Republicans and Teapublicans

Neocons are no longer a majority in the Republican party. Paleocons have stayed about the same but the number of RINOs has increased proportionately.

Case in point.

 

"I pay 50% of my income in taxes. Thats taxed enough. That's why I support the tea party ideals."

"Tea party ideals" won't even begin to reduce your tax burden unless your annual income is $250,000, or more. Corporate income tax rates in the U.S. are high; but Personal income tax rates are low when compared with other countries (see chart, below). However, this observation speaks to "mean" tax rates which overlooks issues arising from income tax "distribution". Is it possible your tax burden seems heavy because it is heavy? And is it possible your tax burden is heavy because the burden has over time been transferred to middle class families because someone had the political power to make it happen? Why is it that tea party types understand such concepts as "low" and "high" but cannot grasp such concepts as "distribution"?

 

Probably has something to do with the 800 billion dollar bailout, and 2 trillion dollar stimulus, and then the 2 trillion dollar obamacare.

There are fringe elements in every party. Don't be such a sheep of the media, they could find the same people they find in any party. The tea party is a grass roots movement, it's not extremist although there may be extremists (i'd argue there are less than anywhere else, including the oval office) like there are in any movement. If you think 30% of people are racist, troublemaking, and fringe, you are simply delusional or you buy the delusional stuff msnbc feeds you.

It doesn't matter whether there is a debate or not, in the end the winner of the debate is the one with the most support which usually means they did a good job debating.

There is absolutely no reason to bolster revenue in a recession, it kills jobs. Revenue could increase more than 50% if they simply cut spending.

Also, revenue *increased* after the tax cuts of 2003. The economic growth it spawned, outweighed the minimal cuts it gave us. Get real. There are many studies you should read which prove that 1 unit increase in taxation increases burden by 2% and reduces revenue by slightly less than 2%.

This, like all liberal facts, is simply wrong. You obviously aren't including state taxes, which are half of our government. I have 8% sales tax and 15% income tax, and fees left and right here in california.

Didn't I allready tell you these numbers don't include state taxes? Besides, how can you not see that corporate taxes are passed on to the employees and consumers?

Don't be ridiculous, tea partiers understand low, high, and distribution. They for the most part want government *out* of distribution and leave it to the hands of the private sector where they spend their money wiser. Why is it that tea-haters don't understand the difference between "ignorance" and "disagreement"? Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they disagree because they are ignorant. That might have something to do with why you can't understand the tea party, perhaps a iron curtain mind is the problem.

 

Yes, smaller federal government, freedom and prosperity are bad for america.

 

"There are fringe elements in every party".

I may have been misled by the (well informed and highly educated) members of the mainstream media; but it appears to me the "fringe element" in this picture (see below) is the gentleman that says, "Vote for Us". I support tax reform, self-supporting entitlement programs and a responsible solution to run away healthcare costs; but I find it difficult to communicate with most of the TEA advocates in this picture. The so-called "Tea Party", at the very least, has a serious but self-inflicted image problem. The "liberal press" deserves no credit for that; this was a down home, grass roots, do-it-yourself project!

 

"Probably has something to do with the 800 billion dollar bailout, and 2 trillion dollar stimulus, and then the 2 trillion dollar obamacare.


Good point! But as it turns out, the bailout and stimulus packages were a response to an impending National economic disaster following eight years of Republican regulatory failure and what TEA advocates now belatedly refer to as, "big spending". "Obamacare" will either stand or fall on it's own merits. The good news is we now have another TEA party Texas Governor (Rick Perry) who seeks to save our souls as well as our Country. This brings to mind an old song written by Sammy Cahn. The melody is the same but the lyrics now go like this: Screw me once, then screw me twice, then screw once again; it's been a long, long time. The melody is very appealing; it would make an excellent theme song for the up-coming Republican National Convention.

 

The Tea Party can cite its amibitions for government, however, they must realize that they if they want to be considered legitimate, they must bring proposals to the table. If they are a grassroots movement, they can propose implementation of the "Contract From America" to politicians. In government, Congress must introduce a proposal for a law, but anyone can write one, including average Americans. So far, the Tea Party has been picking and choosing its politicians to support, so they can pick and choose their policy. Therefore, all the have to support their stance is one or two principles.

 

Where was the Tea Party during Reagan's spending sprees? Where was it when Bush went on his spree?

Also Venik, you have not confronted this:

If taxes have gone down under Obama, then why does the Tea Party use the phrase "Taxed Enough Already" while attacking Obama and the federal government?

 

Tax rates haven't gone down under Obama. The last time they went down was under George Bush, and they decreased by only 4%-5%.

 

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett_2.html

Most Americans got a tax break under Obama.

 

That may be true, yet taxpayers still have the same rates imposed on them since 2003.

 

Then why all the sudden rage against Obama on taxes (as well as the completely oblivious attitude of the tea party) when taxes were adjusted to this level by the Bush administration?

 

It was actually the CRA from 1995-1998 which forced banks to take a quota of sub-prime loans. They *then* tried to recover by selling them. This isn't failure *to* regulate, this is regulatory failure.

It doesn't matter what mathematical tricks you can do to say taxes have gone down (when he came in during a recession ofcourse revenues are going to drop, and the stimulus so what?) Fact is we spent more since obama came in office, out of the ballpark in comparison to any *temporary* tax cuts Obama might have handed out. And the fact is I still pay 49% of my paycheck before sales tax and fees. I don't care who did what, who you're calling a hypocrit, or whether this is less than last year. This is too much.

Reagan cut taxes. Bush cut taxes. And Obama spent more money in his first year than Bush did in his entire 8. The war(s) cost under a trillion dollars.

Because they are taking the biggest portion. And I can rage at more than one government at a time, it's not like I have to pick one.

Once again, the tax cuts are both temporary and a math magic trick caused by the recession. Obama and the fed are spending outrageous amounts of money on nothing. Stimulus' do nothing more than pro-long the recession and make people believe you're doing something about it.

 

Not that many people buy what the Tea Party is pushing; sorry. Government has an important role to play, and the Tea Party generally supports demolishing that role.

Really? Perry is a Tea Party 'darling'... and about as extreme as ANYONE I've seen in politics has ever been. I don't know about you, but I truest him FAR LESS than any candidate to come along in many years... even less than I trusted Bush or Reagan.

I think the Tea Party is CONSTRUCTED by corporations; a phony movement that partially succeeded in convincing people to support many things AGAINST their own best interests (even as a nation).

I think racism is an significant component of the Tea Party. 30%? No, not necessarily... just 5% being racist, is enough to generate very serious problems for minorities in America.

Well, you've just explained why POLITICS (support) SWINGS Left/Right in AMERICA; it is MEANT TO DO SO (ultimately). It is about checks/balances, IMO. The "Right" (nor the "Left") has all the answers for ALL TIME.

Your simple formula, isn't necessarily the proper solution. The PROPER distribution of wealth (whether you like the idea or not), is absolutely essential to the health and living standards of Americans being reasonably maintained. We have so much wealth concentrated AT THE TOP... it is apparent that something is obviously unbalanced.

We've generally experienced about 40 years of "Trickle-Down" economics; the "Job Creators" haven't 'created' much, really.

Yeah, "all". What a stupid lie THAT is. You exaggerate in that manner, and expect anyone to take you seriously? YOU need to "get real".

The WEASELS on all sides, have allowed a tax system which CONVOLUTED and UNFAIR for people that actually work with their hands to make a living. Personally, I doubt if the average American really knows what "fair" means.

Where has lowering taxes, lead to job 'creation'? The lie isn't merely coming from the "Left", as you imply.

The "private sector" has PROVEN itself (especially in the banking, housing and insurance industries), to be the big ugly FOX, making dinner right inside the hen-house. Few are fooled by the results they've seen.

Why should they bother, when what's proposed before them seems CRAZY... no matter how it is looked-at.

The Tea Party has warranted the very scrutiny it has received. If it is worthwhile, support for it will increase and be sustained throughout time.

The Tea Party (as a whole) is far from "ignorant", they are militant and fundamentalist in their mindset. That is even worse than pure ignorance.

The astro-turf movement (known as the modern "Tea Party"), has its days numbered; it is losing support as we speak (in large part due to being extreme in their approach to American policies).

 

So 30% of americans are extremist racist fundamentalist militants.


Got it.

 

Republicans are now trying to distance themselves from the T-Baggers.

Bachmann was about non-existant in the last debate, and I don't think anyone really cares what that 2-bit piece of trailer-trash has to say anymore.

As for the new Texan...GW Jr....he'll show his true colours soon enough...and then get himself buried.

Being insane is not a good thing.
And the American public is now finally realizing that the Teapublicans are insane...for the most part.

But for all you die-hards out there...I CHALLENGE you to try and squash this plan of Obama's.
Go ahead...impress all of us...and kill your movement.

 

Well put! We are well informed as to what the TEA party seeks to discredit, repeal, discard and ban forever by Constitutional amendment. However, when you look at their plan, proposals and specific provisions, you find yourself looking at a white, letter size, blank sheet of paper. As it turns out, President Obama hasn't vetoed any TEA party legislation because there has been none to veto! This is analogous to a person who complains about the rain but won't get out of the rain! It appears the extreme right wing of the TEA party has hijacked the TEA party just as effectively as the TEA party hijacked the Republican party. Some would call this poetic justice.

 

Sadistic-Savior said, "I am a neocon".

What is a "Neocon" or "Neoconservative"? If I go to Google (the ultimate Guru), I find so may definitions that I'm convinced the term cannot be defined! As I understand it, "Neoconservatism", to some extent, influenced the Reagan adminstration but took hold big time during the G. W. Bush administration. The Bush experience suggests that "Neoconservatism" is something nobody needs! At any rate, this forum could use a link to a concise and accurate definition of "Neocon" or "Neoservative". That's where Sadistic-Savior comes in to save the day! Of course, others are free to contribute as time and interest may allow.

 

I am a neo-con, a paleocon and just a plain CONSERVATIVE in all of its magnificience.

One might ask if there are any differences between an 18th century Tea Partier with today's Tea Partier. Seems to me they both seek to stop forced taxation; one from a foreign monarchy and the other from an oligarchy.

So a neocon is just a modern day version of your paleocon in that the basic tenets of Conservatism stay the same.

 

The Republican Party is fractured between mainstream members - the old "Rockefeller Republicans" - and the Tea Party, which started off as a fiscally conservative movement and has morphed into a puppet for the Dominionist movement.

 

There isn't much to know. They are comprised mainly of 60+ year old, overweight, Budweiser-drinking white women with tattoos on their legs who cruise from KOA to KOA and from rally to rally in motorhomes paid for by their husbands death benefits and their own social security checks, who want to keep other people from enjoying the 'entitled' life.

 

Yet the "Taxed Enough Already" label is still a misguided one. The Tea Party was not around under Reagan or Bush because it in itself is a corporate construct.

 

I've been called "crazy", "terrorist", "*********", and many other colorful things but this has skyrocketed to the top of my favorite delusional descriptions. What was in that kool-aid anyway?