LJWorld.com weblogs The Free Market
Posted
by Liberty_one
April 26, 2010 at 10:16 a.m.
Support or Reject the Tea Party?
The Tea Party movement is primarily an anti-tax one. The supporters don't mind big government if it's for warfare or welfare like medicare and social security. So they like government, they just don't want to pay for it. Debt is generational theft--this generation lives high on the hog off of government goodies, while the next generation gets stuck with the bill. Of course now that bill is becoming so large that it will soon be no longer possible to pay it off. Eventually people will stop lending the US government money, at which point either the spending spree will be over, or the Fed will try to monetize the debt causing hyperinflation, and the spending spree will be over just a little bit later. Either way, the US as we know it will be over.
The question is, should supporters of Liberty and Small Government support or reject the Tea Party? On the one hand, the Tea Party movement is the closest thing we have to a large-scale anti-government movement going in the US right now, and the statist interests have lined up to denounce it. Certainly they may help propel some Libertarian candidates into office, or support a Ron Paul bid for the Presidency. But on the other, they support most of the government institutions that generate the need for heavy taxation and intrusion into liberties, both economic and personal. Can they, over time by spreading information through public figures like Ron Paul, come to see that they can't have their cake and eat too, that they can't have low taxes and the warfare/welfare state? I think the answer is no.
The reason for this is looking at the demographics of the movement--I believe the average person is over 50. With people at the end of their working careers and about to enjoy the fruits of government programs to assist older people with health care and living expenses for retired people, they really have no economic incentive to reduce the apparatus of Big Government but cutting spending. They are at their peak earning years, and therefore want low taxation but no reduction in benefits, shifting that cost to someone else--namely future generations. The great hope for true believers of Liberty is on college campuses--young people who are about to enter the job market, who will be most affected by the national debt and, with the least experience, most likely to suffer from the high unemployment rates that govenrment intervention causes. I just don't think the Tea Party, with people like Palin as speakers, has much hope of morphing from an anti-tax movement into an anti-big government movement.
and 30 others
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- National group seeks repeal of 'Stand Your Ground' law in Kansas May 27, 2012 · 166 comments
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012 · 277 comments
- U.S. military sees new appreciation May 28, 2012 · 47 comments
- Sound Off: How much does the city’s transit system collect in fares compared with how much it costs May 27, 2012 · 137 comments
- Tax gamble May 26, 2012 · 95 comments
- Brownback tells federal judicial panel to toss legislative redistricting maps May 29, 2012 · 7 comments
- God, marriage May 25, 2012 · 200 comments
- On the street: How did you spend your Memorial Day? May 28, 2012 · 37 comments
- Remove politics, and redistricting map falls in line May 27, 2012 · 52 comments
- Blog: Iranian Nuclear Energy: Will It Destroy Lives Or Save Them? May 29, 2012 · 6 comments
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012
- Thread of pain ran through Jackson’s career June 28, 2009
- Hilltop executive director Pat Pisani stepping down May 28, 2012
- Friends mourn Lynn Bretz, former voice of KU May 28, 2012
- Town Talk: UPDATE: Frank Male files for county commission; keep an ear open for local sales tax talk; city hires new city engineer; wholesale water district buys land near Kaw; weekly land transfers May 29, 2012
- How to help: Guides needed for Lamplight Tour of Black Jack Battlefield and Nature Park May 27, 2012
- Library kicks off reading program May 27, 2012
- City, county mull upgrade to emergency radio system May 28, 2012
- Experts: Remedial college classes need fixing May 28, 2012
- Book helps family heal after tragedy May 28, 2012
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
The interesting thing will be to see what happens after the Big Crash. Government represents the will of the people, and most people like big government spending programs. When it ultimately fails, will a majority of people finally realize it is not possible to have all this spending without leading to disaster, or will they fall for the line that, "this time, the central planners will get it right!" and remake the government into an even more powerful, intrusive one?
tbaker (anonymous) replies…
Compared to the rest of the world, Americans have an incredibly great way of life. Because of this, the majority doesn’t pay all that much attention to what the government is doing/not doing. We bloggers, for example, are a tiny minority. The average Joe could care less so long as his/her life rolls on as they have become accustomed to living it. The calamity that will befall our country is merely a speck on the horizon right now, but it’s getting closer every day, hastened a long by the incredible increases in the size and spending done by the federal government of late. It’s like a killer asteroid is headed for Earth. We can stop it, but not enough people give a hoot to really do anything effective. Unfortunately, it’s a distinctly American trait to wait until things get really bad before people are moved to action. When Americans finally do wake up, they do take action, and such action can and has ushered in broad and sweeping changes to society very suddenly.
It's obvious that efforts to turn our country into a giant assisted living facility are doomed to bankrupt us. Despite the fact the numbers scream for action, it has to happen before many people will accept the fact the US was built on the premise that people MUST be free to succeed or fail on their own merits. It must happen before they will accept that equality of opportunity in life does not guarantee equality of outcome, nor should it. Our dollar needs to fall far enough in value before average people realize that looting the productive segment of society in hopes of fulfilling the socialist ideal of equal outcome in life for all doesn't work. The fact this has been proven time and again doesn't matter. It needs to be proven to Americans, but things simply aren’t bad enough to do that yet, but they will be.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
L1,
am not a libertarian but a social conservative/fiscal conservative. I believe you mischaracterize tea party supporters: *most* decry the amazing Obama debt and generational theft. furthermore, they object to a debt that equals a massive amount of our GDP. and, they/we object to such a debt that enslaves us to countries like China.
many do protest the [already happening] devaluing of the Dollar. sadly, that started under GWB.
most object strongly to TARP, and big government strings, making this a very socialist government.
when you go to characterize a group, please try to represent their views better. that is, unless they're the truly loony far left, where the *truth* of what they believe and what they think they know is hilarious.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
Good points.
I think the problem some have with the tea party is that they didn't exist during Bush's reign. Which had massive spending and increasing government size, our debt, TARP, etc.
They ask themselves, "Where were these folks when this was going on just 2 years ago?"
Maybe they were at the brink of organizing back then and the massive stimulus bill pushed them over the edge. I don't know. I don't remember any news stories about people being angry at the amount of debt created under Bush. Again, doesn't mean it wasn't there... it just wasn't out in the open as it is now.
LoveThsLife (anonymous) replies…
I think it was always there...I just think with healthcare the crap hit it the fan so to speak.
georgiahawk (anonymous) replies…
You are one funny little bearded gnome! To paraphrase, "don't mischaracterize me and my group, but it is alright to do it to the other side". It would be a funny joke if it wasn't so darn ignorant!
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
L1,
keep your helmet on BTW.
there will come the obligatory smears of the tea party supporters, the sexual vulgarities to demonize them, calling them/us racists, etc.
note: some of the same folks cheered that Mr. Obama was a "community organizer." seems like this is *real* community organizing from the bottom up, unlike his.
further, some who will try to blur and slur the tea party supporters think its just fine that Mr. Obama is so concerned about the civil rights of illegal aliens, and they will not spll one electron criticizing the supporters and fascilitators of illegal aliens.
they will overlook that kansas democarts are predominantly white, while using a similar argument to claim that tea party supporters are racists.
in fact, they have made it a little cottage industry: if you oppose Mr. Obama in any way, why you're a racist, aren't you.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
I don't think the ones who label tea partiers as racists are doing so because they majority of them are white. I think they do it because of some of the racist signs that have appeared at tea party rallies.
For example:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-...
http://justgetthere.us/blog/uploads/S...
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-...
http://dailyhurricane.com/racistteaba...
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/pol...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qIdxc0EEs44...
Just a few examples.
I agree with L1 that the tea party was started as an anti-tax body. Somehow they have been saddled with a fringe element that is ant-government (militias) and a racist fringe element.
Are they the majority? No. Does that make all tea partiers racist? No.
I'm no way saying that the tea party is racist, but there is that element to them. Just as the liberals have their fringe element of eco-terrorists, Code Pink, etc. There's loonies on both sides of the debates.
In my opinion the TRUE tea partiers would do well to distance themselves from the militias and racist elements. They should denounce these groups and ostracize those who show up at their rallies with their racist signs.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
bearded, I don't think I'm wrong in characterizing the movement as an anti-tax one. Regarding the debt and inflation, perhaps there is recognition of those problems, but they do support medicare, social security and the wars, which have to be paid for somehow. There's a congitive dissonance there that I think represents their economic interests. At least that's my theory.
I think they have a love/hate relationship with state power. Of course characterizing any group of people is going to be overbroad. Some surely are against these big government spending programs and others aren't. However, I think it's fair to say that most are strong supporters of the wars and using government power to "fight terrorism."
An opinion piece:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/O...
s-Do-they-hate-liberals-more-than-they-love-liberty
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Oops, accidently put a space in the link:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/O...
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
If Sarah Palin was de facto leader of Stop Killing Baby Kittens, I'd still run away as fast as I could.
jonas_opines (anonymous) replies…
"If Sarah Palin was de facto leader of Stop Killing Baby Kittens"
Hmmm, well she is abstinence-only.
Moderate (anonymous) says…
Are those my only choices??
Wallythewalrus (anonymous) says…
Government as we know has changed from government for the common good, to government for special interest. For example, Arizona passed a state law pretaining to legal immigration status of their residents. And immediatly, people are afraid that a police state will arise. (Show me your papers! Vhere ist dien papers!) As americans do we allow a large federal government policy to "outlaw" the wishes of the smaller state government? Or do the residents of Arizona have a right to govern themselves? Washington fat cats sit safely under federal protection; while citizens of Arizona are on the front line of self defense and self interest, from natural migration.
feeble (anonymous) says…
The Tea Party cannot be taken seriously as an anti-tax party until they substantively address entitlement and defense spending.
Given the demographic that makes up most of the tea party (more affluent that the general population, white), I don't see this happening.
Will middle/upper class, white voters really agree to cuts in defense spending, means testing of entitlements (which will affect them more than minority groups) or a phased increase in age-availability in social services?
Recall this past summer's rhetoric. it is extremely unlikely that many of these groups will endorse substantial cuts to Medicare or Medicaid.
These folks are not fiscal conservative or small-government libertarians, if they were, we would have seen them out in force during either the Medicare part D budget fiasco or at least one of the Bush Tax cuts.
This is why Sarah Palin polls better than Dr. Paul among Tea Party members. The tea party is a social conservative movement in fiscal conservative clothing.
rtpayton (anonymous) says…
Vertigo I saw the links you provided concerning racist signs and I agree these individuals need to be denounce. The tea party needs to work on being pro-active on not supporting the fringe racist.
georgiahawk (anonymous) says…
If we had to take every years debt and pay it back within a one to three year period and our taxes were raised the next year or that year based on projected debt, we would finally have a real discussion on what our money is being spent on. To often we have no real time consequences for our governments decisions. The fact is there are a lot of things I want if I can put it on credit and not worry about it right now, but when I am forced to come up with money right now, there are a lot of things I can do without. There are a lot of programs that I want to be cut or trimmed (fat preferably). I think the military industrial machine is over financed, ineficient and full of waste. I will trade less military for adequate funding of social programs, however, I get to choose the social programs.
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
I think the Tea Party is about taking advantage of naive people.
So look at the people who are trying to benefit from it and start questioning what is going on.
You might salvage something of value and you might not, but you can always learn from the experience.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
"Don't believe me? Fine. Don't believe me.
Who's ready?"
/pumps shotgun
//locks bunker door
///spits
Ricky_Vaughn (anonymous) says…
Let's all join the Reform Party!!! What a joke...
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Georgia I agree with your idea--if we had to pay as we go, or at least pretty close to that, people would scrutinize government spending much more closely. However, there is a loophole in your idea--the government can monetize debt through the Federal Reserve, essentially paying for things by just printing more money. This has the effect of being a backdoor tax since it causes inflation, and since it's not apparant in that we aren't writing a check to the Treasury it's often not recognized as a tax. There are three possible solutions to this, in ascending order of effectiveness:
1. Audit of the Federal Reserve--Fed still retains all its power, but at least Congress and the public will have some oversight, hopefully reigning in the worst of its practices
2. Eliminate the Federal Reserve--no more central bank power to inflate, but banks can still inflate and state power to inflate still possible
3. Gold standard--inflation isn't possible since money is backed by a physical commodity that is in limited supply
What do you think of one of these solutions in addition to your time-limit on government debt?
georgiahawk (anonymous) replies…
First one sounds good! Lets do it!
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Tom, I don't think the Big Crash will happen overnight, but it won't take several years. What will happen is people and countries will stop having faith in the US government's ability to repay debt. One country will stop buying US debt and then another, and it will have a domino effect. It will be like a bank run. Then we'll be faced with a choice. Since people and countries will refuse to buy any more US debt, then the government can simply cut spending and not try and sell any more debt. Or the Federal Reserve can provide "protection" for people who buy our debt by buying up the debt from them, however with money created out of thin air. This won't last long though because the more they buy the more inflation we get, and with little confidence in the US, they'll have to buy a lot of debt. This will lead to hyperinflation, which could play out over a few years, but it would be precipitated by the conditions that lead to the need to buy up the government debt in the first place. In other words, it may "feel" like the Big Crash didn't happen for a while, but in looking back the events that ultimately cause the situation will have occurred in a relatively short period of time.
Cappy (anonymous) says…
Ah yes, I remember when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthiest. Repubs said, "Doom and Gloom!" and not one voted for it. A few years later we had a surplus and near everyone was prospering and the rich got even richer. Bush cut taxes on the wealthiest and tanked the economy. Find me a tea bagger who can explain that and I might take them seriously.
Libertarian, noun: a narcissistic Democrat, a sociopathic Republican, or just some guy who wants to make pot legal.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
Reject it. Reject all political parties/factions. Loathe them. Doesn't even matter. Hate everybody. Let the nukes fly. We're done here.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Cappy (anonymous) says…
"Ah yes, I remember when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthiest. Repubs said, "Doom and Gloom!" and not one voted for it. A few years later we had a surplus and near everyone was prospering and the rich got even richer. Bush cut taxes on the wealthiest and tanked the economy."
The problem with this statement is that you focus solely on income tax rates. Since there is a myriad of ways in which the government can raise revenue, a much better way to measure the real amount of total taxation is to look at spending since the amount of spending is equal to the overall tax burden. By that measure, taxes were actually cut under Clinton while raised under Bush.
Hence you have a (simplified) answer for why the economy did better under Clinton than Bush.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Pilgrim2 (anonymous) replies…
"So, which foreign language do you want to learn to speak after we've been taken over by a country with a superior military?"
You have a point. Do you remember back in the 1990s when we cut military spending and were taken over by another country? I don't remember that, but you might.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Good points by several folks here. Yes, the group needs to distance itself from the fringe and avoid the ignorant. They do nothing by backing someone like Palin, who clearly speaks out of both sides of her face and isn't the brightest bulb on the marquee.
It all centers around military spending. The excess there is far beyond what is given to poor people with food stamps, so this is where the real cuts need to be.
whats_going_on (anonymous) says…
Tea baggers don't have my support when they start claiming they don't like government healthcare and then admit to using Medicaid and Medicare.
Pretty much sums it up.
ferrislives (anonymous) says…
Liberty_One, this is a great blog with a great question that I too have been asking myself. I haven't heard any Tea Party members talk about getting rid of their entitlements that many of them will soon be receiving (i.e. Social Security, Medicare, etc.), yet they want to have their own taxes cut. That's never made any sense to me. They'd have a lot more credibility as a group if they'd stop being wishy-washy in their logic.
bearded_gnome, as a self-professed Tea Party member, you never did address Liberty_One's reply to you posted at 10:44am on April 26th. I've seen several signs referencing "Big Government" at those rallies, so I ask: if we were to cut taxes to the satisfaction of the Tea Party, how would Social Security, Medicare, and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars be paid for? You cannot support those programs and wars without paying for them. That idea is what helped get us into this mess.
At least true Libertarians follow their beliefs wholeheartedly concerning getting rid of "Big Government", which I can respect more than the Tea Party's moving target.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
Wouldn't it be funny (or sad) if refugees in their boats fleeing to America were to pass Americans fleeing the opposite direction in their boats?
Not all countries follow our lead.
ivalueamerica (anonymous) says…
The question should be an easy one.
Reject the tea party. It has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with their message. I do NOT believe the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They have tolerated and allowed message of racial hate to intertwine with their message.
If you are a true, good, honest person who actually values America, you should be able to make your point without tolerating racists standing beside you just because they want to make the same point.
We can reform healthcare without racists. We can stop illegal immigration without racists, we can cut taxes and government waste without racists.
And most importantly, we can cut racism by not offering any legitimacy with the racists.
The teaparty does not hold that as a basic American value.
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
This is what I could never understand. Why is Social Security called an "entitlement?" Does that mean people should be happy that they are "entitled" to be poor?
Fixed_Asset (anonymous) replies…
Because it is a right provided by law. Your logic is strange.
citizen0123 (anonymous) replies…
social security is not a right or an entitlement.
it is a savings plan funded by hard working americans,legal ones,that belongs to us.unfortunatly,our government,both sides,have completly screwed it up for all.if you are not in your 50s right now,the way things are going,you will never see a dime of it.
sad but true.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
ivalueamerica (anonymous) says…
"If you are a true, good, honest person who actually values America, you should be able to make your point without tolerating racists standing beside you just because they want to make the same point."
So what should they do if someone shows up to a protest with a racially-insensitive sign? Shoot him? I think in your zeal to marginalize the tea partiers you're not thinking through your criticism. It's not like they can revoke someone's membership in a loosely organized group. It's not like they can pick and choose who gets to come to an open event. It's not like they just all go somewhere else where the racist guy can't follow. What are they supposed to do? Beat up the guy and take his sign? Give him a stern talking to? What exactly do you expect them to do?
Vague statements like "don't tolerate racists standing beside you" sound great but serve as no guide for action.
whats_going_on (anonymous) replies…
I simple blog post or news story about tea baggers who don't agree with other teabagger's racism would suffice for me. Usually it's a lot of excuses and denial.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
What??? There have been two threads here on the LJWonline in the recent days where there were dozens of such posts. What specifically are you looking for?
ivalueamerica (anonymous) replies…
But nothing from the teaparty itself, hmmmm.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Where's the other official tea party messages so I see for myself that they haven't said anything regarding racism?
whats_going_on (anonymous) replies…
If there have been tea partiers denouncing this behavior by their comrades, then I'd really, honestly like to see the link, no bashing or sarcasm involved. Totally honest. I can't be looking at every post all the time so I really don't know. This is just from what I've seen. However, maybe, in the past couple of days, since I haven't been around here, things have done a 180.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
You've posted on the threads here that have discussed the topic. I don't know what you're looking for, what exactly are you expecting them to say?
whats_going_on (anonymous) replies…
ok, don't link me, thats fine. And I don't know, I guess I'm just looking for something other than denial or defending it.
Personally, if there was an organization that involved people I was embarrassed to be associated with (such as racists or any other extreme view), I wouldn't be a part of it. Hence the reason I said I'm not a "part of" either side.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
You need a link? You've already posted on the threads I'm talking about and found them wanting. That's why I ask what exactly are you looking for because apparantly it isn't there. Any sufficiently large group is going to have some people that have views one would be embarassed to be associated with. I'm sure there are probably some doctors out there that believe in eugenics. Do you think the American Medical Association is a racist group because of the views of a few individuals?
If you were a doctor would you refuse to take part in anything AMA related?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
"This is what I could never understand. Why is Social Security called an "entitlement?" Does that mean people should be happy that they are "entitled" to be poor?"
It means they should be happy they are entitled to get money the government stole from someone else.
whats_going_on (anonymous) replies…
What about people who AREN'T taking advantage of it...what about the people who really do need help. What about thousands of people out of jobs right now? Are they pieces of sh*t because they can't afford things? Do they not deserve to receive help because they might have fallen on bad luck, are sick, made a mistake, or simply cant dig themselves out of a rut?
Are people so insensitive and selfish that they throw all people who need help into one big pile of "you're trash and you're stealing my money?"
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Well, you're not seeing the other side of the coin. All this "help" you think people deserve so badly has a cost. The more wealth you confiscate to pay for these things, the fewer jobs there are for these people you want to help so badly. There's no such thing as a free lunch, everything has consequences, and only looking at one specific consequence and ignoring the rest is foolish. Your intervention in the name of helping people will only make things worse. You hurt more than you help, whether you realize it or not. Sitting back and doing nothing, while not emtionally satisfying for the emotional person, is the rational thing to do when you understand the consequences of intervention.
Also, you couch your post in terms that somehow people are immoral (insensitive and selfish) if they disagree with you. But you deny people the opportunity to act morally if you confiscate their income and redistribute it. They've no opportunity to give of their own free choice. You create an amoral society in the name of morality. Plus, stealing money from one to give to another, no matter great their need, is not moral. Theft is theft, and trying to rationalize theft only makes you a verbally gifted thief.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
On that note how is it theft? If you choose to earn an income you choose so knowing that it will be taxed.
Can it really be called theft if you know full well that a portion of your income will be taken? It's more a condition of employment. In order to earn income you will need to give a portion to the government.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
That argument might make sense if earning an income was a choice. Maybe money is a luxury for you, but I find the grocery store won't give me food unless I pay for it. So I don't really choose to earn an income, it's something I have to do in order to provide myself food and shelter.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
You could grow your own food. Build your own shelter.
If you want to call it theft- go for it. But know that you are a willing participant in that act.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Oh really? Where is this magical plot of land and supply of tools and construction materials that is being given away for free and isn't subject to real estate taxes?
I suppose the rape victim could have just killed herself instead of being raped, so it must be consensual right? I guess by leaving my car out in public where anyone could easily break in and hotwire it instead of putting it in a locked vault means I consent to having it stolen.
Get real. It's theft. You don't have a choice but to earn income. And BTW, the Supreme Court has determined that ANY accessions to wealth can be taxed by Congress if it so chooses. So if everyone found your magical real estate and tried your little scheme to avoid taxation, the government could still tax you.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
How did our ancestors survive without earning a wage?
Are you seriously trying to equate rape with taxation?
Two key components that make it not theft- you are a willing participant and you know that it will occur and still choose to participate.
If a person is raped they are not willing participants.
There's still millions and millions of acres in Alaska you could get lost in and no one would ever find you that you could build you a shelter and grow/hunt your own food sources. Many people have done that over the years.
There's a lot of geography in this world where one could go and never be seen again.
Kind of hard to get taxed when you can't be found.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Are you seriously saying one should go get lost in the wilderness to avoid taxation?
"Are you seriously trying to equate rape with taxation?"
I'm equate one crime with another. You seem to think it's a practical solution to hide in the woods, and if you don't, you concede to having your income taken from you. Well I guess unless you take extreme measures to avoid any crime you must be consenting, right?
Coming up with silly scenarios and claiming them to be practical alternatives is just foolish. And like I said, if everyone tried your plan the government could still tax you anyway. They can tax you for mowing your own lawn. That's $15 you didn't have to pay the neighbor's kid to do it for you, and you're better off for it, hence it's an accession to wealth, and taxable income. So even growing your own food and building your own house is taxable.
Death and taxes, don't be stupid and say that taxes are avoidable as long as you hide out in the wilderness.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
This whole thread started with a question of social security as an entitlement. Hence the tax we are talking about is social security. They don't collect ss tax on your garden. And its not illegal to not pay fed income tax if u have no income.
Also u don't have to mow ur lawn in the Alaska bush.
Since when is it mandatory to hire the neighborhood kid to mowyour lawn?
I was unaware that short grass means you are wealthier than those whose grass is longer.
Worst analogy ever.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
"I was unaware that short grass means you are wealthier than those whose grass is longer."
LOL, I guess you haven't ever had to sell a house.
"Also u don't have to mow ur lawn in the Alaska bush."
Goodness, how much further are you going to take your ridiculous suggestion to quit all civilization and live in the wild? It's a stupid line of thought that we consent to having our money taken from us because the caveman option is always there. Does that really make sense to you, that we "choose" to pay taxes as if living the life of a hunter/gatherer is somehow not an awful choice? That's like a robber saying his victim gave him the money because he could have chosen a bullet in the chest, but he opted out. You're being a weasel and taking it to ludicrous levels.
"Hence the tax we are talking about is social security."
Weasel, weasel, weasel. Taxes are taxes, and without individual consent, it is a theft. Saying that people could abandon all standards of living and eek out a meager existence off of squirrels and berries in the wilds of Alaska means they consent is just stupid. People have a right to their property and the fruits of their labor. Confiscation of that property is theft. It is sickening that you take such pains to try and moralize it. You are as bad as the rapist or the wife beater in that you justify the crime because of something the victim did.
A person is just trying to earn a decent living for themselves and their family, and you think that makes it OK to steal their money because they aren't resigned to living like neanderthals in the mountains.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
Just so we're clear. In your mind taxation is the same as rape and murder and domestic violence.
Noted.
"and without individual consent, it is a theft"
You give your consent when you accept the job and fill out your W4.
If you don't like living in the wild, surviving of your own skills then you could always move to Monaco. They don't pay taxes on income.
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Eu...
Is that better for you?
Is living in Monaco the same as living like a neanderthal?
You have options. If you feel like your being raped, murdered, and abused because the U.S. wants to provide a social net for our less fortunate and disabled then feel free to exercise those options.
whats_going_on (anonymous) replies…
thats what I was thinking...how is it theft when you know about it?
And I don't think that by not paying into these programs, things are going to get better. What about the people who are old and/or sick? Just going to let them die off? How is that responsible? Do you honestly think people would give their money away if they took away taxes? No...you just admitted that it's not your responsibility to help other people. I could go into a long list of arguments, but its probably not worth it and I have to get back to work. Maybe later.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Just because you know someone is stealing your money doesn't mean you agree to it. Like I said above, you don't have a choice. You have to earn a living to provide you and your family food and shelter.
By your logic, a slave agrees to be a slave because he knows about it. He doesn't have a choice and people don't have the option to not pay taxes.
"Do you honestly think people would give their money away if they took away taxes?"
Do you honestly think they wouldn't? Private American citizens already give more to charity than any other country in the world as it is. Doctors and hospitals have always given away services for reduced fares to people who couldn't afford it, and also saw some patients for free (I've received free medical care several times myself). Families, friends and neighbors have always helped each other out.
But the biggest thing you're missing is that if the government stopped causing all these booms and busts the need for aid to the poor would be greatly negated. The government is causing the poverty you demand the government pay for.
How about instead of stealing money to aid people living in poverty, thus creating more poverty, we go in the other direction?
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
Did the slave willingly submit to slavery?
Your analogy doesn't apply. You willingly choose to earn an income that is taxable. A slave does not willingly choose to work for free for life.
There's two parts here- 1: you know about it and 2: you choose to participate.
If you don't want to be taxed on your earnings, don't earn an income. Find another way to survive. Our ancestors did. They grew their own food and built their own dwellings.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
"You willingly choose to earn an income that is taxable."
No, you don't. You have to earn an income or else you'll starve. Don't say stupid things like that one can go be a hunter gatherer. Be serious.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment...
Cappy (anonymous) replies…
What I thought was hilarious: The wingnut blogger who was encouraging people to throw bricks through the windows of Demoratic offices has no real job. His income is Social Security Disability.
citizen0123 (anonymous) replies…
who exactly is "they"
citizen0123 (anonymous) replies…
who exactly is THEY.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
"They have tolerated and allowed message of racial hate to intertwine with their message."
Spoken like someone who doesn't have the first clue as to what they're talking about. Liberty_One summed it up nicely. 'Nuff said.
whats_going_on (anonymous) replies…
I don't affiliate with a party because I don't want to be thrown into that assumption of "right of left," "good or evil," "black or white." I don't agree with some Repub things and some things make sense. Same with democrats. I agree moreso with the progressive views, but I definitely don't want to be one of those "looney lefts" because I really don't agree with a lot of their views either. The same could be said for the "tea partiers"...because lets face it, teabaggers are Republicans. There's no difference. If they weren't, they wouldn't have leaders like Sarah Palin, a devout Republican. If someone wants to be "in the middle" like the tea partiers claim (or used to claim)...then don't go to any rallies in the first place. Make your own, truthful, honest ones.
jaywalker (anonymous) replies…
"because lets face it, teabaggers are Republicans. There's no difference."
Recently there was a poll done on the make-up of tea party protesters. Do yourself a favor and look it up.
ivalueamerica (anonymous) replies…
Are you trying to deny that there are many racist messaged presented at many teaparty rallies?
What else do you deny?
jaywalker (anonymous) replies…
Didn't "deny" anything, value. The only people "intertwining" messages between the tea party protesters and the scant number of racists who show up at their rallies in order to spread their vitriol are idiots that desperately desire to marginalize the movement. Or they just don't have a rational clue, much like yourself. The selective memory here is the funny part. It's so often the left-leaning posters on these boards that (rightfully so) are adamant about separating muslim extremists from Islam as a whole. But when it comes down to this subject they have no problem lumping everyone together part and parcel. That's not just hypocritical and irrational, it's downright dumb.
ivalueamerica (anonymous) replies…
man, when you miss a point, you miss a point.
If you can not understand the difference of saying..not all Muslims are alike and saying... a muslim house of worship that permits and allows or looks the other way when their members espouse violence or terrorism is supporting terrorism even if it is not the doctrine of the group as a whole....
Then you never will. You are a lost cause, unable to think for yourself with no morals or values whatsoever, only being told what to think and regurgitate it until the end of time.
I pity you and those like you. America needs people with values, not sides.
jaywalker (anonymous) replies…
"You are a lost cause, unable to think for yourself with no morals or values whatsoever, only being told what to think and regurgitate it until the end of time."
You got that from me ridiculing your line about "intertwining messages"?! Seek help, value. And seek facts while you're at it. Your analogy is atrocious.
So sorry if I won't condemn millions of people because a few psychotics infiltrate their protest against big government and over-taxation. What should they do? Disband their protests because a few invade? So all it would ever take to end protest would be to send some undesirables in there to muddy up the waters?!! "Whoops! Some racists have shown up at our gatherings. We have to stop now or WE support racism!"
???!!!
Or are you trying to infer that all tea party protests espouse violence, terrorism, and/or racism?! Ever been to one? I bet not. Like I said originally, cop a freakin' clue to what you're talking about before you hit 'Send.'
And lose the holier-than-thou spiel, if you please. You wanna know pity? I pity the person that asserts someone doesn't have "morals or values whatsoever" AND can't think for themselves simply from this two post dialogue of exceptionally limited content. America needs people with values? No kidding, but what's your value system? Smear someone with no basis in fact whatsoever ? Yeah, yours is the voice of reason.
That may be one of the worst responses I've ever had to reply to, value, and that's sayin' a lot. I've read some of your stuff before and you've seemed benevolent. Shame your moral compass broke this time. If you can't deduce that I hate racists from what I've written here, that's a "you" problem. Believing I have no values or morals whatsoever because I refuse to indict an enormous number of Americans with a term as vile as 'racist' is just plain moronic and not a little bit hateful. That halo is lookin' a tad tarnished.
ivalueamerica (anonymous) replies…
Only the moral value of preserving and defending the Constitution, a value you hate. Traitor.
LoveThsLife (anonymous) says…
I think the TEA Party is more in response to wasteful government spending. I don't know if they are really anti-tax...as much as anti-waste. That's just my opinion.
Liberty275 (anonymous) says…
I think they have some good ideas but I don't run with a herd.
Jane (anonymous) says…
Are vertigo and what's_going_on playing the devil's advocate here? Or, do they not comprehend the conversation? Seriously. And, if I were what's_going_on's employer, I'd fire hime/her for wasting time online, all day for weeks now.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
Our thread derailment is a spin off from a previous question... which spiraled into a debate as to whether or not taxes should be considered theft since you willingly give your consent to be taxed when you accept employment.
It has nothing to do with the main theme of the blog, I'll admit. But it's L1's blog and if he wants to engage in a sidebar on a different subject (but still somewhat related) then he has that right.
independant1 (anonymous) says…
Tea Party = fiscal conservative pretty normal for folks that age.
Palin? She's just too normal. Her parents are school teachers (oh wait a minute i said she was normal) The public likes normal it or hates it. She's more like us than a kennedy/pelosi/reid/mccain/hutchison whether we agree with her politics or not.
We want our pols to be as Dubya would say perfesshunal, polished. Palin was not.
She's not a cookie cutter Beltway polPolitics is a full contact sport.
As bad as she was trashed she deserved a big payday. She paid her dues to get in the club, ran the gauntlet. Now she doesn't have to live like the rest of us, she's made it.
Another rich republican, so what else is new.
independant1 (anonymous) says…
When in doubt, tell a funny ’til you see what the other fellow is going to do. (Will Rogers)
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
Let's see, this land was invaded by europeans looking to make a quick pound,
franc, or mark. The people who were here didn't have to levy taxes. The Dutch East India
trade company and the other exploiters ran lines of credit to indebt the indigenous
people to the point where they could only offer land as payment for credit that was extended
to create land grabs. The Cherokees paid off trader debts in the 18th century with land
in the Carolinas after all of the fur and deer pelts were made and no more animals
existed in the area. I bring this up because there is the mythical idea that there will be a
time with no taxes. The gop believes this myth. The tea partiers believe this myth.
If you want no more taxes, don't be a capitalist or a consumer. Being either allows
a person no sense of balance because to have balance would require having
a conscience and according to credo of these people, thinking or having a conscience
is counterproductive. This is the message coming through with the GOP trying to
stop reform of the financial markets. They're saying the the market will be destroyed
with regulations as if the last years of Bush didn't already do the job due to deregulation
of enforcements. I feel all of this stuff is relevent the same way the TP'ers feel
their lack of direction and focus is relevent. After all having no focus and direction
really accomplishes a lot doesn't it.
independant1 (anonymous) replies…
yup, the landed gentry had the bucks and made bucks. Not just the rich came here. Their ancesters are still with us, the rest that came here, the indentured servants, slaves, poorest of the poor, criminals from europe's prisons and some of the landed gentry rebelled, native americans threw their lot in on both sides.
The landed gentry still pretty much run this country Dems/Repubs.
As a group, the native americans got the rawest of deals. My Cherokee family are americans of the wider variety, Dems and Repubs, I'm independant. We agree on a lot of stuff and have our disagreements. We celebrate our roots from every bloodline and respect our elders.
And we don't trust the gov't to help us make our way. We are lucky to be here and now, the luck to have opposing views without fear of death or being carted away to be reeducated for it.
My extended family bloodlines come from 5 continents (not austrailia). My asian, mexican and eastern europeon uncle/aunt/wife are way conservative. They are so conservative I look like a bleeding heart liberal.
The Tea Party? Don't see many Landed Gentry there.
Gonna change my presence to Attilaindependant1, I just feel so liberal and squishy now, feel the need to purge feelings.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
Tea party is an anti-tax party? Haha, don't make me laugh.
The tea-party is one thing, and one thing only. They are not anti-tax. They are not anti-big government. They are not anti-black, anti-Obama, anti-entitlements, anti-democrat, or anything of the like. Some of these things might come into play, based on group demographics and that sort of social trend. But it's a by-product, and should be recognized as such.
The blog LibertyOne linked to hit it as close on the head as anything else on here.
They are simply anti-liberal. Nothing else. There is no other consistency in themselves as a group. No other consistent message, no other sound position. That's it.
Keep in mind that this is the meaning of "liberal" currently in play today, and no other. It has as little to do with the originating definition of liberal as the current conservative has to do with the limited-government philosophy it was originally intended to describe. There's a laundry list of things that both names mean in popular parlance, equivalent to the left side versus the right side.
To the tea party, the left is bad. (mmkay) Anything they say is bad, anything they do is bad. So it must be opposed. All the rest is just window-dressing (when it's even there at all).
jaywalker (anonymous) replies…
I disagree with that assessment, jonas. I do believe that devout followers of blowhards like Limbaugh and Hannity would most certainly fit your definition of tea-partiers. But we had 8 years of Clinton and none of this sprang up, at least not anywhere near this level (as far as I remember).
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
While I don't agree with Jonas on this point, mostly. Some of it may be valid, but I believe the TEA party started as an anti-tax group that has morphed a bit.
I want to address Jaywalkers point that he doesn't remember things like this during Clinton's years.
I point you to this:
http://people-press.org/report/606/tr...
Scroll down to the section of text titled "The Perfect Storm" and look at the chart.
Notice how everytime there is a Democrat in office the "trust in government" goes into the negatives for the Repub - Democrat difference? It's because the Republicans have no trust whatsoever in a Democrat President.
The numbers between administrations don't change all that much for Democrats. However, for Republicans when a Dem takes the office the number drops significantly. From 50% trust under GWB to 12% trust under Obama. From 44% trusting Bush I to 25% trusting Clinton.
It's astounding how much fear the Republicans have of a Democrat president. There's been 19 Democrat presidents in our history and we've survived so far. I think the GOP backers can step back from the edge and take a deep breath.
jaywalker (anonymous) replies…
That's an interesting study, vertigo, though that doesn't bring to mind any mass protests during Clinton's terms like we're seeing now. I will say that the brief moments I stop on Limbaughs' channel it sounds just like his tenor in the '90's: everything liberal is baaad! And further proves listening to him is nothing but a waste of time. And while liberals may have more faith in government even when of their own isn't holding the highest office, you sure wouldn't realize it from perusing these boards. High numbers here hold the same opinion of the GOP = everything about them is baaaad!
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
Mass protests, no, you're right.
But the hysteria was still there. Ruby Ridge, Tim McVeigh, etc. The militia movement was well pronounced during the Clinton years and went away again when a Republican took the office. In comes another Democrat and what do you see? A resurgency in the militia movement.
jaywalker (anonymous) replies…
Yeah, the militia thing has me scratching my head. I can't figure if that's a phenomenon of nationalism, racism, pure paranoia, or just plain lunacy. I reckon it's a mix dependent on the group or circumstance, but it still doesn't make me sleep easy. There relative absence during Bush's tenure wasn't something I'd even thought of 'til you brought it up, but I think you're right. I don't remember hearing much out of Idaho, Michigan, or the usual suspects. That is telling toward their regard to be sure.
none2 (anonymous) says…
I guess I don't understand why people cannot come to some middle ground. As some have pointed out there has always been some level of taxation. It is part of civilization and has been so for centuries.
I think that people frustrated with taxes feel so because government keeps growing. We bail out auto companies. We bail out Wall Street. We have programs to also bail out individuals having problems with their mortgage payments. We give cash for clunkers. We give money to the poor to buy energy efficient dishwashers. The list goes on and on.
There are some entitlements that I do believe in. For instance, I do believe in Social Security. Maybe it won't be as valuable when I retire in 15 years. Still I think back to stories of how it was for the elderly before social security. It used to be the families took care of their own. However, the dynamics of the extended family have changed for many. It isn't as common anymore for multi-generations of family to live close -- let alone in the same household.
On the other hand, there are so many who don't need money, they simply need a firecracker under their behind to go off so that they get up and go to work. Case in point, I have a friend whose daughter is starting her adulthood on the government. She didn't want any education behind high school. She is now due with her first child by a married boyfriend who doesn't pay child support to his previous family. Perhaps she expects her husband (who she is separated from but not divorced) to pay for this other guy's child. She is unreliable on rent. She is unreliable on keeping the grass mowed to avoid a fine from the city. She and her boyfriend have the energy to get pregnant, but not mow the lawn? Where will that energy be after the child is born? Of course she is on public assistance for all her pre-natal care. She doesn't worry about health care as she knows the state will take care of all her needs. I predict in 5 years or less she will be in public housing and teaching her the lesson that they don't have to lift a finger as they are entitled to government hand outs from birth to death. Given how the government loves to expand, I'm surprised that their isn't a government program to get a nanny for the poor so that she doesn't have to feed the child, dress the child, or change its diapers...
ivalueamerica (anonymous) says…
A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. "The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability"—25 percent, to be exact—"of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters," says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. "The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/236996
jaywalker (anonymous) replies…
What's up, value? Crickets from ya after that despicable smear last evening. Ring and run? Is that one of those precious American values you keep blathering about? Cowardice anyone?
ivalueamerica (anonymous) replies…
you are a traitor, you hate the Constitution and you wish America to fall.
You are al-quada of sorts, the enemy within.
You rate nothing, you have no value.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
I'm glad to see people like ivalueamerica who conduct themselves with restraint and dignity, and with tolerance and respect for divergent opinions.
ivalueamerica (anonymous) replies…
i have no tolerance or patience for enemies to America, racists, rapists, child molesters and the like.
jaywalker (anonymous) replies…
Atta girl, keep diggin' yourself deeper.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Aaah. Gotcha. Care to prove any of that? Or are you just a mud-slinging coward, hidin' behind a user name that's obviously not representative of who you really are? We already have a solid contingent of morons on these boards. Welcome to their club. I now will look forward to making you look silly at every opportunity. Picked a fight with the wrong guy, value.
cait48 (anonymous) says…
The Tea Party? (Which started out as the Teabaggers until they got a clue, which took awhile.) hahahahaha!!! lolerskates!!!!!!!!!111 roflcopter!!!!!111
Ummm......no.
Moderate (anonymous) says…
See:
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/loyal...