Stephen Chapman on the TEA Party

[HokieMSG]

Lets get back on topic.

Irrespective of who's fault it is, the government is spending too much and borrowing too much. This is unsustainable at this rate and I do not forsee a way to get the country out of this.

To this particular section.... You get out of your government what you put into it. If you despise the federal government and want to give absolutely nothing back to it, then you will get nothing FROM it. The government is not a non-profit organization made up of volunteers who just ENJOY auditing people, etc. It is a company just like any other, except it has a few more employees than most private companies. It needs to make money in order to put out a quality product. The phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" can be applied even in a non-Communist society.

I do not mind paying taxes as they are necessary to fund the government. What I DO resent is when my tax dollars are spent to prop up failing industries or support individuals who have no desire to contribute.

Your statement about government being a business is completely inaccurate. Businesses MAKE money. Government exists to SPEND money. Plain and simple as that. I have never believed that the gargantuan ponzi scheme the government has laid upon the shoulders of Americans was a good idea. I do not plan on using social security, I am making other arrangements. The government should only pay social security to thse who have contributed (or their dependants) with a cap on the amount actually contributed.

The final statement in the above quote is not only naive, but assumes that the general public is moral. Nothing could be farther from the truth. People will consistently take advantage of others given the chance and continue to do it as long as they are allowed.

Finally, you are correct that you are allowed to have your own opinios, but you have to be careful sharing them.
Example: If you have never had children can you honestly give me advice on how to raise them? Contrary to scholarly opinions, children will NEVER behave rationally or consistently.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Lets get back on topic.

Irrespective of who's fault it is, the government is spending too much and borrowing too much. This is unsustainable at this rate and I do not forsee a way to get the country out of this.



I do not mind paying taxes as they are necessary to fund the government. What I DO resent is when my tax dollars are spent to prop up failing industries or support individuals who have no desire to contribute.

Again I say you get out of it what you put in to it. If you give the minimal amount to the government, you will get the minimal amount from the government. A failing government industry is only failing because of a lack of funding. In your next quote you say businesses make money. Well, the government makes money, too. It's called taxation. That is their profit.
Case and point... Education. Education is failing because of a lack of funding. Teachers make JACK SQUAT in this country, and it shows. Teachers have a lack of motivation (despite what they may tell you about "wanting to help the children," teachers need money too), so they don't put forth as much effort in the classroom. Just one of the many examples of my mantra in this thread. (You get out of it what you put into it, in case you didn't realize it.)

Your statement about government being a business is completely inaccurate. Businesses MAKE money. Government exists to SPEND money. Plain and simple as that. I have never believed that the gargantuan ponzi scheme the government has laid upon the shoulders of Americans was a good idea. I do not plan on using social security, I am making other arrangements. The government should only pay social security to thse who have contributed (or their dependants) with a cap on the amount actually contributed.

Why is having a safety net when one is no longer eligible to work a bad thing? I will never understand how conservatives can be so unconcerned with the lives of other people. Do you all not realize that we really are "all in this together"? Life is too short to spend it huddled around your finances saying "It's mine, see! ALL MINE!" In the end, it's just paper. Why not give a little back? It's not going to put you in the poor house to pay a little more on your taxes so that other people might live a more comfortable end to their lives. And to the inevitable point that "most of those people are bums who are just too lazy to do anything"... You may be right about some of those people, but can you honestly tell me that you know, first hand, that all of the people who draw upon Social Security or Welfare really are just too lazy to work? Is it really fair to deny those programs to those who genuinely need it just because some people will take advantage of it?

Think back to your grade school days. One of the rules of the classroom was no gum allowed. Now, you KNEW there was going to be one kid who had gum and got caught with it. How did you feel when the teacher told the whole class that recess was suspended because of the ONE KID who had gum? Probably kinda slighted, right? YOU didn't have gum. Why should YOUR recess be taken away?

Same friggin' concept.

The final statement in the above quote is not only naive, but assumes that the general public is moral. Nothing could be farther from the truth. People will consistently take advantage of others given the chance and continue to do it as long as they are allowed.

Call me a ****-eyed optimist, but I believe that humans, on the whole, are inherently good. There are malfunctions in the psychological processes of people which cause them to do bad. But again, that's just the view of a guy who sees the glass half full most of the time... Again, life's too short to be a pessimist. And that whole "hope for the best but plan for the worst" mentality is just f*cking depressing. LOL

Finally, you are correct that you are allowed to have your own opinios, but you have to be careful sharing them.
Example: If you have never had children can you honestly give me advice on how to raise them? Contrary to scholarly opinions, children will NEVER behave rationally or consistently.

I can give you what I think is good advice. It might not be good advice, but seeing as there is no 100% proven "right" method to raise a child, any semi-logical advice given could potentially be good advice.

For example... Your baby boy is crying. Now, having never had children, you think I am not qualified to give advice on how to stop your boy from crying. However, I happen to know based on my personal experiences with other people's children that babies tend to cry when they are hungry or tired. I suggest feeding him, you suggest laying him down for a nap. You try to to put him to bed, and the crying continues. You try to give him a bottle of formula, and he instantly quiets down...

Was I right to suggest feeding him, or am I unqualified to give even an inkling of advice to someone who has children?

 

[George]

It just makes me want to weep when I see Americans argue over basic things like universal health care and proper welfare for the poor. These are issues that have been settled decades ago by nearly all other advanced economies. They are not even considered left issues but centre issues. With the top 2 percent vacuuming money by the truckload and the rest going backwards I cannot believe it is the right who are going beserk. The poor should be marching in the streets but the Main Stream Media wouldn't report it.

The debate is still going on about what is proper welfare. LBJ stated that he wanted it to be acceptable to society to sit on your ass & collect welfare. He suseeded only 2 well. We have 2nd & 3rd generation parasites feeding off the productive members of society. It's just wrong.
Rob: shows how over taxed the rest are. Defence is the primary responsibility of the Fed. Govt. Education never was an area that the Feds were involved in untill recently, & the results show incompetancy. Look @ the outragious spending ordered by a Fed Judge in St Louis & the $200 million High School in L.A. Get things back to local/State level.

 

[Chukpike]

Topic: Stephan Chapman on the tea party

And Chukpike STILL ignores my on topic posts to play with mmarsh. Interesting how as soon as something comes up that's not on topic, he LEAPS on it and ignores all else.

Where have you posted anything on the topic?

Insurance companies and health care reform is an entirely different debate in itself (which we have exhausted many a time on this forum). But to your point, insurance companies should be subjected to government regulation. If they are losing money, they should change their policies. Makes sense to me. . . .
To this particular section.... You get out of your government what you put into it. If you despise the federal government and want to give absolutely nothing back to it, then you will get nothing FROM it. The government is not a non-profit organization made up of volunteers who just ENJOY auditing people, etc. It is a company just like any other, except it has a few more employees than most private companies. It needs to make money in order to put out a quality product. The phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" can be applied even in a non-Communist society.

This is on topic? What could I say about your statement?
"The government is not a non-profit organization made up of volunteers who just ENJOY auditing people, etc. It is a company just like any other, " quote Rob Henderson

Except to say that based on that statement our educational system has completely failed!

Although, quite often your posts are very entertaining and funny. I knew you where just making a joke, so there was no need to respond.

By the way, no where in any of my posts as a 5 year member of this forum have I EVER aligned myself with EITHER party. I am a liberal, but I am NOT a Democrat. While I am for the government being a part of people's lives, I am NOT for the government overspending and overextending themselves in terms of social programs. I believe our government needs to be streamlined. Cut all wasteful spending, and really put good effort into the fewer programs we are left with. Much more money needs to be put into education than to defense (something that Republicans would NEVER see happen). More money needs to be put towards science and medicine than to military base golf-courses. More money needs to be put towards helping those in genuine need than towards big business executive, all expenses paid vacations.

I simply believe that the government (on all levels, state and local as well as federal) has its priorities wrong.

Are you fu*king kidding me?!?! You do realize we're the LEAST TAXED NATION IN THE MODERN WORLD right?!?!?!

Your need to voice obscenities not with standing. In this case I can respect your opinion even if it is off topic. But, I don't see where it is necessary for me to respond?

(For future reference, using foul language is usually an indication of lack of education).

But, to feed the troll, I believe in more standardized government than less. I believe that there are certain things that should be NOBODY'S business (sexual orientation, et al.), and there are certain things that should be standardized across the entire country. Things like driving requirements, firearm ownership requirements, insurance company requirements, etc. etc. should be regulated by the federal government so that the entire country is on even footing. The main qualm I've seen about health insurance in America is that it in many cases, it doesn't travel across state lines. A federally regulated system would fix that problem. But because the words "federal" and "government" appear anywhere in the sentence, Tea Party activists and conservatives are bound by some sort of unwritten (although, it wouldn't surprise me if it WAS written) law to bleat loudly until it goes away.

Just another way of saying you want more Federal government. You want to take United States out of the countries name.

Of course in Europe they have decided to form a Union of States. For their common purpose, that does not preclude them from operating independently.

Originally 13 Colonies or States banned together for a common purpose, defense. From that has grown a Federal bureaucracy that dictates.

Rob what about this post:

"What the hell do you know, you're not even American!

/extreme sarcasm" quote Rob Henderson

How on topic was that post?

Where in an International Forum does it say people can not comment. This thing of "you don't live here so you should not comment" is used as a cop out when someone does not like what has been said.

Think about it! What is an International Forum for? If not to allow people from different backgrounds to express their opinions. Who made you the Forum censor?

Maybe you think Redleg should ban all foreigners from the forum? Not sure he will like having to kick himself off his own forum?:lol:

 

[Redleg]

Lots of off-topic posts here now. Stay on topic or this thread will be locked!

Thanks

 

[George]

Lets get back on topic.

Irrespective of who's fault it is, the government is spending too much and borrowing too much. This is unsustainable at this rate and I do not forsee a way to get the country out of this.



I do not mind paying taxes as they are necessary to fund the government. What I DO resent is when my tax dollars are spent to prop up failing industries or support individuals who have no desire to contribute.

Your statement about government being a business is completely inaccurate. Businesses MAKE money. Government exists to SPEND money. Plain and simple as that. I have never believed that the gargantuan ponzi scheme the government has laid upon the shoulders of Americans was a good idea. I do not plan on using social security, I am making other arrangements. The government should only pay social security to thse who have contributed (or their dependants) with a cap on the amount actually contributed.

If you could only recieve the amount paid in, then it becomes a long term zero interest loan to the govt., not my idea of a plan. Also if you die, that money is lost. It should be in an individualy owned account. One thingthat helps the TEA Party is the earlier statement that the budget simply can't be cut. The Dems institutionalized the nutty concept that the spending must go up every year, by a certain planned %, % if it goes up by less than the planned amount, it a "budget cut" that is parroted by the Press to convince the masses that there's been cuts made, even if it's an increase. The notion that there isn't billions in pork that should be cut is further proof that some just don't get it. Obama is spending big money repairing overseas Mosques, where's the outrage vs a cross out in the desert?

 

[Rob Henderson]

Just another way of saying you want more Federal government. You want to take United States out of the countries name.

Of course in Europe they have decided to form a Union of States. For their common purpose, that does not preclude them from operating independently.

Originally 13 Colonies or States banned together for a common purpose, defense. From that has grown a Federal bureaucracy that dictates.

Correct. Again, since it seems you haven't read any of the posts in this particular thread and are only interested in spewing your vile diatribe regardless of what's actually being discussed, you get out of the federal government what you put into it. The European Union is made of 27 countries. The United States has 50 states. The populations are too small for each state to be completely independent. Perhaps if we were to split the country up by region (similar to football conferences), we could get away with an EU style government. But until then, we have one overall federal government for each of the states, just like all the "states" in the different countries of the EU have one national government. However, I am AGAINST the complete dismantling of state and local governments. I simply believe that the government on all three levels should operate more cohesively with one another.

Rob what about this post:

"What the hell do you know, you're not even American!

/extreme sarcasm" quote Rob Henderson

How on topic was that post?

Where in an International Forum does it say people can not comment. This thing of "you don't live here so you should not comment" is used as a cop out when someone does not like what has been said.

Think about it! What is an International Forum for? If not to allow people from different backgrounds to express their opinions. Who made you the Forum censor?

Maybe you think Redleg should ban all foreigners from the forum? Not sure he will like having to kick himself off his own forum?:lol:

You are an oaf. I clearly stated that I was being sarcastic in that post, merely echoing those who would say that because he is not an American, he is not "savvy" enough to speak his mind on the workings of America. It's been said before on this forum.

I relish the commentary of non-Americans because they (normally) provide a sound, logical, unbiased opinion of the situation at hand. Quite honestly, I endorse koala's message 100%. How's THAT for "Forum Censor"?

 

[muscogeemike]

Extremist in power, be they Muslim or Christian, Left or Right, Catholic or Protestant, always ends badly. What I want is for our elected representatives to represent us, not their party, special interest or themselves.
“Diplomacy (Politics) is the art of saying ‘nice doggy’ until you can find a rock.“L.M. Boyd

 

[Rob Henderson]

But without the support of the party, special interest groups, and lying to appease swing voters, no one would be able to win a majority. There are too many people who feel too strongly about certain issues to vote for one man fit all of them.

 

[George]

Extremist in power, be they Muslim or Christian, Left or Right, Catholic or Protestant, always ends badly. What I want is for our elected representatives to represent us, not their party, special interest or themselves.
“Diplomacy (Politics) is the art of saying ‘nice doggy’ until you can find a rock.“L.M. Boyd

I think the use of extreme is over done by the Left in regards to the TEA Party. It's not seriously talking about abolishing the Fed. Govt. & other off ther deep end claims being made. Pruning back isn't unreasonable, just how much. One example of diffrences between the TEA Party & the big govt leadership of the GOP is in the Promise to America(or whatever the name is exactly) The Leadership says cut spending to 2008 levels, say what?? How about 2000 levels. The long term politicians just can't get a grip on the need to reduce the 800 lb gorilla's size, influence, ect.

 

[Rob Henderson]

I think the use of extreme is over done by the Left in regards to the TEA Party. It's not seriously talking about abolishing the Fed. Govt. & other off ther deep end claims being made. Pruning back isn't unreasonable, just how much. One example of diffrences between the TEA Party & the big govt leadership of the GOP is in the Promise to America(or whatever the name is exactly) The Leadership says cut spending to 2008 levels, say what?? How about 2000 levels. The long term politicians just can't get a grip on the need to reduce the 800 lb gorilla's size, influence, ect.

You're right. Flying planes into buildings isn't extreme at all. . . . . .


Oh. Wait.

 

[HokieMSG]

If you could only recieve the amount paid in, then it becomes a long term zero interest loan to the govt., not my idea of a plan. Also if you die, that money is lost. It should be in an individualy owned account. One thingthat helps the TEA Party is the earlier statement that the budget simply can't be cut. The Dems institutionalized the nutty concept that the spending must go up every year, by a certain planned %, % if it goes up by less than the planned amount, it a "budget cut" that is parroted by the Press to convince the masses that there's been cuts made, even if it's an increase. The notion that there isn't billions in pork that should be cut is further proof that some just don't get it. Obama is spending big money repairing overseas Mosques, where's the outrage vs a cross out in the desert?

Consider it a savings account. I wholeheartedly agree that people should be given a choice. If you want a private plan or the governement to manage it then that is your choice. Ultimately the problem is SS is a giant ponzi scheme and last time I checked we sent people to jail for doing that. Does the government get a free pass?

As to Obama spending the money, let us lay the blame whare it belongs. The congress. Obama gets the blame because he is President. Just like Bush did.

 

[George]

Consider it a savings account. I wholeheartedly agree that people should be given a choice. If you want a private plan or the governement to manage it then that is your choice. Ultimately the problem is SS is a giant ponzi scheme and last time I checked we sent people to jail for doing that. Does the government get a free pass?

As to Obama spending the money, let us lay the blame whare it belongs. The congress. Obama gets the blame because he is President. Just like Bush did.

You own a savings account, you don't own the money you paid into SS. It should be noted that spending topped out in '04 & was declining untill the Dems took Congress in the '06 elections. Spending goes up ever since Dems started the budgeting in '07.

 

[HokieMSG]

Bottom line is that SS is costing more and more every year. Something has to be done OTHER than increasing contributions.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Like what? What would YOU have the government do? Scrap the whole damned thing? Screw all those people who were relying on it when they retired?

 

[mmarsh]

Bottom line is that SS is costing more and more every year. Something has to be done OTHER than increasing contributions.

The SS problem is largely exaggerated. It needs a tweak and not a fix. But the GOP has been trying to "fix" (meaning pull the damn plug) on it since the 1930s. You can be sure they will attempt to privatize it yet again next time they are in power.

The real problem, is Medicare that is the budget buster. The real and best way to fix medicare without sacrificing quality of care is to do exactly what neither party wants...adopt a single-payer as most other civilized countries on planet earth have done. Why, because they would offend their pals at the multi-trillion dollar HMO industry, and Wall Street whom of course want the system to stay precisely as it is.

A former head of the GAO David Walker stated in 2008:

"Providing universal coverage for "basic and essential" health care services is one part of an overarching strategy to address the financial crisis in the health care system".

 

[HokieMSG]

Like what? What would YOU have the government do? Scrap the whole damned thing? Screw all those people who were relying on it when they retired?

Rob, I think that too many people are looking to the government to solve their problems. A lot of the people relying on SS when they retire should have planned ahead a little better. I am making plans for retirement that DO NOT include SS. Because the government approves it, does the fact that SS is a ponzi scheme make it right?

mmarsh, you are correct that a single payer would certainly help to fix a lot of the problems we are currently having. It is also true as you say that the HMO's and Wallstreet will never let it happen. What needs to happen is the incumbents need to be voted out and lobbying firms prevented from contributing to reelection campaigns. Maybe that would reduce the amount of money spent during the campaign season. It might also have the added benefit of shortening it.

 

[George]

Like what? What would YOU have the government do? Scrap the whole damned thing? Screw all those people who were relying on it when they retired?

The SS problem is largely exaggerated. It needs a tweak and not a fix. But the GOP has been trying to "fix" (meaning pull the damn plug) on it since the 1930s. You can be sure they will attempt to privatize it yet again next time they are in power.

The real problem, is Medicare that is the budget buster. The real and best way to fix medicare without sacrificing quality of care is to do exactly what neither party wants...adopt a single-payer as most other civilized countries on planet earth have done. Why, because they would offend their pals at the multi-trillion dollar HMO industry, and Wall Street whom of course want the system to stay precisely as it is.

A former head of the GAO David Walker stated in 2008:

"Providing universal coverage for "basic and essential" health care services is one part of an overarching strategy to address the financial crisis in the health care system".

Rob, I think that too many people are looking to the government to solve their problems. A lot of the people relying on SS when they retire should have planned ahead a little better. I am making plans for retirement that DO NOT include SS. Because the government approves it, does the fact that SS is a ponzi scheme make it right?

mmarsh, you are correct that a single payer would certainly help to fix a lot of the problems we are currently having. It is also true as you say that the HMO's and Wallstreet will never let it happen. What needs to happen is the incumbents need to be voted out and lobbying firms prevented from contributing to reelection campaigns. Maybe that would reduce the amount of money spent during the campaign season. It might also have the added benefit of shortening it.

Where Congress has already looted SS, 1.take the funds from tax revenue to meet obligations for those already retired. 2 figur out an equitable compensation for those still working & have paid into it, maybe what would have been earned invested in the Dow 30 over the same time& 3. for those still working, or havent started...a form of self directed investments that would still involuntarilly withweld from pay. The Florida Retirement System has 2 options. One is traditional where they get your money & do what they want with it or (two) there is a "self directed" option where there are approved Mutual Funds, grouped into high, medium & low risk, thay you choose the risk factor & the % allocation between the three groups. You should have a choice of approved stocks, bonds, gold ect. One thing needed is individual ownership of the account. Have heard that there was supposed to be @ least partial privitization in FDR's original plan when the economy improved, but it never happened. The cost projections on MediCare were as wildly under reality as the rosy predictions on ObamaCare is now.

 

[HokieMSG]

Where Congress has already looted SS, 1.take the funds from tax revenue to meet obligations for those already retired. 2 figur out an equitable compensation for those still working & have paid into it, maybe what would have been earned invested in the Dow 30 over the same time& 3. for those still working, or havent started...a form of self directed investments that would still involuntarilly withweld from pay. The Florida Retirement System has 2 options. One is traditional where they get your money & do what they want with it or (two) there is a "self directed" option where there are approved Mutual Funds, grouped into high, medium & low risk, thay you choose the risk factor & the % allocation between the three groups. You should have a choice of approved stocks, bonds, gold ect. One thing needed is individual ownership of the account. Have heard that there was supposed to be @ least partial privitization in FDR's original plan when the economy improved, but it never happened. The cost projections on MediCare were as wildly under reality as the rosy predictions on ObamaCare is now.

Agree George, but the congress will NEVER relinquish their hold over SS. EVER. Privatization appears to be the answer, but getting congress to let go of it is a whole different issue.

 

[George]

Agree George, but the congress will NEVER relinquish their hold over SS. EVER. Privatization appears to be the answer, but getting congress to let go of it is a whole different issue.

Loss of power, sure enough! Same thing on the Fair Tax. Forgot to mention the County in Texas that opted out of SS & did fabulously.