without health care would respond to this sign. "Hmmm...I don't have health care, but if I support the passage of this bill, I might get gassed."?
The visual on the sign is plain disgusting and insulting.
"So if there was one thing I learned from the coverage of those big protests last weekend, it's that signs matter.
See, when the media cover an event they don't like, they focus on protester's placards. But as a regular, long-term consumer of all things media (and fiber), I cannot recall this ever happening when the media covered the WTO protests, the NOW marches, the no-nuke concerts, the anti-war demonstrations.
If I remember correctly, the media instead chose to focus on the heroic faces of the protesters. Often, they would be huddled together, holding a candle, singing "Give Peace a Chance" or something equally annoying.
Fact is: The media liked them, so who cares if the signs were offensive; that reality would only undermine the ideal.
To me, most of the sillier signs this weekend didn't reflect idiocy, but inexperience. I'm willing to bet nearly all of these folks had never been to a march before, unless it involved Dimes. Lefty protesters have had far more experience doing this sort of thing, so they know how to dress and when to cry.
Finally, you media types who call these folks crackpots need to realize you're only doing so, because to them, you're irrelevant. They no longer need or believe in you.
Granted, however, I've been known to call people who disagree with me — the Garafalos, the Olbermanns — crazy, too. But I'm right.
And if you disagree with me, then you're probably a racist."
The media double-standard is not that they didn't cover the offensive antiwar signs. The media barely covered the protests at all! Sure they had to, when it was global and huge, otherwise the media was much in panic and extremely loyal to the current administration, so they downplayed it. By contrast the teabaggers get an extraordinary amount of coverage considering their size and influence. It was championed and promoted by a major cable network and members of Congress.
Re: Gaza...Of course the sign that says 'Jews are terroists' is extremely stupid. I don't like that.
Most of the others don't seem that bad. I reject the notion that being against Israeli policies or its' US funding is necessarily anti-Semitic. It would be appropriate to show pictures of slaughtered civilians here, in this case Gazans.
'Granted, however, I've been known to call people who disagree with me — the Garafalos, the Olbermanns — crazy, too. But I'm right.'
It seems like he is the one with the double-standard, as his litmus test is not whether the person is crazy, but whether he disagrees with them.
The difference between Glen Beck (who promotes these protests) and Keith Olbermann is one of dignity, and ethics...not just politics.
"“Ten years ago, I could have shouted every single day about Osama bin Laden and his wacky, crazy threats to kill Americans in New York and no one would have been willing to stand in line two hours while some security officer made grandma take her shoes off," Olbermann quotes Beck as saying. "Today, things are different. America is changed. Washington, We’re not letting you get away with it anymore. The 912ers are willing to stand in line and take off our shoes before plane actually hits the tower.”
Olbermann retorts: "Beck, shark jump. You and the 9-12ers have the nerve to exploit 9/11 for your lousy tv ratings?
"You cannot make light of 9/11 nor bandy about as if your petty political grievances are comparable to it and still be a patriotic American," Olbermann continues. "In short, Glenn, 9-12ers, if you are invoking it just to oppose healthcare reform, go to hell."
Nice, I have to wonder if this is the language and insanity that Speaker Pelosi spoke of? It could get out of hand and it can get out of hand quickly!
I happen to beleive in hell and see it as an actual place. So in response to Keithy Pooh: I say you cannot make light of Hell nor bandy about as if your petty political grievances are comparable to it and still be a decent human being...
I agree with you Ajai there are stupid and offensive signs at protests.
I also think these signs are on both sides of the argument(s) and to say other wise or justify otherwise is wrong.
There is a air of negativity and hatred out there (On both sides). In that respect I agree with Pelosi.
I think Rodney King said it best, "Can't we all just get along"?
"All I am saying is it goes both ways. My beliefs may seem stupid and silly to you, yet I too can be offended by comparisons!"
I'm not convinced that the "teabaggers" really reflect your beliefs, COE. Actually, I'm not sure what the "teabaggers" message is. I'm pretty sure I know what the anti-war protesters are all about. But, it seems like the "teabaggers" don't really have a unified message. Other than, "I hate Obama".
Not entirely no. I do agree with the supposed general idea behind them (Tea parties). I hate the idea of higher and higher taxes, higher and higher deficit and the direction of where our Federal Government is heading... By the way, my opinion on this extends or applies to the Bush administration too...
What bugs me the most is that the same crowd who declares their right to assemble and "Protest" by any means or any "sign" is somehow offended when the other side attempts to do the same.
Then it becomes astro turf, racist, paranoia, a multitude of other metal illnesses, and any other negative tagline you want; like "Teabaggers" to vilianize and demonize the entire movement.
I do find it funny that with all the money and "astro turfing" going on from the right they don't "appear" to have a unified message
I don't hate Obama, I just don't agree with his policies. Just like I didn't agree with a lot of Bush's policies...
Ok, COE, I can buy that response. But, my point is, I don't think the "teabaggers" really have one voice. I think they come because they oppose abortion, they come because the are for gun rights, they come because they are for lower taxes, they come because the don't want gays to marry. I mean, it's a hodgepodge.
And, it's all catch phrases. I mean, I saw some teabaggers with signs saying "No Taxation Without Representation!" which suggests, to me, that they don't know how this country works. We ALL have representation...we just don't always like them.
As to your point about higher taxes, you do realize that Obama signed a bill that gave one of the largest tax cuts to the middle class in history, right? 282 billion over two years! I wonder if I'll see a protest sign about that?
Fair enough Tom, I suppose we could argue the point counter point all day long, even about the supposed "tax" cuts. I mean it's shifting the tax burden somewhere else while rasing other taxes, (Energy ect) under the shadow of a tax break for 95% of Americans... You have to rob Peter to pay Paul so it's all relative I suppose.
As to the sign issue; Suffice to say there are idiots on both sides. I fully admit there are some on my side of the isle.
As far as the "taxation without representation" sign; I can see what they are saying. Look, we send these dopes to Washington and they don't represent "us".
They vote for more and more Government. Higher and higher deficits. Bigger and more expanded entitlement programs. More Government control over our everyday lives; and we don't want it. Thus taxing "us" (To pay for it) with out representing "us". Yes, I understand, and you are correct we do have "Representation". I agree if taken literally, yes, a little silly and obviously incorrect. At least that's my take on the sign anyway. I am biased, and misguided I suppose, so take it for what it's worth :)
"my point is, I don't think the "teabaggers" really have one voice. I think they come because they oppose abortion, they come because the are for gun rights, they come because they are for lower taxes, they come because the don't want gays to marry."
I have to say with exception to the Gay issue I tend to agree with the "Tea baggers". <---I hate that term... I don't support abortion (Shocking I know), I support gun rights and the 2nd Amendment, low taxes, a limited Federal Government with more State rights.
I quess I have no problem with a group of Americans, left or right, with many different voices coming together and voicing their issues. Even if they are not screaming the same chant in unison. In fact I think it more entertaining!
I view this as a true cross section of my side of the argument. Yes, I understand that there are those on my side who oppose Gay marraige. I think they are wrong on this issue, and break with them here. I am not lock step with the evil right contrary to popular opinion. For the most part yeah I suppose I am, but not with everything.
Interesting response. As usual, you prove yourself to be one of the few "compassionate" conservatives that I know.
Just going back to that "taxation without representation" thing, though. I get your point...my representatives aren't representing me, so, um...I'm not being represented. Ok...but that's ALWAYS going to be true, right? I mean, if a Republican were representing me, I could say the same thing, right? It just seems a little silly to me. People have been protesting wars for decades and many of them pay taxes. So, they could be claiming taxation without representation as well, couldn't they?
And, I think, this is the basis for the "teabagger" concept. Doesn't the term come from the Boston Tea party guys? (yes, I know the term has other meanings). The whole point of THAT protest was that they were, in fact, being taxed without representation. The "teabaggers" kind of seem disingenuous when you compare the two causes (Boston Tea Party to Teabaggers).
And, just so we're both on the same page, where does the burden go? You commented on the "supposed" tax cuts (not sure why they are "supposed", did the bill not pass?) and said that it put the burden somewhere else. Where? Didn't Bush give a tax cut? Where did that "burden" go? And, why weren't there teabaggers protesting those tax cuts?
I agree with you, the historical implications between the Boston Tea Party and what is now happening with Tea Parties are vastly different. I believe the more current events are more symbolic than literal No, we don't have a King three thousand miles away taxing us with no representation. But if you want to get a sign saying the same thing and protest the war then have at it...
As far as the term(s) goes, I think the left has assigned the term "Teabaggers" as a way to make fun of these people who voice their opinions. The "Tea" stands "Taxed Enough Already".
Moving on: The so called tax cuts that I mention that Obama proposed during the campaign and signed into law are not really tax cuts, thus why I call them supposed. They are welfare payments, or government handouts, based on certain types of behavior(s) and class structures. The so-called tax cuts go to the 40% people who don’t even pay any taxes at all.
Correct me if I am wrong but under Obama’s plan, if a low or middle-income tax payer gets a raise, their tax credit gets phased out as their income rises.
I remember a study during the campaign that compared the tax rate under the (then) current law and under Obama’s proposals. The study showed Obama’s tax rate would be higher, making middle class and working Americans pay more in actual income taxes. The only people who would make out better are those who currently do not pay any taxes, as they would receive a free check.
The mantra of the left has been that the rich people don't pay taxes. Well, that's not true as the upper and middle class pay all the taxes.
Add that to increasing the Capital Gains tax rate, putting a halt to investments, and the starting/supporting of small businesses at precisely the time when it is needed the most. Add that to the new energy taxes coming, the Cap and Scam polices, causing another huge expansion in the Federal Government while ironically hurting the ones who need the most help. Electric bills for the low income folks should be real fun in January in Wisconsin!
To put it into context: If you make more than $171,550, you are in the 33% bracket. That is one of the two top brackets that will "NOT" be getting a renewal of the Bush tax cuts according to Obama. If you make between $171,550 and $250,000, you aren't getting a tax hike of 3%. You will just no longer be having a tax cut of 3%.
Bush didn't just cut taxes for the rich. When Bush cut taxes, it was across the board. Bush cut every tax bracket, including the lowest from 15% to 10%. He increased the child tax credit and child care credits for working families. He eliminated the marriage penalty, and reduced and planned to phase out the death tax. Ironically Obama is going to (or has) renewed many of these tax cuts resulting in the Obama Tax Cuts of 2010. Why doesn't the left scream about the Obama tax cuts for the rich?
After doing a little research I found Clinton tax rates and margins. If you made $43,050 you began paying 28% on each additional dollar you make. Under Bush tax margins; you didn't reach the next bracket of 25% until you reached $65,100 in income. Sooooo, if Obama leaves the Bush tax rates intact except for the top two brackets, but does not renew the actual dollar points where you find yourself in the next marginal tax bracket, it could result in a 5% tax increase for anyone making between $0 and $16,050 or 10% for everyone making between $43,050 and $65,100 and so on.
To further put it into perspective: Remember the Administration/Congress has already planned penalties for not buying health insurance, embedded Cap and scam taxes, with sin taxes such as the Soda tax or Cigarette tax, and a variety of other programs that increase government revenue by taking money from the middle, low, and upper class are (of course these are) not actually tax increases. As we learned from the Stephanopolous interview with Obama, trying to say otherwise is nothing more than a sign of desperation. Or being racist ;)
- Over 52% of the Bush tax cuts went to the top 5% of taxpayers
- Tax cuts enacted under Bush will cost over 2 trillion dollars over the 2001-2010 period. Where are the protests about this? As a contrast, the Obama tax cuts are supposed to cost 900billion
- In the 80's, CEO's made around 30 times the amount of the average worker. Today, they make over 300 times the average worker.
- From the 1940's through 1987, the top 10% of income earners earned ~30% of the total share of US income. In 2007, they earned 45%. With capital gains, they earned 50% of the total. You're concern with the capital gains tax is nice, but I'll bet those folks can handle the 5% loss.
The only thing I really don't understand is, who are these people who defend the wealthy and why do they do it? Are they really concerned that those millionaires/billionaires don't have enough money?
And, what do they mean "Taxed Enough Already"? What taxes? It seems to me, based on your response, that they are protesting "possible" tax increases. This would be like anti-war protesters protesting a "possible" war with China.
Those "taxes" you mention, in my mind, are not "taxes" in the normal sense. A requirement to buy health insurance is no different than the requirement to buy auto insurance and nobody called that a tax. Besides, that requirement will be one of the ways in which health care costs will be kept low.
The Soda tax and Cigarette tax (or gas tax, etc..) are "sin" taxes. Meaning, you don't have to pay them, just don't buy those items...or buy them less. That's not the same as an income tax which you have to pay by law.
"The Soda tax and Cigarette tax (or gas tax, etc..) are "sin" taxes."
If I didn't have to buy gas I wouldn't :)
"Tax cuts enacted under Bush will cost over 2 trillion dollars over the 2001-2010 period. Where are the protests about this?"
Well, I bet the Courthouse Crew would love your help in the cause. You should make up some signs and bring your rain gear. Let me know, I'll come down with my signs and stand with ya :)
"The only thing I really don't understand is, who are these people who defend the wealthy and why do they do it?"
Well, besides small businesses and ultra rich people; jobs are created by poor people right?
I guess I view the American dream as getting to the top 5%. If you work hard and make smart business choices why should you be punished? I suppose I vote (and defend) in the hopes I will be there someday. I don't hate the rich and I don't begrudge profit(s).
Take the oil industry for example. Sure they buy caddys and fur coats. They also reinvest those profits in their industry. New technology, new methods, and eventually lower prices for these things. If you pay and take care of your people, provide a product to me, and make large profits good for them!
"A requirement to buy health insurance is no different than the requirement to buy auto insurance and nobody called that a tax."
ORS 806.010 was amended in July of 1989. The original bill was enacted before that. I only mention this as I was not at the voting age then, nor when it was originally enacted in Oregon by Gov. Atiyeh (I think). By the way, New Hampshire doesn't even have this law. Of course we get into State's rights issues with the Health Care legislation; Which seperates the Health Care legislation from the auto insurence comparison. Health care will be an entitlement program "Nationwide" not decided State by State.
"Besides, that requirement will be one of the ways in which health care costs will be kept low."
Yeah, another great way to cut costs is by rationing care right? Especaially preventative care! Gee, should women get mamograms at fifty; or do we just need to move that on back? How about prostrate screening? Instead of starting at thirty lets move it back to fourty or even fifty. Think of the savings!
Whew... I don't have any homework, but I need a drink!
"Tax cuts enacted under Bush will cost over 2 trillion dollars over the 2001-2010 period. Where are the protests about this?"
"Well, I bet the Courthouse Crew would love your help in the cause."
Kinda missed the point, didn't you? Where were the teabaggers when Bush was taking us so deep into debt with his tax cuts?
"Well, besides small businesses and ultra rich people; jobs are created by poor people right?"
Well, not so much ultra rich people. Most jobs are created in small business...these are not the ultra rich.
"I guess I view the American dream as getting to the top 5%. If you work hard and make smart business choices why should you be punished?"
Do you buy lottery tickets, too? 'Cause, winning the lottery is a bit more likely. Most "rich" people either inherited it, or committed crimes to get where they are. I know you won't do the latter, maybe you have family money?
Those folks who "defend" the wealthy are neither wealthy themselves or likely to be wealthy. They protest against their own best interest and it doesn't make sense.
Besides, even if you were among the 5% of the wealthy, would you really begrudge a tax cut to someone who makes far less than you? I kinda doubt it.
"Take the oil industry for example"
Yes, I have a real concern for the oil industry. Poor guys probably have trouble finding ways to spend all that money. Yes, they spend "some" of their money on oil exploration, but they could be spending much more on alternative energy. They don't 'cause there's not that immediate return the have to have to pay for their yachts.
"Health care will be an entitlement program"
You know,that's probably right...and, I'm ok with that. Education is a right and health should be as well.
"Yeah, another great way to cut costs is by rationing care right?"
Oh nooooo...did the boogy man enter the room? ;0)
Pretty much done with my homework for the week....so I guess I'll play catch-up with the drinking!
"Kinda missed the point, didn't you? Where were the teabaggers when Bush was taking us so deep into debt with his tax cuts?"
I can't speak for all people who attend Tea parties, and I would hope by now you know that I was against a lot of what Bush did with $... Although, I will say Bush and his spend-spend-spend-policies were just the tip of the iceberg! When will we stop? I guess that's where I am at.
"Most "rich" people either inherited it, or committed crimes to get where they are. I know you won't do the latter, maybe you have family money?"
Really??? "Most" rich people inherit or commit crimes to get their money???
I guess I wonder what you think is rich? Is it the magical $250,000 a year? No, I don't play the lottery. I don't see anything wrong with inheritance either. Why shouldn't a family be able tp pass down money, land, and/or things? Is that so wrong?
I started with nothing, and have worked my way up the class system with nothing more than hard work and decent choices. I would argue that this is the American Dream.
I take pride in getting where I am today because I did it myself. I save more than I spend, I make investments, and I work hard. If I get to the magic $250,000 or even the 5% should I be punished for my success? To be clear, I also donate time and money to different things. I try to "give back" even when my Government doesn't force me to!
"They spend "some" of their money on oil exploration, but they could be spending much more on alternative energy."
Oil Company new investments totaled $91.4 billion in 2006, up 60 percent over 2001. According to a Ernst & Young analysis that figure fell significantly from the 1990's when the oil industry was spending about 200 percent of net income on such investments. Since 2000, the average has been about 100 percent of income, and in 2006 it was 76 percent.
Besides, according to the NY Times Exxon's $600 million investment was larger than the amount spent by the federal government on algae biofuels in the past decade. Those evil bastards!
"They don't cause there's not that immediate return ."
You're kidding right? A private Company who's buisness is oil should be made to feel guilty or even forced to make bad buisness choices? If you take personal/investor capitol and go into business, (with a risk involved) and make money GOOD FOR YOU!
"They have to have to pay for their yachts."
I don't care what they buy with their profits. Want to make money off the oil companies? Buy some stock! The only people these companies should be beholden to is their share holders! Not the Democrats or the Federal Government...
"Education is a right and health should be as well."
How about food? What about clothes? How about housing?
Are these, or should these be "Rights"? Should we start a entitlement program to give out free food, free clothes, and free houses?
Should the Grocery/farm/beef/chicken/seafood industries be ashamed of making money off poor people?
Should Levi's feel guilty for selling an over priced pair of jeans and be forced to pay a tax on their profits?
Should my contarctor lose money on building my house because the Government thinks it my "Right" to own a house?
"Oh nooooo...did the boogy man enter the room?"
Nope, but the gigantic Federal Government with it's fingers in my pockets did...;) If the Devil dances in empty pockets I am filling mine with Monopoly money!
In an attempt to find some common ground, there has to be a way to get some of the things we need as far as health care reform is concerned with out passing this bill...
I am out of here for the holiday. I hope you all have an awesome turkey day. I am thankful to have friends such as you guys.
Dude! The "american dream"??? You "started with nothing"???? Are you kidding me?
Ok, so I wrote a nice response to your message, but it was too long and the system wouldn't take it. But, let's look at these two points, anyway.
The "american dream" is a myth. Unless, your dream is to go to the same job for years, work hard to pay your mortgage and try to pay for your kids to go to college. If that's the "dream", then I'd say you have arrived! However, if the "american dream" is to become one of the richest 5% of Americans, well, that aint' gonna happen...sorry. That's not to say it isn't possible, but it's just not very likely. There's only 5% for a reason...very few get there. And, of those that do, many have done so through inheritence...so, your liklihood of joining that 5% group is even less.
C'mon...you don't really believe you're gonna be rich, do ya? You are going to be middle class, just like the rest of us. Truth be told, statistically, you are more likley to end up homeless than rich.
As for the "started with nothing" comment...I'm assuming you were just being dramatic. You started with "nothing"? I kinda doubt that. Were you born in a cornfield? Harlem? Did you get to go to school when you were a kid? Did they have nap-time? (just wonderin'). Anyway, "started with nothing" seems a little unlikly, to me...sorry.
So, we all have probably had "some" advantages to someone in, say, Somolia. And, everyone (I don't care who you are or what you say) has been helped by someone at some point in their lives.
Hmm...where does that leave us? Oh, I know, it leaves us all in, pretty much, the same boat. So, how about we try to make the best of it and being honest about the boat?
So, I support ensuring that all kids have access to an education and I'll give a portion of my measly income for that. I also support the notion that we all have a police force and a fire department and an FDA and a highway system and, yes, even a military. We good?
So, then the question comes back to this health thing. You don't care if everyone has access to affordable healthcare and I do! (heh..heh...sorry, you were generalizing and I wanted to give it a shot). Seriously, tho, I do think health care is a right. Never mind jeans and housing (well, I do think people are entitled to a roof over their heads, but never mind that for the moment), let's stick with the issue at hand...health care!
What's wrong with having a system that ensures all have access to healthcare and don't have to go bankrupt to pay for it?? My taxes go to education, the military, police, etc...I'm ok with some of my taxes going to this. Why do you draw the line here? And, in order to help pay for it, if the "rich" have to pay a little more, where's the problem in that? It's not like they won't be rich anymore! The foundation of our country doesn't collapse if we enact a universal health care system. We are the ONLY industrialized country that doesn't have one. Doesn't that say something? And, please, don't give me the "we have the best health care system in the world", spiel unless you have "facts" to support it. And, a "fact" isn't "well, people come here from other countries for medical care", that's speculation and a generalization. People also go to India for health care....
Ok, that's enough. I'm not going to force you into defending oil companies anymore, it just makes me sad.
Yes, I was born in a cornfield. Now, of course, the neither the cornfield nor the land was not owned by me or any of my family. I suppose yes compared to a little boy in Somalia I lived it up!:)
I was born into a low income family, (Thank God my Mom didn't approve of Abortion) with very little. I remember a several Christmas' where all I got was a nightlight, and an orange and I loved it. I still have it somewhere. The nightlight by the way. I ate the orange.
I remember having to take the light bulb from one room to the next because we didn't have enough to light the entire apartment. I took crackers to work for lunch so our food could be given to my Son. Ironically we were the family you wish to hand everything to. Yet I didn't and still wouldn't take it.
Suffice to say, I imagine you don't really care or believe it can happen so I will spare the details of the rise to upper middle class.
Long story short, with hard work and good choices we are doing well. Ironically, again, without the entitlement programs!
Another long story short, in the hopes of common ground I say we agree to disagree on this one...
"I remember several Christmas' where all I got was a nightlight, and an orange and I loved it."
And, "I remember having to take the lightbulb from one room to the next because we didn't have enough to light the entire apartment."
Friggin' hilarious!
Reminds me of an SNL skit...
You had an apartment? You had light? You got fresh fruit?
I was raised in a cardboard box in the woods. We couldn't have light because it would attract the bears. The only fruit we got was when we looked for undigested berries in the poop of the bears!
Funny stuff! You were being sarcastic...right?
Anyway, yeah, agree to disagree...works for me. What were we disagreeing on?
You remember several christmas' where all you got was an orange and a nightlight? Several Christmas'?? So, you ate the orange, but what about the nightlight? Did they give you a new one every year or just re-wrap the same one?
We lived in a studio apartment, couldn't afford more (I guess you guys could since you went from room to room with your little light), we even shared a bathroom with three other families, but I still got a toy for Christmas.
Seems like, for the cost of a nightlight, they could have bought you a ball.
Anyway, I did watch the game....it was AWESOME! I'm optimistically cautious...as I've been here before. I am happy that they are showing the Vikings every weekend on tv, tho!
Grammar mistake, added with not finishing a thought... Several Christmas' I received an orange, and I remember getting Lincoln Logs that my Dad made. That was awesome. I did get those little green army men in my stocking one year. I think they were a penny or so. I know big spending! The orange became an every year thing later just because it was cool.
The bulb made its way from Living room (Small with 13 inch black and white TV with rabbit ears) bed rooms (two), and kitchen.
A studio huh? Wow, you had it rough too. You made it out of poverty too. Thank God you didn't have to rely on hard work and sacrifice, huh? :)
As far as toys go... I did see Stick made it into the toy hall of fame. John Stewart had a funny bit about it.
Speaking of balls... Wow, you got to play with a ball? No fair! There should be a way for the Government to even the playing field on gifts! I mean, my parents had to save over years to get me big ticket things like balls, and GI Joes... That's crap. I should have just been given those things and had evil rich people pay for it!
I hear you on the Caution with regards to our Vikes. I remember a few years ago when we started 9-0 and then lost the last six in a row to barely make the playoffs; only to lose in the first round. I however choose to be cautiously optimistic :)
Ooops, left out the bathroom... It would make for better drama if we had an outhouse or a bucket or something. Alas we did have a restroom...
Also I would add that we had to change the station on the TV with a pair of vice grips. No, I haven't the foggiest idea where the vice grips came from, or who bought them.
Yeah, when we finally got a tv, there was a period of time where we changed the channel with vice grips. I'm assuming someone in your family worked hard to purchase yours. Being "liberals" we were probably just given ours.
To be honest, I'm not sure how we got on the subject of "how hard my life was", but I think the original discussion was around those teabag protests. And, to that end, it appears this topic has dried up. But, I still come away from it wondering how "conservatives" so easily defend the uber-rich and corporations and appear to have little interest in ensuring those in need get help.
To my mind, it comes back to a concept that was discussed in another thread. Nobody should get something for nothing and, therefore, any system that might allow for that should be rejected...even if it might help many in need and even tho many who are wealthy got that way by doing nothing and many corporations take advantage of a system that allows them to pay no taxes.
From what I've learned on this thread, those at the tea bag protests want to protect corporations and the wealthy at all costs because, well, someday they may be wealthy themselves (even though that's extremely unlikely).
So, no system to help the poor who might get something for nothing and don't tax the rich because that might be me someday.
I guess it's just something I'll never understand.
Tom, I respect your opinion and hope you mine. Yet, you continually reference me (and those who think like me) as tea baggers, and those who attend teabag protests and I have to wonder sometimes. I know it's a funny way to poke fun and vilify us to get the lefty message out there, but is that how you see me? Really?
I guess I don't see why you think that if you oppose huge entitlement program(s) established by a huge Federal Government makes you evil or uncaring.
I care, and am just fine helping those who can't help themselves (for a time). Creating generations of people dependent on the Government doesn't help anyone in the long run. It only gives the Government more and more control over our lives! As the old adage goes: Give a man a fish you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime!
That said, I volunteer my time in the St. Mary's soup kitchen. I give money to various charities, and adopt families during the holidays, first days of school, and during cold weather months. I give to and make up gift boxes for operation gift drop. The other day I took a homeless man to subway for a sandwich and a hot cup of coffee. Don't worry I didn't proselytize during... God how evil would that be huh? So call me a tea bagger, and whatever other names you can think of. I may be a lot of things, but uncaring and evil not one of them.
Of course there are those who will never be able to care for themselves and I agree with helping them. I just don't see the Federal Government as the tool to use to "Level the playing field" for everyone who doesn't make $250,000 or more.
I make a decent living and I give back to my community with out the Government and lefty do-gooders forcing me too!
"MADDOW: That was the preexisting pop culture definition of "teabag" when used as a verb. That existed, already, in the world. And that is why it was funny when these members of this emerging far-right protest movement started calling them teabaggers and threatening to teabag anyone who disagrees with them.
That existed ahead of time. They walked right into it, and that`s why it`s still funny today, OK? OK."
COE, sorry about taking a hiatus, I got kinda involved in studying for school.
At any rate, let's get down to brass tacks.
You and I (and, I think, the teabaggers) would disagree on the point of government. But, let's evaluate a specific example of government "interference".
You and I both have a friend who got "laid off" from the same private company as I did. And, he is taking advantage of the same Federal program that I am in order to become a cop, correct?
You said "I hate the idea of higher and higher taxes, higher and higher deficit and the direction of where our Federal Government is heading" Well, I do too, but we may differ on where the cuts should come from.
Would you cut this Federal program that our mutual friend and I are taking advantage of? If not, why? Most people who lose their jobs don't qualify for this program...why should we? If you lost your job, you wouldn't qualify, is that fair?
If you do think it should be cut, what does that say about how you feel about our friend and me?
You see, you said "Ironically we were the family you wish to hand everything to. Yet I didn't and still wouldn't take it." (referring, I believe, to handouts) which makes it appear that you are "better" than our friend and me because we are taking this federal "handout" while you would "never" do so. Is that what you were trying to say?
A year ago, I NEVER thought I'd be on unemployment. But, it's just a reminder to me that one should never say "never".
What's ironic is, I know our mutual friend isn't a big fan of social programs either, but he's utilizing one in order to go to work for the government. Kinda makes ya laugh.
I think the difference for me is simple. The brass tacks for me are too. I work hard and I play by the rules. I was rasied that way I can't help it. I suppose that's why I chose to get into law enforcement.
What gets me is we set up a system or a series of systems/programs in which we add to every other administration (Bush/Repubs. included) that allow and even create people who/to depend on Government hand outs instead of honest hard work.
I run into and deal with folks (everyday) who are in their mid fourties, fifties who have NEVER had a job. Their kids, and grandkids have never had jobs. Why should they? With food stamps, SSI, and HUD housing what's in it for them?
I have worked since I was 12 mowing lawns, and out in the hay fields with my Dad. Later I moved irrigation pipe, and whatever other odd jobs I could. I worked all the way though high school at Richaey's Market, and into adulthood with gradually better paying jobs. I pay my taxes, I pay my SSI tab, and I put my money into unemployment. I have worked hard to get what I have.
Now, before we get back into the I had it worse game, I know you have too. You've held a job and worked your way to where you are. You also have paid your taxes, your SSI tab, and your unemployment dues if you will. I would imagine Scott has too (I assume that's the mutal friend. :) You and Scott have contributed to what you are getting back, and I have no problem with that. You've paid into unemployment, correct? I don't know anything about the education program that you're using, but it seems to me this is a limited program that helps you get a better job and after a time gets you back to paying into SSI, and unemployment ins correct?
Having said that: I have said over and over that I understand a need to help those who can't help themselves. I agree that there are those who cannot help themselves and I am all for extending a hand.
Now for the big BUT... For a limited time, and with the hope, and goal to get people back to helping themselves.
Far too long in this Country "we" through the Federal Government have set up this false ideal that people for what ever reason cannot get by unless they get help from good old Uncle Sam.
This seems to all boil down to we are supposed to feel guilty because somehwere somebody isn't getting what someone else is. I guess I just don't get it. Have or have not, I work hard reguardless. This eat the rich attitude is present through out history as well.
Worked really well is most Communist nations, as well as Nazi Germany during the mid thirties. There always has to be a scapegoat, why not the rich, huh?
Tom, I don't begrude you or Scott for doing what you're doing. You're hard workers who have paid their dues.
As far as that goes the limited "system" that you guys are using is being used for what it is supposed to be used for...Wow, that was a lot of use of the word use :)
Now, if you guys use this program for the next 30 years, never get a job again, and get your kids and grandkids to do the very same I might feel differently...
I hope you're feeling better! I agree, that Vikings game was awesome!
Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful response. You are always so gracious in your comments. Sometimes, my emotions get in my way. I haven't been feeling all that great about myself since getting on unemployment because I could never imagine myself being in this position. So, when you make statements like, I'd never take a handout...or whatever, I got my dander up a little. It's not your fault, it's my own self-esteem issue.
At any rate, I want to respond to your position by returning to the illegal immigrant discussion. In that discussion, it felt to me like the major issue was someone (or, someone's) "getting away" with something. Or, "taking advantage" of the system. And, it feels like that's your biggest issue here.
But, as with the illegal immigrant issue, that seems kinda petty to me (no offense intended). I'm certain you have met people who have abused the welfare system. But, as I think you'll agree, there are those who really need it.
The question, then, appears to be, can we keep the system and reduce fraud (or, abuse). And, I'm ok with that. But, even in working to achieve that, do we agree that we need to have the safety net in place (meaning, some kind of support system for those in need)?
If so, then it seems like the next question would be, how do we pay for it.
There are Corporations who are "getting away" with paying little or no taxes. I think we should try and get them to pay their share for this system. In addition, there are those who are extremely wealthy only because of the family they were born in. These folks have also, never worked a day in their life. When they get the "free" money through inheritence, I think they should be taxed on this "new" income.
These are two ways in which I think we can pay for such a system, all the while working to reduce abuse of the system.
I never meant any offense in any of my comments. I am sorry if I got your dander up. I surely did not mean to. Hell, sometimes my emotions get in my way too.
That and my pride. Another lovely trait picked up from my Dad... It can be useful, but it can also be counter productive as well. Pirde, a funny thing.
You know, you're right. The immigration thing does boil down to being unfair to me. This is a simplistic "boil" down to be sure. I have to admit it is a complicated issue when you look at the individual faces, and families.
That said: I just feel like if you do it the correct way; then I have no problem and I say welcome. If you you sneak in, and take advantage of a society that you've "Illegally" enetred then no, I say come back when you respect if nothing else, but our laws...
Ahhh... How do we pay for it? The age old question. Well, for starters I'd say lets go after fraud and waste. Not just say we are going to, but acually do it.
Secondly I'd say lets use what we have already before we add to the heap. When we cut the cost of inefficency and fraud then we can see what we have. With me so far?
Next I say we hold Politicians accountable. Pass the line item veto, and get rid of programs within the budget(s) that don't work, or are the worst offenders of fraud and waste.
Candidates Obama, and McCain promised to do just that. If they don't end up doing what they say, then "We" the people vote their asses out and get someone in there that will. Sorry, I suppose I am dreaming aren't I? That's all I got for now. I'll have to think on it some more.
On to the rich spoiled kids. Now I tend to agree with you here. I can't stand the Paris Hilton's of the world.
That said: Her sister Nikki is a successful designer. To that I would have to admit that Paris is a semi-successful actress. Not my cup of tea but lets face it she gets ratings. Again I don't know why, but you'd have to poll millions of idiot Americans to get that info.
I would also add that these spoiled idiots don't draw food stamps, get HUD housing, and aren't pulling SSI at fourty after never holding a job. Plus I Bet you bottom dollar Daddy Hilton has paid a crap load of taxes over the years.
How many Fortune 500 companies are left in Oregon? Six... Fifteen in Washinton, and over a hundred in California. How many do you think will stay once we jack Corp taxes up? Where do those jobs go? To other States where the taxes aren't so high... Or are we talking about at the Federal level? Yeah NAFTA really did a job on outsourcing didn't it. Lets do it again!
Whew, now I am way long winded... Good discussion Tom. Again I am sorry if I typed something offensive. Not meant to be. We still buds?
WHAT???? Dude! I had NO idea what polar opposites we are. You've said/written some things in the past that I don't agree with, but to call Paris Hilton an "actress"....c'mon!!!! That's just outrageous. I'm pretty sure if Meryl Streep read that, she'd hunt you down and slap you.
I hope you know that last post was written with tongue firmly in cheek...
Yeah, we're still buds. Tho, don't tell my liberal friends, I might get kicked out of the club. ;0)
So, I've heard this idea of "cut waste" for many years. But, I have to wonder, when do you know you're done? I mean, as an example, I know that if measures 66 and 67 don't pass, at least one friend of mine will lose her job and many others, who work in government, will be close to losing their jobs, as well. And, most certainly, services will be cut.
I really wonder about your perspective. Here you are, working for the government, and you want to cut their budget. At some point, if we just cut and cut and cut, won't you be negatively impacted?
I maintain that we have seen an incredible growth in the gap between the rich and the poor and this is an area that, I think, we should focus on, not on cutting more government.
As for your concern for business, this seems to be the main theme that you consistently have. You worry about big business and I just don't understand where this concern comes from. Again, I'm a guy who has always worked in private industry and you work for the government. This seems strange to me.
Ahhh, come on now... You did see "THE HOUSE OF WAX" right? Now that was a classic if ever I've seen one.
I'd mention the other film she did, the name of which escapes me, but as I've not seen it I hate to say either way. Although if she (Hilton) is in it it must be oustanding! :)
Tom, I get where you're trying to go with the whole working for Government thing. Don't forget that my "perspective" or view is that there are three areas of Government in which they do a good job. Police, Fire, and Military. I do not know of a "private" Military that you would approve of. I beleive the term for that would be Mercenary.
There are "private" jails and prisons but trust me you don't want those...
I joined the Military because I wanted to serve. I did the same for my career and got into law enforcement. Personally, I'd rather put another cop on the street than another person on welfare. Call me what you like...
Well, I gotta get going. I will be off from here on out for Christmas. I hope everyone has a great day. Merry Christmas to everyone!
The Government that I see as dangerous and over reaching is the entitlement/nanny central Government that wants to effect ALL of our lives. I see the difference.
2. Democrat Socialist Health Care. Dachau, 1945? I'm perplexed. Is it Holocaust Revisionism or an insane analogy? Are they saying that it was current Democrats that caused ethnic cleansing in Dachau? Or are they saying this is what will happen if we pass health care reform? Well, I guess it is a long bill, but you'd think someone would have pointed out the passage where it suggests this. Or if it was the Democrats that killed those Jews in Dachau by passing health care, there's no telling what they may do. Significantly, this would mean any proposed Democrat Socialist Bill will kill more Jews, like in Dachau, which was established in 1933.
ReplyDelete3. Well hear we have Obama dressed like that most unlikable of movie characters: Patch Adams. Come on teabaggers, it's really low to compare our President to one of the most despised film characters of all time. That guy was REALLY annoying.
ReplyDeleteSeriously though, I compared Bush to the Joker. But that's because conservative geeks would compare him to Batman. I said he was more like the Joker, in the recent film a terrorist, who forces ordinary citizens to choose between their lives, and the lives of others. I drop it there though, because that's just mythos, I don't compare Cheney to Darth Vader either, except to say his Empire was evil. Darth Vader started out as good, and the analogy is weak.
Similarly, the Joker was not a socialist, nor a communist...so I guess in that was, he is like Obama. But that's about it, he didn't propose health care reform, the one time he did visit a hospital in the movie it was to blow it up. I don't see any connection. I fear it might just be that they just like to look at our President in white-face with disfiguring scars around the mouth.
4. Put Preparation H on the Bill? I wonder if that's personal message. I heard Glen Beck was hospitalized for complications while having surgery performed on his hemorrhoids.
ReplyDelete8. Obama LISTENS to chairman Mao? I'm confused again, is he saying Obama sees dead people, and talks to them? Is it the ghost of chairman Mao tat wants us to pass meaningful Health Reform? You'd think if that was his intention he'd want to do it for the Chinese, when he was alive.
ReplyDelete9. Bust wait, now he's a Marxist. Huh, which is it, is the Health Reform Bill the manifesto or the little red book?
ReplyDelete10. Oh, it's Mein Kampf, again.
ReplyDelete11. Who will Pelosi bow to, the cross of eternal salvation? Or the goat with the dollar sign and the scary flames? Wait...Obama betrayed JESUS? No wonder they don't like him, I mean if he betrayed Jesus. Great another analogy. Was he Pilate? the Jews? Romans? Judas? Or maybe just the antichrist and Satan all rolled into a nice package of evil?
ReplyDelete12. Attack of the Astroturf? Well, I guess they ran out of phrases, so they decided to give a little honesty a try. I didn't glean any other political messages from this event, except that these protesters are as crazy as John Boner, and Michelle Batshit.
ReplyDelete"These protesters are as crazy as John Boner, and Michelle Batshit."
ReplyDeleteCrazier than Doug Graves, Ilene Dover, Hugh Jass, Myra Maines, and Emmerson Biggens? :)
"Is it Holocaust Revisionism or an insane analogy?"
ReplyDeleteI have to wonder if the person with the sign even has an analytic brain cell in their head. It simply reeks of stupidity, that's all.
Wonder how a poor Jew without health care would respond to this sign. "Hmmm...I don't have health care, but if I support the passage of this bill, I might get gassed."?
The visual on the sign is plain disgusting and insulting.
http://content2.clipmarks.com/content/C9DC49DB-7AF4-47A7-A752-BAECD133DC1E/
ReplyDeleteIt is on both sides of the isle...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2009/09/16/media-double-standard-only-rights-signs-are-worth-covering
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thomasalbert.com/politics/protest/san_francisco.htm
ReplyDeletehttp://zombietime.com/gaza_war_protest/
ReplyDelete"So if there was one thing I learned from the coverage of those big protests last weekend, it's that signs matter.
ReplyDeleteSee, when the media cover an event they don't like, they focus on protester's placards. But as a regular, long-term consumer of all things media (and fiber), I cannot recall this ever happening when the media covered the WTO protests, the NOW marches, the no-nuke concerts, the anti-war demonstrations.
If I remember correctly, the media instead chose to focus on the heroic faces of the protesters. Often, they would be huddled together, holding a candle, singing "Give Peace a Chance" or something equally annoying.
Fact is: The media liked them, so who cares if the signs were offensive; that reality would only undermine the ideal.
To me, most of the sillier signs this weekend didn't reflect idiocy, but inexperience. I'm willing to bet nearly all of these folks had never been to a march before, unless it involved Dimes. Lefty protesters have had far more experience doing this sort of thing, so they know how to dress and when to cry.
Finally, you media types who call these folks crackpots need to realize you're only doing so, because to them, you're irrelevant. They no longer need or believe in you.
Granted, however, I've been known to call people who disagree with me — the Garafalos, the Olbermanns — crazy, too. But I'm right.
And if you disagree with me, then you're probably a racist."
Greg Gutfeld hosts "Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld"
The 'media' did not support WTO protests. The media is corporate.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I don't like the signs that said to kill Bush. It would be more appropriate to read 'Impeach Bush.'
ReplyDeleteThe media double-standard is not that they didn't cover the offensive antiwar signs. The media barely covered the protests at all! Sure they had to, when it was global and huge, otherwise the media was much in panic and extremely loyal to the current administration, so they downplayed it. By contrast the teabaggers get an extraordinary amount of coverage considering their size and influence. It was championed and promoted by a major cable network and members of Congress.
ReplyDeleteRe: Gaza...Of course the sign that says 'Jews are terroists' is extremely stupid. I don't like that.
ReplyDeleteMost of the others don't seem that bad. I reject the notion that being against Israeli policies or its' US funding is necessarily anti-Semitic. It would be appropriate to show pictures of slaughtered civilians here, in this case Gazans.
It also looks like there were some Jews in the same protest.
ReplyDelete'Granted, however, I've been known to call people who disagree with me — the Garafalos, the Olbermanns — crazy, too. But I'm right.'
ReplyDeleteIt seems like he is the one with the double-standard, as his litmus test is not whether the person is crazy, but whether he disagrees with them.
The difference between Glen Beck (who promotes these protests) and Keith Olbermann is one of dignity, and ethics...not just politics.
"“Ten years ago, I could have shouted every single day about Osama bin Laden and his wacky, crazy threats to kill Americans in New York and no one would have been willing to stand in line two hours while some security officer made grandma take her shoes off," Olbermann quotes Beck as saying. "Today, things are different. America is changed. Washington, We’re not letting you get away with it anymore. The 912ers are willing to stand in line and take off our shoes before plane actually hits the tower.”
Olbermann retorts: "Beck, shark jump. You and the 9-12ers have the nerve to exploit 9/11 for your lousy tv ratings?
"You cannot make light of 9/11 nor bandy about as if your petty political grievances are comparable to it and still be a patriotic American," Olbermann continues. "In short, Glenn, 9-12ers, if you are invoking it just to oppose healthcare reform, go to hell."
http://rawstory.com/2009/11/olbermann-to-beck-go-to-hell/
"Go to hell"
ReplyDeleteNice, I have to wonder if this is the language and insanity that Speaker Pelosi spoke of? It could get out of hand and it can get out of hand quickly!
I happen to beleive in hell and see it as an actual place. So in response to Keithy Pooh: I say you cannot make light of Hell nor bandy about as if your petty political grievances are comparable to it and still be a decent human being...
I agree with you Ajai there are stupid and offensive signs at protests.
I also think these signs are on both sides of the argument(s) and to say other wise or justify otherwise is wrong.
There is a air of negativity and hatred out there (On both sides). In that respect I agree with Pelosi.
I think Rodney King said it best, "Can't we all just get along"?
Most people agree 9-11 is a real thing. We can still talk to people who were there and terrified.
ReplyDeleteI can not believe that there are people who do not respect this.
All I can say to Keith is AMEN.
All I am saying is it goes both ways. My beliefs may seem stupid and silly to you, yet I too can be offended by comparisons!
ReplyDelete"All I am saying is it goes both ways. My beliefs may seem stupid and silly to you, yet I too can be offended by comparisons!"
ReplyDeleteI'm not convinced that the "teabaggers" really reflect your beliefs, COE. Actually, I'm not sure what the "teabaggers" message is. I'm pretty sure I know what the anti-war protesters are all about. But, it seems like the "teabaggers" don't really have a unified message. Other than, "I hate Obama".
Hey Tom welcome back! To anwer you question(s):
ReplyDeleteNot entirely no. I do agree with the supposed general idea behind them (Tea parties). I hate the idea of higher and higher taxes, higher and higher deficit and the direction of where our Federal Government is heading... By the way, my opinion on this extends or applies to the Bush administration too...
What bugs me the most is that the same crowd who declares their right to assemble and "Protest" by any means or any "sign" is somehow offended when the other side attempts to do the same.
Then it becomes astro turf, racist, paranoia, a multitude of other metal illnesses, and any other negative tagline you want; like "Teabaggers" to vilianize and demonize the entire movement.
I do find it funny that with all the money and "astro turfing" going on from the right they don't "appear" to have a unified message
I don't hate Obama, I just don't agree with his policies. Just like I didn't agree with a lot of Bush's policies...
Also, I like to throw down with the devils advocate a little...
ReplyDeleteOk, COE, I can buy that response. But, my point is, I don't think the "teabaggers" really have one voice. I think they come because they oppose abortion, they come because the are for gun rights, they come because they are for lower taxes, they come because the don't want gays to marry. I mean, it's a hodgepodge.
ReplyDeleteAnd, it's all catch phrases. I mean, I saw some teabaggers with signs saying "No Taxation Without Representation!" which suggests, to me, that they don't know how this country works. We ALL have representation...we just don't always like them.
As to your point about higher taxes, you do realize that Obama signed a bill that gave one of the largest tax cuts to the middle class in history, right? 282 billion over two years! I wonder if I'll see a protest sign about that?
Fair enough Tom, I suppose we could argue the point counter point all day long, even about the supposed "tax" cuts. I mean it's shifting the tax burden somewhere else while rasing other taxes, (Energy ect) under the shadow of a tax break for 95% of Americans... You have to rob Peter to pay Paul so it's all relative I suppose.
ReplyDeleteAs to the sign issue; Suffice to say there are idiots on both sides. I fully admit there are some on my side of the isle.
As far as the "taxation without representation" sign; I can see what they are saying. Look, we send these dopes to Washington and they don't represent "us".
They vote for more and more Government. Higher and higher deficits. Bigger and more expanded entitlement programs. More Government control over our everyday lives; and we don't want it. Thus taxing "us" (To pay for it) with out representing "us". Yes, I understand, and you are correct we do have "Representation". I agree if taken literally, yes, a little silly and obviously incorrect. At least that's my take on the sign anyway. I am biased, and misguided I suppose, so take it for what it's worth :)
"my point is, I don't think the "teabaggers" really have one voice. I think they come because they oppose abortion, they come because the are for gun rights, they come because they are for lower taxes, they come because the don't want gays to marry."
I have to say with exception to the Gay issue I tend to agree with the "Tea baggers". <---I hate that term... I don't support abortion (Shocking I know), I support gun rights and the 2nd Amendment, low taxes, a limited Federal Government with more State rights.
I quess I have no problem with a group of Americans, left or right, with many different voices coming together and voicing their issues. Even if they are not screaming the same chant in unison. In fact I think it more entertaining!
I view this as a true cross section of my side of the argument. Yes, I understand that there are those on my side who oppose Gay marraige. I think they are wrong on this issue, and break with them here. I am not lock step with the evil right contrary to popular opinion. For the most part yeah I suppose I am, but not with everything.
Wow, that was a little long winded... :)
ReplyDeleteInteresting response. As usual, you prove yourself to be one of the few "compassionate" conservatives that I know.
ReplyDeleteJust going back to that "taxation without representation" thing, though. I get your point...my representatives aren't representing me, so, um...I'm not being represented. Ok...but that's ALWAYS going to be true, right? I mean, if a Republican were representing me, I could say the same thing, right? It just seems a little silly to me. People have been protesting wars for decades and many of them pay taxes. So, they could be claiming taxation without representation as well, couldn't they?
And, I think, this is the basis for the "teabagger" concept. Doesn't the term come from the Boston Tea party guys? (yes, I know the term has other meanings). The whole point of THAT protest was that they were, in fact, being taxed without representation. The "teabaggers" kind of seem disingenuous when you compare the two causes (Boston Tea Party to Teabaggers).
And, just so we're both on the same page, where does the burden go? You commented on the "supposed" tax cuts (not sure why they are "supposed", did the bill not pass?) and said that it put the burden somewhere else. Where? Didn't Bush give a tax cut? Where did that "burden" go? And, why weren't there teabaggers protesting those tax cuts?
Feel free to be long winded....;0)
This will be long.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, the historical implications between the Boston Tea Party and what is now happening with Tea Parties are vastly different. I believe the more current events are more symbolic than literal No, we don't have a King three thousand miles away taxing us with no representation. But if you want to get a sign saying the same thing and protest the war then have at it...
As far as the term(s) goes, I think the left has assigned the term "Teabaggers" as a way to make fun of these people who voice their opinions. The "Tea" stands "Taxed Enough Already".
Moving on: The so called tax cuts that I mention that Obama proposed during the campaign and signed into law are not really tax cuts, thus why I call them supposed.
They are welfare payments, or government handouts, based on certain types of behavior(s) and class structures. The so-called tax cuts go to the 40% people who don’t even pay any taxes at all.
Correct me if I am wrong but under Obama’s plan, if a low or middle-income tax payer gets a raise, their tax credit gets phased out as their income rises.
I remember a study during the campaign that compared the tax rate under the (then) current law and under Obama’s proposals. The study showed Obama’s tax rate would be higher, making middle class and working Americans pay more in actual income taxes. The only people who would make out better are those who currently do not pay any taxes, as they would receive a free check.
The mantra of the left has been that the rich people don't pay taxes. Well, that's not true as the upper and middle class pay all the taxes.
Add that to increasing the Capital Gains tax rate, putting a halt to investments, and the starting/supporting of small businesses at precisely the time when it is needed the most.
Add that to the new energy taxes coming, the Cap and Scam polices, causing another huge expansion in the Federal Government while ironically hurting the ones who need the most help. Electric bills for the low income folks should be real fun in January in Wisconsin!
To put it into context: If you make more than $171,550, you are in the 33% bracket. That is one of the two top brackets that will "NOT" be getting a renewal of the Bush tax cuts according to Obama. If you make between $171,550 and $250,000, you aren't getting a tax hike of 3%. You will just no longer be having a tax cut of 3%.
Bush didn't just cut taxes for the rich. When Bush cut taxes, it was across the board. Bush cut every tax bracket, including the lowest from 15% to 10%. He increased the child tax credit and child care credits for working families. He eliminated the marriage penalty, and reduced and planned to phase out the death tax. Ironically Obama is going to (or has) renewed many of these tax cuts resulting in the Obama Tax Cuts of 2010. Why doesn't the left scream about the Obama tax cuts for the rich?
After doing a little research I found Clinton tax rates and margins. If you made $43,050 you began paying 28% on each additional dollar you make. Under Bush tax margins; you didn't reach the next bracket of 25% until you reached $65,100 in income. Sooooo, if Obama leaves the Bush tax rates intact except for the top two brackets, but does not renew the actual dollar points where you find yourself in the next marginal tax bracket, it could result in a 5% tax increase for anyone making between $0 and $16,050 or 10% for everyone making between $43,050 and $65,100 and so on.
To further put it into perspective:
Remember the Administration/Congress has already planned penalties for not buying health insurance, embedded Cap and scam taxes, with sin taxes such as the Soda tax or Cigarette tax, and a variety of other programs that increase government revenue by taking money from the middle, low, and upper class are (of course these are) not actually tax increases. As we learned from the Stephanopolous interview with Obama, trying to say otherwise is nothing more than a sign of desperation. Or being racist ;)
Some interesting points, COE!
ReplyDeleteHere's some other things to consider;
- Over 52% of the Bush tax cuts went to the top 5% of taxpayers
- Tax cuts enacted under Bush will cost over 2 trillion dollars over the 2001-2010 period. Where are the protests about this? As a contrast, the Obama tax cuts are supposed to cost 900billion
- In the 80's, CEO's made around 30 times the amount of the average worker. Today, they make over 300 times the average worker.
- From the 1940's through 1987, the top 10% of income earners earned ~30% of the total share of US income. In 2007, they earned 45%. With capital gains, they earned 50% of the total. You're concern with the capital gains tax is nice, but I'll bet those folks can handle the 5% loss.
The only thing I really don't understand is, who are these people who defend the wealthy and why do they do it? Are they really concerned that those millionaires/billionaires don't have enough money?
And, what do they mean "Taxed Enough Already"? What taxes? It seems to me, based on your response, that they are protesting "possible" tax increases. This would be like anti-war protesters protesting a "possible" war with China.
Those "taxes" you mention, in my mind, are not "taxes" in the normal sense. A requirement to buy health insurance is no different than the requirement to buy auto insurance and nobody called that a tax. Besides, that requirement will be one of the ways in which health care costs will be kept low.
The Soda tax and Cigarette tax (or gas tax, etc..) are "sin" taxes. Meaning, you don't have to pay them, just don't buy those items...or buy them less. That's not the same as an income tax which you have to pay by law.
Ok...I gotta go do homework...
"The Soda tax and Cigarette tax (or gas tax, etc..) are "sin" taxes."
ReplyDeleteIf I didn't have to buy gas I wouldn't :)
"Tax cuts enacted under Bush will cost over 2 trillion dollars over the 2001-2010 period. Where are the protests about this?"
Well, I bet the Courthouse Crew would love your help in the cause. You should make up some signs and bring your rain gear. Let me know, I'll come down with my signs and stand with ya :)
"The only thing I really don't understand is, who are these people who defend the wealthy and why do they do it?"
Well, besides small businesses and ultra rich people; jobs are created by poor people right?
I guess I view the American dream as getting to the top 5%. If you work hard and make smart business choices why should you be punished? I suppose I vote (and defend) in the hopes I will be there someday. I don't hate the rich and I don't begrudge profit(s).
Take the oil industry for example. Sure they buy caddys and fur coats. They also reinvest those profits in their industry. New technology, new methods, and eventually lower prices for these things. If you pay and take care of your people, provide a product to me, and make large profits good for them!
"A requirement to buy health insurance is no different than the requirement to buy auto insurance and nobody called that a tax."
ORS 806.010 was amended in July of 1989. The original bill was enacted before that. I only mention this as I was not at the voting age then, nor when it was originally enacted in Oregon by Gov. Atiyeh (I think). By the way, New Hampshire doesn't even have this law. Of course we get into State's rights issues with the Health Care legislation; Which seperates the Health Care legislation from the auto insurence comparison. Health care will be an entitlement program "Nationwide" not decided State by State.
"Besides, that requirement will be one of the ways in which health care costs will be kept low."
Yeah, another great way to cut costs is by rationing care right? Especaially preventative care! Gee, should women get mamograms at fifty; or do we just need to move that on back? How about prostrate screening? Instead of starting at thirty lets move it back to fourty or even fifty. Think of the savings!
Whew... I don't have any homework, but I need a drink!
The American dream is getting to the top 5%? That's just not feasible. I think the dream has more coverage.
ReplyDelete"If I didn't have to buy gas I wouldn't :)"
ReplyDeleteWell, not to get nitpicky, but it IS a choice.
"Tax cuts enacted under Bush will cost over 2 trillion dollars over the 2001-2010 period. Where are the protests about this?"
"Well, I bet the Courthouse Crew would love your help in the cause."
Kinda missed the point, didn't you? Where were the teabaggers when Bush was taking us so deep into debt with his tax cuts?
"Well, besides small businesses and ultra rich people; jobs are created by poor people right?"
Well, not so much ultra rich people. Most jobs are created in small business...these are not the ultra rich.
"I guess I view the American dream as getting to the top 5%. If you work hard and make smart business choices why should you be punished?"
Do you buy lottery tickets, too? 'Cause, winning the lottery is a bit more likely. Most "rich" people either inherited it, or committed crimes to get where they are. I know you won't do the latter, maybe you have family money?
Those folks who "defend" the wealthy are neither wealthy themselves or likely to be wealthy. They protest against their own best interest and it doesn't make sense.
Besides, even if you were among the 5% of the wealthy, would you really begrudge a tax cut to someone who makes far less than you? I kinda doubt it.
"Take the oil industry for example"
Yes, I have a real concern for the oil industry. Poor guys probably have trouble finding ways to spend all that money. Yes, they spend "some" of their money on oil exploration, but they could be spending much more on alternative energy. They don't 'cause there's not that immediate return the have to have to pay for their yachts.
"Health care will be an entitlement program"
You know,that's probably right...and, I'm ok with that. Education is a right and health should be as well.
"Yeah, another great way to cut costs is by rationing care right?"
Oh nooooo...did the boogy man enter the room? ;0)
Pretty much done with my homework for the week....so I guess I'll play catch-up with the drinking!
"Kinda missed the point, didn't you? Where were the teabaggers when Bush was taking us so deep into debt with his tax cuts?"
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for all people who attend Tea parties, and I would hope by now you know that I was against a lot of what Bush did with $... Although, I will say Bush and his spend-spend-spend-policies were just the tip of the iceberg! When will we stop? I guess that's where I am at.
"Most "rich" people either inherited it, or committed crimes to get where they are. I know you won't do the latter, maybe you have family money?"
Really??? "Most" rich people inherit or commit crimes to get their money???
I guess I wonder what you think is rich? Is it the magical $250,000 a year? No, I don't play the lottery. I don't see anything wrong with inheritance either. Why shouldn't a family be able tp pass down money, land, and/or things? Is that so wrong?
I started with nothing, and have worked my way up the class system with nothing more than hard work and decent choices. I would argue that this is the American Dream.
I take pride in getting where I am today because I did it myself. I save more than I spend, I make investments, and I work hard. If I get to the magic $250,000 or even the 5% should I be punished for my success? To be clear, I also donate time and money to different things. I try to "give back" even when my Government doesn't force me to!
"They spend "some" of their money on oil exploration, but they could be spending much more on alternative energy."
Oil Company new investments totaled $91.4 billion in 2006, up 60 percent over 2001. According to a Ernst & Young analysis that figure fell significantly from the 1990's when the oil industry was spending about 200 percent of net income on such investments. Since 2000, the average has been about 100 percent of income, and in 2006 it was 76 percent.
Besides, according to the NY Times Exxon's $600 million investment was larger than the amount spent by the federal government on algae biofuels in the past decade. Those evil bastards!
"They don't cause there's not that immediate return ."
You're kidding right? A private Company who's buisness is oil should be made to feel guilty or even forced to make bad buisness choices? If you take personal/investor capitol and go into business, (with a risk involved) and make money GOOD FOR YOU!
"They have to have to pay for their yachts."
I don't care what they buy with their profits. Want to make money off the oil companies? Buy some stock! The only people these companies should be beholden to is their share holders! Not the Democrats or the Federal Government...
"Education is a right and health should be as well."
How about food? What about clothes? How about housing?
Are these, or should these be "Rights"? Should we start a entitlement program to give out free food, free clothes, and free houses?
Should the Grocery/farm/beef/chicken/seafood industries be ashamed of making money off poor people?
Should Levi's feel guilty for selling an over priced pair of jeans and be forced to pay a tax on their profits?
Should my contarctor lose money on building my house because the Government thinks it my "Right" to own a house?
"Oh nooooo...did the boogy man enter the room?"
Nope, but the gigantic Federal Government with it's fingers in my pockets did...;) If the Devil dances in empty pockets I am filling mine with Monopoly money!
In an attempt to find some common ground, there has to be a way to get some of the things we need as far as health care reform is concerned with out passing this bill...
I am out of here for the holiday. I hope you all have an awesome turkey day. I am thankful to have friends such as you guys.
Ok dude! I'll post my brilliant response soon and you can read it when you get a chance (I know you're dying to read my response).
ReplyDeleteBut, I wanted to say Happy Turkey Day! And, Go Vikes!
Take care, pal.
Dude! The "american dream"??? You "started with nothing"???? Are you kidding me?
ReplyDeleteOk, so I wrote a nice response to your message, but it was too long and the system wouldn't take it. But, let's look at these two points, anyway.
The "american dream" is a myth. Unless, your dream is to go to the same job for years, work hard to pay your mortgage and try to pay for your kids to go to college. If that's the "dream", then I'd say you have arrived! However, if the "american dream" is to become one of the richest 5% of Americans, well, that aint' gonna happen...sorry. That's not to say it isn't possible, but it's just not very likely. There's only 5% for a reason...very few get there. And, of those that do, many have done so through inheritence...so, your liklihood of joining that 5% group is even less.
C'mon...you don't really believe you're gonna be rich, do ya? You are going to be middle class, just like the rest of us. Truth be told, statistically, you are more likley to end up homeless than rich.
As for the "started with nothing" comment...I'm assuming you were just being dramatic. You started with "nothing"? I kinda doubt that. Were you born in a cornfield? Harlem? Did you get to go to school when you were a kid? Did they have nap-time? (just wonderin'). Anyway, "started with nothing" seems a little unlikly, to me...sorry.
So, we all have probably had "some" advantages to someone in, say, Somolia. And, everyone (I don't care who you are or what you say) has been helped by someone at some point in their lives.
Hmm...where does that leave us? Oh, I know, it leaves us all in, pretty much, the same boat. So, how about we try to make the best of it and being honest about the boat?
So, I support ensuring that all kids have access to an education and I'll give a portion of my measly income for that. I also support the notion that we all have a police force and a fire department and an FDA and a highway system and, yes, even a military. We good?
So, then the question comes back to this health thing. You don't care if everyone has access to affordable healthcare and I do! (heh..heh...sorry, you were generalizing and I wanted to give it a shot). Seriously, tho, I do think health care is a right. Never mind jeans and housing (well, I do think people are entitled to a roof over their heads, but never mind that for the moment), let's stick with the issue at hand...health care!
What's wrong with having a system that ensures all have access to healthcare and don't have to go bankrupt to pay for it?? My taxes go to education, the military, police, etc...I'm ok with some of my taxes going to this. Why do you draw the line here? And, in order to help pay for it, if the "rich" have to pay a little more, where's the problem in that? It's not like they won't be rich anymore! The foundation of our country doesn't collapse if we enact a universal health care system. We are the ONLY industrialized country that doesn't have one. Doesn't that say something? And, please, don't give me the "we have the best health care system in the world", spiel unless you have "facts" to support it. And, a "fact" isn't "well, people come here from other countries for medical care", that's speculation and a generalization. People also go to India for health care....
Ok, that's enough. I'm not going to force you into defending oil companies anymore, it just makes me sad.
Happy Turkey Day, COE!!
Yes, I was born in a cornfield. Now, of course, the neither the cornfield nor the land was not owned by me or any of my family. I suppose yes compared to a little boy in Somalia I lived it up!:)
ReplyDeleteI was born into a low income family, (Thank God my Mom didn't approve of Abortion) with very little. I remember a several Christmas' where all I got was a nightlight, and an orange and I loved it. I still have it somewhere. The nightlight by the way. I ate the orange.
I remember having to take the light bulb from one room to the next because we didn't have enough to light the entire apartment. I took crackers to work for lunch so our food could be given to my Son. Ironically we were the family you wish to hand everything to. Yet I didn't and still wouldn't take it.
Suffice to say, I imagine you don't really care or believe it can happen so I will spare the details of the rise to upper middle class.
Long story short, with hard work and good choices we are doing well. Ironically, again, without the entitlement programs!
Another long story short, in the hopes of common ground I say we agree to disagree on this one...
Dude! You crack me up!
ReplyDelete"I remember several Christmas' where all I got was a nightlight, and an orange and I loved it."
And, "I remember having to take the lightbulb from one room to the next because we didn't have enough to light the entire apartment."
Friggin' hilarious!
Reminds me of an SNL skit...
You had an apartment? You had light? You got fresh fruit?
I was raised in a cardboard box in the woods. We couldn't have light because it would attract the bears. The only fruit we got was when we looked for undigested berries in the poop of the bears!
Funny stuff! You were being sarcastic...right?
Anyway, yeah, agree to disagree...works for me. What were we disagreeing on?
Who cares.....GO VIKES!!
Sadly, no I wasn't being sarcastic. Well, the cornfield bit yeah, but the rest is true life. The oranges did keep the Scruvy away though...
ReplyDeleteFunny enough, my kids get an orange in their stocking every year. It's a tradition in my family.
Besides SNL couldn't write a story like that. Tina Fey is not a head writer any more :) Or is she?
Did you watch the game today? AWESOME. GO VIKES!
You remember several christmas' where all you got was an orange and a nightlight? Several Christmas'?? So, you ate the orange, but what about the nightlight? Did they give you a new one every year or just re-wrap the same one?
ReplyDeleteWe lived in a studio apartment, couldn't afford more (I guess you guys could since you went from room to room with your little light), we even shared a bathroom with three other families, but I still got a toy for Christmas.
Seems like, for the cost of a nightlight, they could have bought you a ball.
Anyway, I did watch the game....it was AWESOME! I'm optimistically cautious...as I've been here before. I am happy that they are showing the Vikings every weekend on tv, tho!
Go Vikes!!
Grammar mistake, added with not finishing a thought... Several Christmas' I received an orange, and I remember getting Lincoln Logs that my Dad made. That was awesome. I did get those little green army men in my stocking one year. I think they were a penny or so. I know big spending! The orange became an every year thing later just because it was cool.
ReplyDeleteThe bulb made its way from Living room (Small with 13 inch black and white TV with rabbit ears) bed rooms (two), and kitchen.
A studio huh? Wow, you had it rough too. You made it out of poverty too. Thank God you didn't have to rely on hard work and sacrifice, huh? :)
As far as toys go... I did see Stick made it into the toy hall of fame. John Stewart had a funny bit about it.
Speaking of balls... Wow, you got to play with a ball? No fair! There should be a way for the Government to even the playing field on gifts! I mean, my parents had to save over years to get me big ticket things like balls, and GI Joes... That's crap. I should have just been given those things and had evil rich people pay for it!
I hear you on the Caution with regards to our Vikes. I remember a few years ago when we started 9-0 and then lost the last six in a row to barely make the playoffs; only to lose in the first round. I however choose to be cautiously optimistic :)
Ooops, left out the bathroom... It would make for better drama if we had an outhouse or a bucket or something. Alas we did have a restroom...
ReplyDeleteAlso I would add that we had to change the station on the TV with a pair of vice grips. No, I haven't the foggiest idea where the vice grips came from, or who bought them.
Yeah, when we finally got a tv, there was a period of time where we changed the channel with vice grips. I'm assuming someone in your family worked hard to purchase yours. Being "liberals" we were probably just given ours.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I'm not sure how we got on the subject of "how hard my life was", but I think the original discussion was around those teabag protests. And, to that end, it appears this topic has dried up. But, I still come away from it wondering how "conservatives" so easily defend the uber-rich and corporations and appear to have little interest in ensuring those in need get help.
To my mind, it comes back to a concept that was discussed in another thread. Nobody should get something for nothing and, therefore, any system that might allow for that should be rejected...even if it might help many in need and even tho many who are wealthy got that way by doing nothing and many corporations take advantage of a system that allows them to pay no taxes.
From what I've learned on this thread, those at the tea bag protests want to protect corporations and the wealthy at all costs because, well, someday they may be wealthy themselves (even though that's extremely unlikely).
So, no system to help the poor who might get something for nothing and don't tax the rich because that might be me someday.
I guess it's just something I'll never understand.
Think I'll go eat an orange.
Tom, I respect your opinion and hope you mine. Yet, you continually reference me (and those who think like me) as tea baggers, and those who attend teabag protests and I have to wonder sometimes. I know it's a funny way to poke fun and vilify us to get the lefty message out there, but is that how you see me? Really?
ReplyDeleteI guess I don't see why you think that if you oppose huge entitlement program(s) established by a huge Federal Government makes you evil or uncaring.
I care, and am just fine helping those who can't help themselves (for a time). Creating generations of people dependent on the Government doesn't help anyone in the long run. It only gives the Government more and more control over our lives! As the old adage goes: Give a man a fish you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime!
That said, I volunteer my time in the St. Mary's soup kitchen. I give money to various charities, and adopt families during the holidays, first days of school, and during cold weather months. I give to and make up gift boxes for operation gift drop. The other day I took a homeless man to subway for a sandwich and a hot cup of coffee. Don't worry I didn't proselytize during... God how evil would that be huh? So call me a tea bagger, and whatever other names you can think of. I may be a lot of things, but uncaring and evil not one of them.
Of course there are those who will never be able to care for themselves and I agree with helping them. I just don't see the Federal Government as the tool to use to "Level the playing field" for everyone who doesn't make $250,000 or more.
I make a decent living and I give back to my community with out the Government and lefty do-gooders forcing me too!
"MADDOW: That was the preexisting pop culture definition of "teabag" when used as a verb. That existed, already, in the world. And that is why it was funny when these members of this emerging far-right protest movement started calling them teabaggers and threatening to teabag anyone who disagrees with them.
ReplyDeleteThat existed ahead of time. They walked right into it, and that`s why it`s still funny today, OK? OK."
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/is-teabagger-an-epithet-rachel-maddow-teaches-a-tea-party-history-lesson/
COE, sorry about taking a hiatus, I got kinda involved in studying for school.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, let's get down to brass tacks.
You and I (and, I think, the teabaggers) would disagree on the point of government. But, let's evaluate a specific example of government "interference".
You and I both have a friend who got "laid off" from the same private company as I did. And, he is taking advantage of the same Federal program that I am in order to become a cop, correct?
You said "I hate the idea of higher and higher taxes, higher and higher deficit and the direction of where our Federal Government is heading" Well, I do too, but we may differ on where the cuts should come from.
Would you cut this Federal program that our mutual friend and I are taking advantage of? If not, why? Most people who lose their jobs don't qualify for this program...why should we? If you lost your job, you wouldn't qualify, is that fair?
If you do think it should be cut, what does that say about how you feel about our friend and me?
You see, you said "Ironically we were the family you wish to hand everything to. Yet I didn't and still wouldn't take it." (referring, I believe, to handouts) which makes it appear that you are "better" than our friend and me because we are taking this federal "handout" while you would "never" do so. Is that what you were trying to say?
A year ago, I NEVER thought I'd be on unemployment. But, it's just a reminder to me that one should never say "never".
What's ironic is, I know our mutual friend isn't a big fan of social programs either, but he's utilizing one in order to go to work for the government. Kinda makes ya laugh.
Hey Tom, welcome back from finals week...
ReplyDeleteI think the difference for me is simple. The brass tacks for me are too. I work hard and I play by the rules. I was rasied that way I can't help it. I suppose that's why I chose to get into law enforcement.
What gets me is we set up a system or a series of systems/programs in which we add to every other administration (Bush/Repubs. included) that allow and even create people who/to depend on Government hand outs instead of honest hard work.
I run into and deal with folks (everyday) who are in their mid fourties, fifties who have NEVER had a job. Their kids, and grandkids have never had jobs. Why should they? With food stamps, SSI, and HUD housing what's in it for them?
I have worked since I was 12 mowing lawns, and out in the hay fields with my Dad. Later I moved irrigation pipe, and whatever other odd jobs I could. I worked all the way though high school at Richaey's Market, and into adulthood with gradually better paying jobs. I pay my taxes, I pay my SSI tab, and I put my money into unemployment. I have worked hard to get what I have.
Now, before we get back into the I had it worse game, I know you have too. You've held a job and worked your way to where you are. You also have paid your taxes, your SSI tab, and your unemployment dues if you will. I would imagine Scott has too (I assume that's the mutal friend. :) You and Scott have contributed to what you are getting back, and I have no problem with that. You've paid into unemployment, correct? I don't know anything about the education program that you're using, but it seems to me this is a limited program that helps you get a better job and after a time gets you back to paying into SSI, and unemployment ins correct?
Having said that: I have said over and over that I understand a need to help those who can't help themselves. I agree that there are those who cannot help themselves and I am all for extending a hand.
Now for the big BUT... For a limited time, and with the hope, and goal to get people back to helping themselves.
Far too long in this Country "we" through the Federal Government have set up this false ideal that people for what ever reason cannot get by unless they get help from good old Uncle Sam.
This seems to all boil down to we are supposed to feel guilty because somehwere somebody isn't getting what someone else is. I guess I just don't get it. Have or have not, I work hard reguardless. This eat the rich attitude is present through out history as well.
Worked really well is most Communist nations, as well as Nazi Germany during the mid thirties. There always has to be a scapegoat, why not the rich, huh?
Tom, I don't begrude you or Scott for doing what you're doing. You're hard workers who have paid their dues.
As far as that goes the limited "system" that you guys are using is being used for what it is supposed to be used for...Wow, that was a lot of use of the word use :)
Now, if you guys use this program for the next 30 years, never get a job again, and get your kids and grandkids to do the very same I might feel differently...
Oooh and the game today was awesome! GO VIKES!
Hey, COE!
ReplyDeleteI hope you're feeling better! I agree, that Vikings game was awesome!
Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful response. You are always so gracious in your comments. Sometimes, my emotions get in my way. I haven't been feeling all that great about myself since getting on unemployment because I could never imagine myself being in this position. So, when you make statements like, I'd never take a handout...or whatever, I got my dander up a little. It's not your fault, it's my own self-esteem issue.
At any rate, I want to respond to your position by returning to the illegal immigrant discussion. In that discussion, it felt to me like the major issue was someone (or, someone's)
"getting away" with something. Or, "taking advantage" of the system. And, it feels like that's your biggest issue here.
But, as with the illegal immigrant issue, that seems kinda petty to me (no offense intended). I'm certain you have met people who have abused the welfare system. But, as I think you'll agree, there are those who really need it.
The question, then, appears to be, can we keep the system and reduce fraud (or, abuse). And, I'm ok with that. But, even in working to achieve that, do we agree that we need to have the safety net in place (meaning, some kind of support system for those in need)?
If so, then it seems like the next question would be, how do we pay for it.
There are Corporations who are "getting away" with paying little or no taxes. I think we should try and get them to pay their share for this system. In addition, there are those who are extremely wealthy only because of the family they were born in. These folks have also, never worked a day in their life. When they get the "free" money through inheritence, I think they should be taxed on this "new" income.
These are two ways in which I think we can pay for such a system, all the while working to reduce abuse of the system.
Wonder if this post was too long....
Hey Tom,
ReplyDeleteI never meant any offense in any of my comments. I am sorry if I got your dander up. I surely did not mean to. Hell, sometimes my emotions get in my way too.
That and my pride. Another lovely trait picked up from my Dad... It can be useful, but it can also be counter productive as well. Pirde, a funny thing.
You know, you're right. The immigration thing does boil down to being unfair to me. This is a simplistic "boil" down to be sure. I have to admit it is a complicated issue when you look at the individual faces, and families.
That said: I just feel like if you do it the correct way; then I have no problem and I say welcome. If you you sneak in, and take advantage of a society that you've "Illegally" enetred then no, I say come back when you respect if nothing else, but our laws...
Ahhh... How do we pay for it? The age old question. Well, for starters I'd say lets go after fraud and waste. Not just say we are going to, but acually do it.
Secondly I'd say lets use what we have already before we add to the heap. When we cut the cost of inefficency and fraud then we can see what we have. With me so far?
Next I say we hold Politicians accountable. Pass the line item veto, and get rid of programs within the budget(s) that don't work, or are the worst offenders of fraud and waste.
Candidates Obama, and McCain promised to do just that. If they don't end up doing what they say, then "We" the people vote their asses out and get someone in there that will. Sorry, I suppose I am dreaming aren't I? That's all I got for now. I'll have to think on it some more.
On to the rich spoiled kids. Now I tend to agree with you here. I can't stand the Paris Hilton's of the world.
That said: Her sister Nikki is a successful designer. To that I would have to admit that Paris is a semi-successful actress. Not my cup of tea but lets face it she gets ratings. Again I don't know why, but you'd have to poll millions of idiot Americans to get that info.
I would also add that these spoiled idiots don't draw food stamps, get HUD housing, and aren't pulling SSI at fourty after never holding a job. Plus I Bet you bottom dollar Daddy Hilton has paid a crap load of taxes over the years.
How many Fortune 500 companies are left in Oregon? Six... Fifteen in Washinton, and over a hundred in California. How many do you think will stay once we jack Corp taxes up? Where do those jobs go? To other States where the taxes aren't so high... Or are we talking about at the Federal level? Yeah NAFTA really did a job on outsourcing didn't it. Lets do it again!
Whew, now I am way long winded... Good discussion Tom. Again I am sorry if I typed something offensive. Not meant to be. We still buds?
WHAT???? Dude! I had NO idea what polar opposites we are. You've said/written some things in the past that I don't agree with, but to call Paris Hilton an "actress"....c'mon!!!! That's just outrageous. I'm pretty sure if Meryl Streep read that, she'd hunt you down and slap you.
ReplyDeleteParis Hilton an actress...geesh!
I don't know how I feel about you now!
;0)
I hope you know that last post was written with tongue firmly in cheek...
ReplyDeleteYeah, we're still buds. Tho, don't tell my liberal friends, I might get kicked out of the club. ;0)
So, I've heard this idea of "cut waste" for many years. But, I have to wonder, when do you know you're done? I mean, as an example, I know that if measures 66 and 67 don't pass, at least one friend of mine will lose her job and many others, who work in government, will be close to losing their jobs, as well. And, most certainly, services will be cut.
I really wonder about your perspective. Here you are, working for the government, and you want to cut their budget. At some point, if we just cut and cut and cut, won't you be negatively impacted?
I maintain that we have seen an incredible growth in the gap between the rich and the poor and this is an area that, I think, we should focus on, not on cutting more government.
As for your concern for business, this seems to be the main theme that you consistently have. You worry about big business and I just don't understand where this concern comes from. Again, I'm a guy who has always worked in private industry and you work for the government. This seems strange to me.
Ahhh, come on now... You did see "THE HOUSE OF WAX" right? Now that was a classic if ever I've seen one.
ReplyDeleteI'd mention the other film she did, the name of which escapes me, but as I've not seen it I hate to say either way. Although if she (Hilton) is in it it must be oustanding! :)
Tom, I get where you're trying to go with the whole working for Government thing. Don't forget that my "perspective" or view is that there are three areas of Government in which they do a good job. Police, Fire, and Military. I do not know of a "private" Military that you would approve of. I beleive the term for that would be Mercenary.
There are "private" jails and prisons but trust me you don't want those...
I joined the Military because I wanted to serve. I did the same for my career and got into law enforcement. Personally, I'd rather put another cop on the street than another person on welfare. Call me what you like...
Well, I gotta get going. I will be off from here on out for Christmas. I hope everyone has a great day. Merry Christmas to everyone!
The Government that I see as dangerous and over reaching is the entitlement/nanny central Government that wants to effect ALL of our lives. I see the difference.
Oooops, the paragrahs were switched... Weird... Anywho have a great Christmas!
ReplyDelete