The New Tea Party

[Avatar Roku]

Why do taxes always have to get lower? They're already low, and the government needs them to do things for you!

Anything the government can do for me i can do better privately. I dont need them regulating my every move economically and i do not want to give them the means to regulate me more. The federal government a waste of money. i didn't attend the tea parties because they are retarded.

I understand that you feel that way (I don't feel that way, for the record), but the government does need funding. If you're saying we don't need a federal government, I'm assuming you're for states' rights, right? If so, the country can't work that way, and the Civil War proves it. All I was trying to say is that I find it weird that the level that's fine to be taxed today is suddenly robbing us tomorrow.

 

[Jeronus]

Conservatives don't support protesters, liberals are upset. They start supporting dissent, liberals are still upset. Somebody sounds whiny, and it's not the conservatives.

The liberals aren't upset because they are in charge and the conservatives who previously had it their way are now out of power so what do they want to do? They want to throw the current party out of power. Both sides do this little dance every time the other one comes to power. This time it is the Conservatives who whine while the liberals have all the power.

The difference being that in general, liberals *still* protest even when other liberals are in power if they disagree with them, while conservatives don't protest when other conservatives are in power no matter how 'unconservative' they may be.

I beg to differ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers_Supreme_Court_nomination

That makes my point a fortiori: it takes something as ridiculous as the nomination of Harriet Miers to get conservatives to act differently than the do "in general" and criticize a conservative.

From your link:

Reactions to her nomination

Miers' nomination drew criticism from both political parties. Principal complaints included:

* That there was no written record to demonstrate that she was either a strict constructionist or originalist in her approach to constitutional interpretation. There were qualms that she could be a moderate or liberal "sleeper" who would support abortion rights, affirmative action and gay rights if confirmed to a seat on the Supreme Court.

I don't see what is so ridiculous about Harriet Miers' nomination. She was an aide for Bush since his years as governor and she constantly supported him. Your claim was "The difference being that in general, liberals *still* protest even when other liberals are in power if they disagree with them, while conservatives don't protest when other conservatives are in power no matter how 'unconservative' they may be." The conservatives were in power and didn't want anyone who didn't seem 100% conservative to serve on a seat of power. While the liberals also complained, it was primarily conservatives crying foul. This was found right under the piece you pulled from the wikipedia page.

Notable conservative commentators expressing these or other concerns included newspaper columnists Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter,[27] Charles Krauthammer,[28] William Kristol,[29] Rush Limbaugh, Ramesh Ponnuru, and George Will;[30] former Bush speechwriter David Frum; and constitutional scholar Randy Barnett.[31] Finally, Robert Bork, one of the premier advocates of originalism and a Supreme Court nominee under President Reagan who was eventually rejected by the Senate, proclaimed that the nomination was "a disaster on every level," and a "slap in the face" to conservatives.

They are whining. Are they not? Are the conservatives in power? Are they protesting about how 'unconservative' Miers might be? The answer is a resounding yes. All this further proves my point.

 

[Barry93]

When did the tea parties start?

recent ones: April 15th(tax day)
old ones: 1773

On October 1, 2008, the Senate debated and voted on an amendment to H.R. 1424, which substituted a newly revised version of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 for the language of H.R. 1424.[6][7]

The Senate accepted the amendment and passed the entire amended bill by a vote of 74-25.[8]

Additional unrelated provisions added an estimated $150 billion to the cost of the package and increased the size of the bill to 451 pages.[9][10] See Public Law 110-343 for details on the added provisions.

The amended version of H.R. 1424 was sent to the House for consideration, and on October 3, the House voted 263-171 to enact the bill into law.[6][11][12]

President Bush signed the bill into law within hours of its enactment, creating a $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program to purchase failing bank assets.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5879591&page=1

While the majority were conservative at the tea parties the overall purpose was against a govt. that is out of control. BOTH conservative and liberal senators are spending way too much on useless programs and that's why there were protests.

So "that's why there were protests" for the first time under a Democrat president when seven months earlier under a Republican president Congress reached a deal to spend 700 billion dollars?

Are the people organizing these tea parties the Ents from Lord of the Rings? Are they being lead by Treebeard? Did Merry and Pippin tag along?

Bush did spend 700 billion dollars, but that was before any normal american knew what the fuck was going on with the economy; that's why there were no protests and wouldn't make sense anyway to do it on any other day than April 15th

 

[Knight Templar]

Why do taxes always have to get lower? They're already low, and the government needs them to do things for you!

Anything the government can do for me i can do better privately.

Then you'd better get started fixing the US rail network and protecting the lives of people within the US.

I know there is more you need to do but lets start small shall we, like for example where will you get the millions and/or billions needed to maintain the roads?

A goverment is something needed for any large group of people to survive, and they need money to get anything done.

If the taxes are low so is the ablity of the goverment to do its job.

 

[SeleneRose]

The tea parties had no real point, but its always a good way to get out some agression
Anyhow, there is a very real issue
Consider the original tea party
It was about 'taxtion without representation'
I believe we have an opposite situation today
Representation without taxation
What does this mean?
It means we have a large group of people controlling what happens to the rest, and a large amount do not pay taxes
They are being represented without paying thier 'dues' so to speak to the government.
So, thier political agenda? Keep those taxes off them
The problem is, to get the votes from that group, you can't raise taxes on them
Thus the rich of the country are forced to pay all of the dues.
This leads to class struggles, and some would even say, class warfare
I for one, propose a 'pay to play' system
You don't pay taxes? You don't get a vote, because you're not chipping in

 

[fontlas]

Had there been a Tea Party closer to my home, I would likely have attended. Not because I particularly care about the cause, I just enjoy the spectacle of silly people being silly.

Yup just sit down with your lawn chair and have a beer.

Seriously though, I'm not really sure what this protest is trying to accomplish. Do they really think they are gonna stop taxes? Do they really want that? I mean, I guess you could pay for all your services from private companies, though I'm sure that would be more expensive then just paying your damn taxes.

 

[Alex_P]

It means we have a large group of people controlling what happens to the rest, and a large amount do not pay taxes

Not really.

Everyone who derives income from work and makes less than $100,000 a year is losing approximately 15% of their income to payroll taxes (half of which you don't see on your paystub because it's paid more directly by your employer).

-- Alex

 

[Captain Blackout]

Obviously you've never had to deal with a Death Tax. It doesn't matter how small or how large the inheritance is. It gets taxed. I don't care if it 'affects rich people' more or less then poorer people. It hurts -everyone-.

Last "death tax" I heard proposed was a graduated tax with folks under a certain amount not being touched at all. That's the brilliance of graduated taxes: You can target specific inheritance amounts.

 

[tsb247]

[If you really want me to bite, I will.

Ambulances
emergency medical care
Surgery
Medical care in general

All are provided outside of the government and operate in the free-market economy. All are operated by independent healthcare providers/hospitals/offices.

And they're operated spectacularly poorly for the vast majority of Americans.

America's healthcare is among the worst in the first world (18th according to the WHO), and is more expensive per head of coverage to the taxpayer through Medicare and Medicaid than almost everywhere (except France, which has the best healthcare in the world, which covers everyone, not around 40% of the population like Medicare/Medicaid). Not to mention the large swathe of Americans who aren't poor enough for Medicare but can't afford health insurance, and are fucked if they ever need medical cover (medical expenses are the single largest cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States).

The US health service is the best example of how the private sector cannot effectively provide universal coverage.

This is the kind of woeful incompetence that you advocate in other life critical systems?

I'm all for reform, but the idea of a fully state-run free healthcare system sends shivers up my spine. The red tape would be too thick to cut with a machete, and the waits for actual care would be horrible. It works for many European countries like France because they have much smaller populations. France has a pop. somewhere around 62 million. Look at the U.S. which has a population of somewhere around 300 million. Those numbers don't add up. Think of how many people need to see a doctor at any given second with a population like that. It's probably a staggering number. Reform is what is needed, and maybe even a mixed system (that works), but completely eliminating the private sector of healthcare would not only hurt the economy, but it decrease the quality of healthcare recieved.

I would rather be operated on by a skilled surgeon who has incentive to be the best rather than be operated on by a surgeon who gets paid the same as every other surgeon, regardless of skill, simply because the government hands out paychecks. This also raises questions about what government can step in and do to keep people from needing healthcare. Would you want someone to pass a law saying that you can't drink or smoke because the government will have to pay your medical expenses later down the road? Even if you don't do either, the prospect is terrifying considering that it would be the government dictating on some level how you live your life. I'm not saying it would happen, in fact I doubt it would, but there is always the possibility.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I'm all for reform, but the idea of a fully state-run free healthcare system sends shivers up my spine. The red tape would be too thick to cut with a machete, and the waits for actual care would be horrible. It works for many European countries like France because they have much smaller populations. France has a pop. somewhere around 62 million. Look at the U.S. which has a population of somewhere around 300 million. Those numbers don't add up. Think of how many people need to see a doctor at any given second with a population like that. It's probably a staggering number.

Except, of course, a larger population will mean a larger recruiting base for medical personnel and more taxpayers to fund them. This is a nonissue.

Reform is what is needed, and maybe even a mixed system (that works), but completely eliminating the private sector of healthcare would not only hurt the economy, but it decrease the quality of healthcare recieved.

The point is not completely eliminating the private sector, but making sure that the public sector has 100% coverage for all nonelective surgery.

I would rather be operated on by a skilled surgeon who has incentive to be the best rather than be operated on by a surgeon who gets paid the same as every other surgeon, regardless of skill, simply because the government hands out paychecks.

You can't afford the skilled surgeon. He's operating on someone who can pay more.

This also raises questions about what government can step in and do to keep people from needing healthcare. Would you want someone to pass a law saying that you can't drink or smoke because the government will have to pay your medical expenses later down the road?

Not necessary. Just tax cigarettes and alcohol and use the tax money raised to pay for the health service. Which is what is already done in England (tax is something like 80% of the price of a packet of cigarettes). People who have high risk addictions pay for their treatment in advance as part of their addiction.

Even if you don't do either, the prospect is terrifying considering that it would be the government dictating on some level how you live your life.

So is a law agaisnt rape. Doesn't make it a bad thing.

 

[tsb247]

I'm all for reform, but the idea of a fully state-run free healthcare system sends shivers up my spine. The red tape would be too thick to cut with a machete, and the waits for actual care would be horrible. It works for many European countries like France because they have much smaller populations. France has a pop. somewhere around 62 million. Look at the U.S. which has a population of somewhere around 300 million. Those numbers don't add up. Think of how many people need to see a doctor at any given second with a population like that. It's probably a staggering number.

Except, of course, a larger population will mean a larger recruiting base for medical personnel and more taxpayers to fund them. This is a nonissue.

Reform is what is needed, and maybe even a mixed system (that works), but completely eliminating the private sector of healthcare would not only hurt the economy, but it decrease the quality of healthcare recieved.

The point is not completely eliminating the private sector, but making sure that the public sector has 100% coverage for all nonelective surgery.

I would rather be operated on by a skilled surgeon who has incentive to be the best rather than be operated on by a surgeon who gets paid the same as every other surgeon, regardless of skill, simply because the government hands out paychecks.

You can't afford the skilled surgeon. He's operating on someone who can pay more.

This also raises questions about what government can step in and do to keep people from needing healthcare. Would you want someone to pass a law saying that you can't drink or smoke because the government will have to pay your medical expenses later down the road?

Not necessary. Just tax cigarettes and alcohol and use the tax money raised to pay for the health service. Which is what is already done in England (tax is something like 80% of the price of a packet of cigarettes). People who have high risk addictions pay for their treatment in advance as part of their addiction.

Even if you don't do either, the prospect is terrifying considering that it would be the government dictating on some level how you live your life.

So is a law agaisnt rape. Doesn't make it a bad thing.

Decent points for sure, but I still disagree with the concept of socialized healthcare. There are just too many questions than there are answers for many of the problems that face the U.S. today. We have enough problems with the other government funded services like social security and medicaid. If we can't even manage what we have now, then how would we expand the scope of said services? It is much easier said than done, and to be quite frank, I am for a capitalist system (well... mixed to some extent).

 

[Alex_P]

This image kinda covers the "don't tax me, bro" argument pretty thoroughly:

[http://www.ghostinthemachine.net/006174.html]

-- Alex