tea party a movement or nuts

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

"Now do I think everyone at the TEA party is racist? No. "

Then why do you call them a racist organization, you have made that statement directly. If you want to call them a conservative republican organization, I would not disagree much, but I think its a conservative organization. Yes you have called them a hateful racist organization. This is the point of most contention between us. You make blanket statements like that.

As for 2012, personally I am more worried about 2010 and 2011. Who becomes President in 2012 is something I will worry about then. Its not like I am getting paid if one side wins over the other. If we are around long enough you will see me protest any decison made by either party that I feel is not in the best interest of the country. You are a big Obama supporter and thats okay, but you view everything as how it will impact his re-election, I submit that this is exactly the kind of mentality that is the problem on both sides of the political spectrum. Decisons should not be paid based on how they will be viewed in the voting both.

By the way I do not believe that the Tea Party is saying a particular tax needs to be cut, I think their protesting taxes which are about to begin i.e. health care, the rollback of the Bush tax cuts, and additional suggested taxes like the VAT tax. No more additional taxation. They are also saying no taxation without representation which is a condemnation more of congress than the president because they are saying the decisions being made are not representative of what the people want. IN short they are saying no one in washington is listening to the american in the street regardless of party.

ok let me apologize because truly like you said it's better that I call them a far right wing of the republican party then a racist organization- because they are not the Klan or Skinheads or some Neo nazi group.

ok what is the TEA party solution to health care- whether you no or it not we taxpayers are paying for the uninsured right now- I want to hear someone from the Tea party give a solution to healthcare. Also, tell me why Warren Buffet should be the only one getting a tax break? The Bush tax cuts was partial blame for the high defecit- does the TEA party want Obama just to continue to tax the hell out of the middle class???

[lacrew_2000]

Just because minorities choose not to go to Tea Party events, this does not mean they are racvist events. The same logic would mean Nascar and hockey fans are racist. Makes no sense at all. If you truly believe that these are thinly veiled racist events and not a populist uprising against growing government, well, I kinda feel sorry for you.

I do predict the Tea Party will have a huge impact in the mid terms. This is why so many democrats are 'retiring'. And I think there is a very good chance that the 2012 congressional elections will feature several 'tea party democrats', as politicians try to ride the wave. It is fascinating to watch...and the most viable third party since Perot...which should be very worrysome to Republicans, btw.

[dirty dog]

Well I am not a tea party member and I dont really think they care about health care other than how its going to be paid for, but I am not an expert on their cause, others would probably no more than I.

I think the primary cause of the rise in the deficit is two wars and a unprecidented natural distaster in New Orleans. Not the tax cuts. But lets talk about taxes for a second.

I dont think you fully comprehend the mentality of the rich you on the left are so eager to punish. First let me ask you this. Who owns the businesses that people work at. The answer rich people, you on the left think that when they are forced to pay more taxes they just pay them and accept it. Not true, what they do is factor those taxes into the cost of production and they raise the cost of the items they make. Who do you think pays for that, your right US. Furthermore, as a business owner I can tell you that the more I pay in taxes the less I have in Capital, the less willing I am to expand and hire more employee's, or to give those employee's I have raises. Tell me how you can promote job growth in the private sector if your taxing the private business sector to death. This class warefare that you on the left love so much, you know what I am talking about, big business is ripping you off littleman, there all greedy and they are just ripping you off so they deserve to be taxed at a higher rate. You know, these people you speak did not wake up one day and have a corperation, in most cases they started a small business, put in the time and sweat to make it grow, it was their money they invested, their energy that went into and their sweat that made it succesfull. So now that they are reaping a reward for a lifetime of hard work and dedication they are somehow evil and they should pay a higher tax rate, even though dollar for dollar they pay more than the avg person anyway, they should be punished and should have to pay a higher rate. I have still not seen an answer from the left for this rational. I suspect its envey, but I really want to know why, its not "cause they can better afford it", their "not impacted as much" those answers dont cut it, we should all pay the same rate, should McDonals charge you $10.00 for a value meal because you make more than the guy behind you in the drive through. You can better afford it, but it does not make it fair or right. I suspect you would not like mcdonalds for doing it and you would not think its fair.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

Just because minorities choose not to go to Tea Party events, this does not mean they are racvist events. The same logic would mean Nascar and hockey fans are racist. Makes no sense at all. If you truly believe that these are thinly veiled racist events and not a populist uprising against growing government, well, I kinda feel sorry for you.

I do predict the Tea Party will have a huge impact in the mid terms. This is why so many democrats are 'retiring'. And I think there is a very good chance that the 2012 congressional elections will feature several 'tea party democrats', as politicians try to ride the wave. It is fascinating to watch...and the most viable third party since Perot...which should be very worrysome to Republicans, btw.

Lacrew I have always felt we need a strong 3rd party system, but honestly you don't view the TEA party as a branch of the Republicans? If not the Republicans are doing an excellent job riding their coattails- i stated in other forums that there's a radio talk show host in Dallas that states he's a Tea party supporter and activist but he has called out just as many Republicans as Democrats and he has said oh his shows that the TEA party should not align themselves with the Republicans because he believes they are part of the problem as well.

[Sens55]

DD,

You're absolutely right. Uncle Ronnie argued that point 30 years ago. There is no such thing as a "Business Tax". Businesses don't pay taxes. They pass them along. Those that can't be directly passed along, like employment taxes, add to their total cost of employment. An employee making $50,000 more than likely costs his company over $70,000 when you add in the taxes, benefits (many mandated), unemployment insurance, etc. The higher that total employment cost goes, the fewer employees they hire. Just what we need in a down economy.

It's a standard tactic though. Add government-imposed programs, like the new health care bill, on a business and you can get away without calling it a 'tax'. But make no mistake, it IS a tax!

As far as the "racism" and the "extreme" elements in the Tea Party. Hell, there's enough of that on BOTH sides. It's news to hear about anything that goes haywire with anyone even loosely connected to the Tea Party. But don't forget, if you're violent for a liberal cause, like say bombing a federal installation, you can become a noted professor and friend of Senators...although they may distance themselves from you if they decide to run for President. It comes down to this. Whether or not Jesse James (or Che Gueverra, Fidel Castro, Bill Ayers, etc) are Outlaws or Heroes tends to come down to who's telling the story.

As far as racism, are you KIDDING me? Let's get honest, I know of NO white person that refused to vote for Obama because he was black. Were there some, I'm positive there were. But there were MILLIONS of blacks that voted for him for ONE reason and ONE REASON ONLY, and that was because he's black. I had a co-worker who's black, but in our conversations was pro-life, pro-gun, fiscally conservative, for traditional marriage, etc and he STILL voted Obama. Explain that!

The point is, the Tea Party isn't a "party". It's a movement. By it's very existence it is fractured, varied and ambiguous (for now anyway). I look at it like NOW or NAACP or any other organization that caters to a narrow band of issues. That the Tea Party deals with conservative issues isn't any different to me than the social progressives of the 60's that, by and large, became a part of the Democratic Party. It's just new for the Republicans. Historically the Republicans have been less of a coalition than Dems, who embraced a myriad of smaller groups (the anti-abortion, gay, minorities, labor, etc) a long time ago. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. It may be they act the "Ross Perot" and sink the Republicans. It may be that they reconcile with them enough to bring different positions into the platform.

[Sens55]

Oh and DD, I COMPLETELY agree with your points on the "rich". I think people forget the concept of Capitalism was Risk/Reward. The greater the risk, the greater the potential reward. As a sales manager I see this all the time. A HUGE percentage of my income is 'at risk'. If I want to get paid, I have to sell. When I do well, I can make a lot of money. But when I don't, I make a LOT less. But for years a lot of the office pukes, like the accountants and admin assistants get jealous because they are stuck making the same amount no matter how hard they work. So I ask them, would you be willing to give up half of your salary, put it at risk, and if you do REALLY well, you can make it back and then some, but if you don't, you lose it. To a PERSON they say "HELL NO!". So in other words, they want all the reward and none of the risk. Doesn't work like that. They go hand-in-hand.

Same goes for our employment sector. Small Business Owners run a HUGE risk, often putting up their own savings to get started. If they fail, they're fucked. A good friend of mine had a business that on a couple of occasions he had to take out a loan to make payroll! Now he's grown his business to several businesses and he's a multi-millionaire. Why should be be excessively taxed for being successful? After all, if he pays 1% of his income in tax, it's more money that I will pay all year!

And lets not forget the BIG issue. My friend now employs over 100 people, all of them making well above minimum wage. A 'poor' person can't do that. Hell I can't do that! If his return on his investment drops to a point where he's no longer making what he needs relevant to the risk (i.e. through taxes), he's forced to lay people off. The economic impact of that happening are far greater than the tax that was collected!

[dirty dog]

Sens, unfortunately the brain washing is to far progressed for some LOL. You know what I find interesting about violent protests. If you have a bunch of angry white folks complaining about taxes then they are racists preaching violence. But if you have a large number of hispanics tearing up store fronts, calling for the invasion of Arizona and calling for revolution in a country that they are not even citizens of it gets hardly a notice in the left wing news organizations. If it had been tea party members acting the same way as the mayday protestors it would be non stop in the news cycle on all of the channels. Oh well these harmless immigrants who just want a better life, but will shoot a sherriff deputy if need be, fit into the left wings agenda.

[Guest030911]

I would teabag Sarah Palin....

[Cheaper2buyit]

cpi300 I was wanting for someone to say that but at last she's to high priced now.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by Sens55

Oh and DD, I COMPLETELY agree with your points on the "rich". I think people forget the concept of Capitalism was Risk/Reward. The greater the risk, the greater the potential reward. As a sales manager I see this all the time. A HUGE percentage of my income is 'at risk'. If I want to get paid, I have to sell. When I do well, I can make a lot of money. But when I don't, I make a LOT less. But for years a lot of the office pukes, like the accountants and admin assistants get jealous because they are stuck making the same amount no matter how hard they work. So I ask them, would you be willing to give up half of your salary, put it at risk, and if you do REALLY well, you can make it back and then some, but if you don't, you lose it. To a PERSON they say "HELL NO!". So in other words, they want all the reward and none of the risk. Doesn't work like that. They go hand-in-hand.

Same goes for our employment sector. Small Business Owners run a HUGE risk, often putting up their own savings to get started. If they fail, they're fucked. A good friend of mine had a business that on a couple of occasions he had to take out a loan to make payroll! Now he's grown his business to several businesses and he's a multi-millionaire. Why should be be excessively taxed for being successful? After all, if he pays 1% of his income in tax, it's more money that I will pay all year!

And lets not forget the BIG issue. My friend now employs over 100 people, all of them making well above minimum wage. A 'poor' person can't do that. Hell I can't do that! If his return on his investment drops to a point where he's no longer making what he needs relevant to the risk (i.e. through taxes), he's forced to lay people off. The economic impact of that happening are far greater than the tax that was collected!

Sens, you make some good points. However, poor people employ tens of millions of people. There is both direct and indirect employment. Poor people have caused the building of many businesses that they do not have a direct interest, but because of their patronage, they indirectly create jobs. It could be a Walmart, McDonalds, a local grocery store, etc. Every car built in American and purchased by a poor person helps to create jobs in this country, albeit indirectly. Yes those cars do include many Toyota, Hondas, BMW, Mercedes, etc. Not just American car companies, but cars built in America. Now if these poor people no longer have this sort of income, those places go out of business. "Rich" people can/will only buy so many Big Macs, or cars, or steaks at the grocery store. A "fair tax" would actually cause much unemployment. Let's face it, most of our money has a trickle up effect. The "rich" end up with it eventually.

Bottom line is this, and I learned this from an accounting teacher in college. When people would come up to him and ask him how to get out of taxes, he told them to quit working. No income, no tax. We've have a progressive system and it isn't like anyone making large sums of money does not know how they tax system works. You make more, you pay more, fair or not. You don't want to pay more, don't make as much. We have all heard the saying that life is not fair, that applies to taxes as well. We can complain all we want, but it won't change and we will continue to have the IRS.

I am a patriot of this great country, I pay my taxes and I recognize the taxes must be paid as the price for living in what is arguably the best country this planet has ever been blessed with. With paying taxes come certain benefits. I travel on paved roads, I have clean water and air (compared to some places. LOL) and I am lucky enough to have the security provided by millions of young men and women draping the proverbial security blanket over this country. Even though my parents paid for my school as a child, we as Americans have the ability to educate the country as a whole with the taxes we pay. When did it become so unpatriotic to be proud of what your taxes provide and to pay one's fair share of taxes?

Sens, you are also absolutely right about taxes are passed on to us as consumers from companies. But do you think the savings would be passed along to us if we did away with corporate income taxes and just relied on taxes from payroll? Let's assume you buy something that cost $100. A corporation is probably paying an estimated $2.80 on taxes off of that sale. That is not a lot. You pay more in sales tax on a $100 purchase. Plus, we know that many, many people are not on payrolls, but get paid in cash. This is a way to ensure some taxes are contributed in their "name". Think of all the waiters and waitresses that do not report all of their income, and there are a lot of them.

Also, if everyone was a salesman and was willing to take the risk you take, who would be left to buy the goods or services. I know many hard working people that work much harder than those that are make a lot of money. I also know many well off people that work their ass off. One thing some of those people have in common is that they work their tails off, the difference is that some are better compensated for it. There are farmers bailing hay that get paid crap. There are some that shuffle papers that make a mint. But that is the profession they have, in large part because of education. But, like I said, life is not fair.

And Sens, tell the accountant the next time he/she complains about what you make, tell them because they are not a value added entity to the company. They are an expense.


Edit:

I do apologize because I was thinking I was posting in the Flat Tax thread. I'm going to leave this post because it is a response to Sens even though I was pointing out more flat tax points. Although the flat tax is a Tea Party issue.

[dirty dog]

Papa, I dont support a flat tax where everyone pays the same dollar figure because that would be unfair to the poor, byut a system where everyone pays the same percentage of their income in tax is a much fairer system than the one now where success is punished, we are all equal americans, we should all have to pay an equal percentage of our income to support it. That is the system I was speaking of when I started the flat tax thread.

[kcbigpapa]

DD, I don't think it's fair that I am not a CEO of a Fortune 500 company. I could venture a guess that I could make many of the same decisions they could and bring home a ton more bacon than I do now. I understand finance, economics, accounting and business management so I am every bit as well rounded as they are. I am more than willing to do the work they do without complaining. But alas, life isn't fair. Like I said, we know how the tax system works. Is there anywhere in our government (Declaration of Independence or the Constitution) that says life has to be fair? Like I said, it doesn't really matter. Money ends up in the hands of the wealthy anyways.

[dirty dog]

Well life is not fair but government is not life, when the government in acts laws that force us to spend money it should be the same for all people. But we can just agree to disagree and all is good in the world.

[KCJoe]

I could have taken Sprint stock from $80 to $8 for less than half of what they paid William Esrey.

[Sens55]

Big Papa,

I don't disagree with some of the things you've said. But I would like to point out a few differences. Those "indirect" jobs that the "poor" create (and let's face it, the poor in the US are still wealthier than average citizens in many countries) do not create those jobs. All of your examples are usage-based expenses. Two counter-arguments. Sure the rich guy might not eat that many Big Mac's, but when he buys a Lexus, he'll still pay more in taxes than the poor person did for buying their Chevelle and a years worth of Big Macs combined!

But the biggest difference is, if one poor person is having issues and stops buying Big Macs, McD's will still be fine. If the rich person is having issues and shutters his work place, 100 people are unemployed and then it's 101 people that won't be buying Big Macs. The point is, wealthy people create wealth when they invest it back into the system. They can do this by creating companies or by investing in existing companies. Either way, they're providing the capital for our system to run. Once they pull their money, companies (and banks) no longer have as much, and they have to start cutting expenses, of which employment is THE biggest expense for almost every company out there.

And, you asked if they were to cut payroll taxes would we see the benefit. I'd say ABSOLUTELY! It may take a while. But if a company is selling a product for $100 now that costs, including taxes $95 to produce and sell and the government gives them tax incentives so that it now costs $80 instead of $95, the price will drop. Maybe not immediately. But sooner or later a competitor will sell it for $98, so they'll drop to $95 and so on until it will most likely end up around $84 assuming that was the break even percentage for their minimum acceptable ROI. Lower than that, they stop producing it because it doesn't provide enough of a return to warrant it.

Your accounting teacher may have a point. But that's why you never hire an accountant to give financial advice. They can only tell you where the money went, it takes a qualified financial adviser to tell you where to put it. There's a difference. And one of the differences is in how the rich "make their money". They don't work for their money, their money works for them! They invest in enterprises that give them an adequate return on that investment for their lifestyle choices. Don't get me wrong, many rich guys work their asses off. But they're not working for a paycheck. They're working for investments. And if they do well, they can make money for generations. That's why Paris Hilton can parade around like a prima donna and never work a day in her life. Her daddy has created enough investments that they off of the return on those investments. And, provided the princess doesn't dip into the principle, that legacy could support them for generations in much the way the Kennedy's have.

KCJoe, that's funny, I went to work at Sprint when PCS was doubling it's value and EVERYONE was saying "buy it, buy it, buy it". I thought it was overpriced and wouldn't buy in. A year later it was worth half and within 3 years it wasn't even worth half of THAT! However, I made a small fortune when Bernie Ebbers caused MCI to tank and they went into penny-stock territory. They had millions of dollars of Federal Communications Contracts, they weren't going to be allowed to go under. I bought stocks at $0.17 that I sold $3.25. Only wish I could have bought more! I'd be retired right now!