| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/22/2010 07:19:47 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The New Deal. When has NOT addressing a problem ever worked? Tax breaks have primarily been for the wealthy, and that only burns the other end of the same deficit candle— less money coming in has the same effect as more money going out. Be careful what you wish for regarding "balance of power," too. The more evenly matched the parties are, the more difficult it is to get ANYTHING accomplished as each side thwarts the other. |
Actually, a lot of studies suggest that it was WWII that finally ended the Great Depression and the New Deal did very little, if anything to end the depression. Some even suggest that the New Deal prolonged the depression. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 08:17:44 AM · #27 |
Why would any American who understands the Constitution of the United States, understands fiscal responsibility from our government and believes our government should operate as it was architected by our founding fathers think the tea party movement is evil?
The Constitution of the United States was written to protect the citizens of the United States from a government getting to big. Ever since FDR turned the U.S. into a welfare state he and every president after him has been making government bigger and bigger. Exactly the opposite of what our founding fathers wanted.
Government intervention rarely provides positive results. Any interference by the government causes resources to be diverted from the productive more efficient private sector.
Message edited by author 2010-09-22 12:21:01. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 09:14:44 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by hister:
Government intervention rarely provides positive results. |
Called the police lately? Driven on an Interstate? Used the internet, or money?
Don't these people realize that there is no way to go back to an "everyone for themselves" society -- there are too many people on the Earth to do away with interdependence. Anarchist/collectivist societies work well up to thousands of members, but I don't see any prospect of it working with millions or billions of members. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 09:37:14 AM · #29 |
What's the difference between Libertarians and Tea Partiers? Just easier to spell?
So far what i know is the Tea Partiers are supposed to be non-establishment - a star fish, not a spider. So if you chop off a leg or two, it lives.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2010 10:25:16 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Actually, a lot of studies suggest that it was WWII that finally ended the Great Depression and the New Deal did very little, if anything to end the depression. Some even suggest that the New Deal prolonged the depression. |
The Great Depression began in 1929, and the New Deal was FDR's response in three stages: 1933, 1934-1936 and 1937-1938. GDP and industrial production both surpassed pre-depression levels by 1937— each surging immediate after New Deal acts. Thus, the depression was over long before WWII began. The primary impact of WWII was to mobilize everyone to work. Although the unemployment rate had already been cut by more than half before the Pearl Harbor attacks in 1941, it dropped drastically afterwards due to the draft, with the military putting those people to work at government expense! |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 10:29:20 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by tate:
What's the difference between Libertarians and Tea Partiers? Just easier to spell?
So far what i know is the Tea Partiers are supposed to be non-establishment - a star fish, not a spider. So if you chop off a leg or two, it lives. |
While the Tea Party claims to want to reduce the size of government, I have never heard them support the idea of cutting the size of the military, an idea that Libertarians support, as far as I know. That's one big difference. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 10:35:32 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by hister:
Government intervention rarely provides positive results. |
Called the police lately? Driven on an Interstate? Used the internet, or money?
Don't these people realize that there is no way to go back to an "everyone for themselves" society -- there are too many people on the Earth to do away with interdependence. Anarchist/collectivist societies work well up to thousands of members, but I don't see any prospect of it working with millions or billions of members. |
Liberals always run to the extreme to make an example. I have yet to see a tea party activist say get rid of the police or roads! Please provide an example, I'm sure scalvert has a few links? Do the libs really believe this is what the tea partiers are about?
I believe they are more concerned about stimulus, healthcare bill, bailouts... They aren't mad about paying taxes for common services.
And, I believe they are just as mad at Bush and the spend and spend some more republicans of that era. Correct me if I'm wrong but I could swear i heard somewhere they pushed the "favored" GOP choice out of the way? Obama and recent spending on top of the collapse was only the straw that broke their back.
I haven't been to any rallies, I don't claim to be a member, that's just what I've seen when you take away all the liberal spin put on them. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 11:16:57 AM · #33 |
This is the best definition of a tea partier I've seen:
"I want a smaller government, an environment that is cherished, and citizens who take personal responsibility for their actions. I want those in need to be cared for, a military capable of protecting us, and the Constitution to be followed. I want our national borders to be secure and a national balanced budget. I want liberty for all, inasmuch as it doesn't encroach on the liberties of others."
|
|
|
|
09/22/2010 12:30:40 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Called the police lately? Driven on an Interstate? Used the internet, or money?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on you can do better than that, if not lets look at each of your points one at a time.
Police.
I’m talking about the federal government. Police are paid by local municipality taxes, unless of course they can’t balance their budget and cry to the federal government to bail them out. But that is a whole different discussion. For now let’s stick to the federal government.
Interstate Highways.
According to the community organizer we elected as president thru his latest stimulus plan, the government will spend billions of our dollars building new roads and fixing old ones. They say they'll do it efficiently. I don’t buy it. The government has never been efficient before and it isn't going to start now. Why are they so inefficient? No competition. When they make a mistake they don’t lose their job or even get punished. They correct it by blaming past administrations and raising taxes.
Want an example? Here’s oneâ€Â¦
Rush hour. Rush hours from hell are not natural phenomena. They're manmade. More specifically, politician-made. But what if commuting didn't have to be a horrendous experience? What if, for example, someone wanted to add some lanes to a road or build an entirely new road? It's happening. Private road builders are doing it. In California on Highway 91instead of building a brand-new road, a private developer added two lanes in the median strip of an existing highway. The beauty of it: Unlike government work, the private highway is all voluntary. No driver or taxpayer was forced to pay for the extra lanes. Drivers can choose to use them or not. Those who want to go faster have to pay a toll -- from a buck fifty to $9 -- depending on traffic. You know that they're going to run a better road than the politicians can because, if they don't do a better job, people won't drive on it, and they'll lose a lot of money. They have every incentive to make traffic flow swiftly, to make that drive as pleasant and safe as possible.
Internet
To my knowledge the internet is not run by the federal government, oh wait I forgot, it was created by Al Gore..
To be fair I believe your trying to refer to the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act and the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992. The internet would have happened anyway regardless of these two acts.
Money
This is a good one. I could write volumes about this subject but will try to keep it short.
We can’t talk about money in America without talking about the Federal Reserve. The U.S. dollar is weakening and will continue the long-term trend of losing value vs. gold and other major currencies because of horrific monetary and fiscal policies being pursued by the Federal Reserve, Congress and President Obama. It didn’t start with Obama, or Bush or Clintonâ€Â¦. The problem is Obama and Bernanke are doing the same thing Bush and Greenspan did, only much faster. Since the Fed’s creation in 1913 the dollar has lost more than 96% of its value, and by recklessly inflating the money supply the Fed continues to distort interest rates and erodes the value of the dollar.
To make matters worse, the government simply misspends our money. They are wasteful and inefficient and just too big.
Message edited by author 2010-09-22 17:13:34. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 01:06:14 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I have yet to see a tea party activist say get rid of the police or roads! Please provide an example, I'm sure scalvert has a few links? Do the libs really believe this is what the tea partiers are about?
I believe they are more concerned about stimulus, healthcare bill, bailouts... They aren't mad about paying taxes for common services. |
Mmm, yeah... They're concerned about stimulus, but want a better economy. They want smaller government, but don't want cuts in government services. They hate the healthcare bill, but complain about rising costs and reduced services. They're livid about the expense of bailouts that saved tens of thousands of jobs, but ignore the government getting repaid plus an average of 10% interest. They demand a balanced budget, but insist on extending Bush tax cuts that will add a projected $4 trillion to the deficit. In other words, they're upset... and basically clueless. Nothing wrong with the former, but has any Tea Party activist ever said HOW they would keep the things they want and lower the deficit without raising taxes or cutting services?
Message edited by author 2010-09-22 18:23:25. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 02:29:26 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I have yet to see a tea party activist say get rid of the police or roads! Please provide an example, I'm sure scalvert has a few links? Do the libs really believe this is what the tea partiers are about?
I believe they are more concerned about stimulus, healthcare bill, bailouts... They aren't mad about paying taxes for common services. |
Mmm, yeah... They're concerned about stimulus, but worried about the economy. They want smaller government, but don't want cuts in government services. They hate the healthcare bill, but complain about rising costs and reduced services. They're livid about the expense bailouts that saved tens of thousands of jobs, and ignore the government getting repaid plus an average of 10% interest. They demand a balanced budget, but insist on extending Bush tax cuts that will add a projected $4 trillion to the deficit. In other words, they're upset... and basically clueless. Nothing wrong with the former, but has any Tea Party activist ever said HOW they would keep the things they want and lower the deficit without raising taxes or cutting services? |
What, no links? I'm disappointed. I love how anyone that disagrees with you is clueless, end of argument. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 02:55:28 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I love how anyone that disagrees with you is clueless, end of argument. |
When did the Tea Party disagree with me, and how else would you characterize the discrepancy between the ideals they favor and the policies they demand? You can't keep existing services (or expand border security) AND shrink the government. You can't reduce the deficit AND keep tax cuts. You can't rail about saving tens of thousands of jobs with a massive bailout that gets repaid with interest AND complain about unemployment. Could you suggest a better word than cluelessness for such a basic disconnect with reality? |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 02:56:49 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
What, no links? I'm disappointed. I love how anyone that disagrees with you is clueless, end of argument. |
Ahem...yo didn't post any link either. As an aside, since you stated you aren't a member, why would you consider that the slight was even remotely directed at you?
Ray |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 04:23:21 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
What, no links? I'm disappointed. I love how anyone that disagrees with you is clueless, end of argument. |
Ahem...yo didn't post any link either. As an aside, since you stated you aren't a member, why would you consider that the slight was even remotely directed at you?
Ray |
Ahem... who said I thought it was directed at me? |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 04:26:02 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I love how anyone that disagrees with you is clueless, end of argument. |
When did the Tea Party disagree with me |
You mistake opinion for fact. |
|
|
|
09/22/2010 04:51:13 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by hister:
Want an example? Here’s oneâ€Â¦
Rush hour. Rush hours from hell are not natural phenomena. They're manmade. More specifically, politician-made. |
Nope -- they're made by corporations who don't support flex-time hours and telecommuting. There would be no rush hour is everyone wasn't coming to work at the same time.
Government -- specifically local planners -- may be partly to blame for allowing the building of bedroom communities requiring ridiculously long commutes to centers of commerce and industry, but the time-based congestion is the responsibility of the private sector, not government mandates. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 03:30:31 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by hister:
Want an example? Here’s oneâ€Â¦
Rush hour. Rush hours from hell are not natural phenomena. They're manmade. More specifically, politician-made. |
Nope -- they're made by corporations who don't support flex-time hours and telecommuting. There would be no rush hour is everyone wasn't coming to work at the same time.
Government -- specifically local planners -- may be partly to blame for allowing the building of bedroom communities requiring ridiculously long commutes to centers of commerce and industry, but the time-based congestion is the responsibility of the private sector, not government mandates. |
I just gave you a perfectly good example of how the private sector took care of the rush hour problem in California and you’re still going to tell me that the public sector can handle roads maintenance better? Municipalities around the country who contract their utilities to the private sector get better results with better service and save money. Why? Because of the most basic free market principles, competition. If they don’t deliver somebody else will. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 07:22:03 AM · #43 |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 12:33:40 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I have yet to see a tea party activist say get rid of the police or roads! Please provide an example, I'm sure scalvert has a few links? Do the libs really believe this is what the tea partiers are about?
I believe they are more concerned about stimulus, healthcare bill, bailouts... They aren't mad about paying taxes for common services. |
Mmm, yeah... They're concerned about stimulus, but want a better economy. They want smaller government, but don't want cuts in government services. They hate the healthcare bill, but complain about rising costs and reduced services. They're livid about the expense of bailouts that saved tens of thousands of jobs, but ignore the government getting repaid plus an average of 10% interest. They demand a balanced budget, but insist on extending Bush tax cuts that will add a projected $4 trillion to the deficit. In other words, they're upset... and basically clueless. Nothing wrong with the former, but has any Tea Party activist ever said HOW they would keep the things they want and lower the deficit without raising taxes or cutting services? |
Let’s briefly go over these points one at a time. They all warrant their own discussion topicâ€Â¦
They're concerned about stimulus, but worried about the economy
That’s because they are afraid of more “stimulus” from the government. As long as they keep pumping “stimulus” money to the public sector it will never work. The public sector does not produce anything and only cost us tax payers money. The stimulus has failed that’s why nobody wants them.
How did they fail? One example is when proposed by Obama, stimulus funds were to go to states (and then cities then towns ectâ€Â¦) for "shovel-ready" projects to quickly hire new private sector employees. But what really happened was the majority of stimulus money went to states and cities to help balance their budgets
smaller government, but don't want cuts in government services
I personally want smaller government and massive, ( I can’t stress this enough ) MASSIVE cuts in government “services” and spending.
hate the healthcare bill, but complain about rising costs and reduced services
The government can’t handle the problems that they currently have on their plate, and they want to expand their influence to our medical decisions. Not only is President Obama’s socialized medicine a scary intrusion into our personal lives, it’s simply too expensive. How are we going to pay for it?
I think one of the biggest problems with our current health care system is employer provided health insurance.
The other is Interstate Health Care Competition to Lower Health Insurance Premiums isn’t allowed. The United States Constitution is clear about the powers of Congress. Article I, section 8, paragraph 3 grants Congress the power to "regulate commerce...among the several states...." This power grants authority to regulate interstate commerce, which in the special case of health insurance, Congress has chosen not to exercise.
Nowhere does the Constitution authorize Congress, or the President, to force American citizens to buy a health insurance policy, or to micromanage any person's choice in purchasing a package of health benefits.
They're livid about the expense bailouts
They are livid about the bailouts because they are weakening the American dollar. In a free market society you need to have that risk of failure. Failing companies get bought out and taken over by successful, more efficient ones. Without government involvement business are created along with jobs. If the bailouts were so successful why is unemployment still so high? They are nothing more than a band-aid and don’t fix the problem.
A little over two hundred years ago the U.S.A. was a third world country. Because of Democracy and free market principles we became a super power faster than any other nation in the history of the world.
They demand a balanced budget, but insist on extending Bush tax cuts that will add a projected $4 trillion to the deficit.
This is a distorted fact at best. No matter what taxes get cut government spending also needs to be cut. So by extending the Bush tax cut but keep spending like we are doing of course the deficit will continue to rise.
Message edited by author 2010-09-23 16:41:28. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 12:57:33 PM · #45 |
They should probably follow the advice of the village idiots they vote for like, Christine O'Donnell and stop talking to the media altogether. Just when you thought this country's political landscape couldn't sink any lower it does. We have the politically impotent democrats vs the spectacularly stupid republicans. What a choice!
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/08/2025 10:46:09 AM EDT.
