f'ing LOVE the TEA party right now!!!!

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Jobs are being held up because the rich business owners want to keep more money for the selves, not because of over regulation you facktard

Typical response from the Marxist/Socialist/Communist Dumbocrats who don't understand economics. If the rich are so "greedy" as the idiot liberal likes to accuse them of, then it would go to reason that they want to expand their business to make even more money. And to grow, they would need more people to handle the additional volume of work, hence more jobs would be created. So it is clearly not the "evil rich" people as you state. Only the idiot Dumbocrat contradicts their own statements.

Here are some actual facts for you Marxist/Socialist/Communist Dumbocrats:

The annual cost of regulation—$1.75 trillion by one frequently cited estimate—represents twice the amount of individual income taxes collected last year (tough to hire when American businesses are spending $1.75 trillion on government regulation). Overall, from the beginning of the Obama Administration to mid-fiscal year (FY) 2011, regulators have imposed $38 billion in new costs on the American people, more than any comparable period on record. Consider Washington's red tape to be a hidden tax.

The mountain of regulations didn't begin under the Obama Administration. Under the Administration of George W. Bush (which is more evidence the GOP is just Liberal Lite), for example, $60 billion in additional annual regulatory costs were imposed on Americans. But, the rate at which burdens are growing has accelerated under the Obama Administration:

During its first 26 months—from taking office to mid-FY 2011—the Obama Administration has imposed 75 new major regulations with reported costs to the private sector exceeding $40 billion. During the same period, six major rulemaking proceedings reduced regulatory burdens by an estimated $1.5 billion, still leaving a net increase of more than $38 billion.

The actual cost of the new regulations is almost certainly higher due to under-estimation, agencies' failures to analyze costs, and the fact that "non-major" rules aren't even calculated. Amid the overwhelming weight of the evidence that government regulations are weighing down the American economy, President Obama continues to stiffle the economy with his Marxist policies.

Rather than ignorantly popping off at the mouth regarding subjects you know nothing about, why don't you educate yourself about what is really going on, you ignorant loud-mouthed jack ass.

I want to see the money not your copy and pasted rightwing talking points.

Must suck for ya when the facts, numbers and math are the talking points. You guys keep giving us talking points wrapped in gold leaf!

 

[8537]

Just because I like seeing you throw fits.

Red Tape: Rising Cost of Government Regulation | The Heritage Foundation

Now before your nose becomes disjointed try to counter with your own cost analysis.

Can you explain how the new ADA regs make compliance more expensive, as Heritage claims? I'm not sure how clarifying definitions for service animals and providing clearer guidance for ADA D&C standards adds up to more expensive regulation.

In fact, I'm quite certain those lead to less expensive regulation.

You clearly have no experience in the real world.

That's hilarious! But of course you don't mean to insult...oh no, you're just able to discern the entirety of one's experience from a couple posts on a message board.

I I'm not saying that to be combative or insulting - I'm just stating fact based on your insane comments. Any regulation costs money for a business. Any.

Indeed! And providing clarity about that regulation reduces the burden.

Something tells me you've never read an ADA reg in your life.

How you can come to the conclusion that regulation means saving money

How you can come to the conclusion that I said such a stupid thing is simply mind-boggling.

Try this: Read what I actually wrote instead of what you presume I might think. Then maybe we can have an actual conversation instead of you asking me to defend things I never said.

That's how it works in the real world you claim I've never experienced.

 

[auditor0007]

Oh wow that 70 billion a year balances the budget.


Another class warfare clown.

The class warfare has been in favor of the wealthy for so long, and yet so many conservatives have been duped into thinking it is the other way around. The top 10% earns 45% of all the income and only pays 30% of the taxes. What a deal for them. That leaves the rest of us screwed as that top 10% continues to increase their wealth while ours shrinks. But keep thinking that the wealthy are the ones who are creating the jobs. We've seen just how many they've created lately.

Well, at least you used the key word: earned. They earned their wealth. It's not yours to take. It's not yours to redistribute. It's not the government's to do with as they see fit. It is their wealth and they earned it. If you don't like what they are doing with it, then start your own company and become rich yourself. Then you can spend it your Marxist principles as you see fit. And you know what? I will 100% support you and your free will to believe in and practice Marxism with your own wealth. It really is that simple my friend.

So you believe the less you earn, the greater percentage of that you should pay in taxes, and the more you earn, the less you should pay. Got ya. We need a regressive tax system. Makes sense to me. Or maybe you just believe we shouldn't tax anybody anything. Yea, let's do that and see how well it works.

BTW, I am a business owner and pay taxes, so blow me with your Marxist bullshit.

 

[P@triot]

Can you explain how the new ADA regs make compliance more expensive, as Heritage claims? I'm not sure how clarifying definitions for service animals and providing clearer guidance for ADA D&C standards adds up to more expensive regulation.

In fact, I'm quite certain those lead to less expensive regulation.

You clearly have no experience in the real world. I'm not saying that to be combative or insulting - I'm just stating fact based on your insane comments. Any regulation costs money for a business. Any.

First of all, someone from the company has to read, learn, and understand the regulation. That = time and time = money. In many cases, that means an attorney. That's even more money. Most regulations require paper work - someone has to process that paper work. That's even more money. Make a mistake that causes you to default on that regulation, and you're hit with penalties, legal fees, etc. That's even more money.

How you can come to the conclusion that regulation means saving money is simply mind-boggling. You clearly have never run a business and I would even doubt held a job with statements like that.

So more regulations mean more jobs?

In many cases - yes. And that costs money for a business, which is not tied to the business they do and hence brings in no more revenue. If you're a hospital, hiring more doctors brings in more revenue because the patients pay for service from the doctor. But hiring more staff to process paperwork, ensure compliance with the law, etc. in order to meet the demands of HIPAA regulations costs the business tons of money while not generating any additional revenue. That causes healthcare costs to go up to cover those costs, and the liberals scream and wail about the costs of healthcare. It's just another glaring example of how their own policies and beliefs contradict themselves.

A universal fact that you liberals need to learn: government cannot artificially increase employment through policy or ignorant regulations. Only the free market can increase employment. It's damn time we free this market from the regulations of the Marxist Barack Hussein...

 

[uscitizen]

You clearly have no experience in the real world. I'm not saying that to be combative or insulting - I'm just stating fact based on your insane comments. Any regulation costs money for a business. Any.

First of all, someone from the company has to read, learn, and understand the regulation. That = time and time = money. In many cases, that means an attorney. That's even more money. Most regulations require paper work - someone has to process that paper work. That's even more money. Make a mistake that causes you to default on that regulation, and you're hit with penalties, legal fees, etc. That's even more money.

How you can come to the conclusion that regulation means saving money is simply mind-boggling. You clearly have never run a business and I would even doubt held a job with statements like that.

So more regulations mean more jobs?

In many cases - yes. And that costs money for a business, which is not tied to the business they do and hence brings in no more revenue. If you're a hospital, hiring more doctors brings in more revenue because the patients pay for service from the doctor. But hiring more staff to process paperwork, ensure compliance with the law, etc. in order to meet the demands of HIPAA regulations costs the business tons of money while not generating any additional revenue. That causes healthcare costs to go up to cover those costs, and the liberals scream and wail about the costs of healthcare. It's just another glaring example of how their own policies and beliefs contradict themselves.

A universal fact that you liberals need to learn: government cannot artificially increase employment through policy or ignorant regulations. Only the free market can increase employment. It's damn time we free this market from the regulations of the Marxist Barack Hussein...

But without jobs people will not buy any product/service from your business.
Jobs vs maximizing profit is a balancing act crucial to a consumer oriented economy.
Our business community has lost track of that point though.

We are racing to lower costs/labor in a country dependent on what consumers spend?
Not very brilliant if you ask me.

 

[auditor0007]

I'd love nothing more than an immediate and permanent government "default". Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have recklessly spent our money and spent us an additional $5 trillion in debt in only 2.5 years. There are no words to describe how irresponsible that is - and frankly I'm stunned that even the Socialist/Marxist/Communist Dumbocrats are not outraged by that insanity.

Additionally, there is simply no rational argument for not wanting a balanced budget amendment. How stupid do you have to be to spend money you don't have? The federal government has grown into a monstrosity that is completely out of control, and damn time the American people take back their country and force this current regime and future Administrations to adhere to the Constitution which limits their power by law.

Something that those of you who support a Balanced Budget Amendment do not understand is that such an amendment does not guarantee reduced spending. What it would guarantee is that when Congress determines that we need to spend more, for whatever reason, if the money isn't there, then taxes will have to be raised. This could be catastrophic to the economy at certain times.

Let's say we get that Balanced Budget Amendment and Republicans control the House, Senate, and the White House. In the event that the economy does not improve, all of a sudden, voters do what they normally do, and vote for more Liberal representation. What you will get is increased spending, and massive tax increases on the wealthy. I really don't think this is the road you want to go down.

Like everyone else, you're twisting the truth. Nobody claimed the Balanced Budget amendment "reduces spending". It stops them from spending beyond the budget. Henced "balanced" (not "reduced") like the rest of America. If we had it now, the Marxist Barack Hussein would not have been able to spend $5 trillion beyond the budget in only 2.5 years, and our national debt would still stand at $9 trillion like it did the day he took office.

Do you understand now?

Maybe, maybe not. They may have just raised taxes on the wealthy. Let me give you another example. Medicare is unsustainable on its present course. However, if it is determined that we are going to pay for it, and we have a Balanced Budget Amendment, then the only option will be to raise taxes. Do you understand now?

Probably not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We may need a default just to put an end to the crackpot tea partiers once and for all.

 

[P@triot]

The class warfare has been in favor of the wealthy for so long, and yet so many conservatives have been duped into thinking it is the other way around. The top 10% earns 45% of all the income and only pays 30% of the taxes. What a deal for them. That leaves the rest of us screwed as that top 10% continues to increase their wealth while ours shrinks. But keep thinking that the wealthy are the ones who are creating the jobs. We've seen just how many they've created lately.

Well, at least you used the key word: earned. They earned their wealth. It's not yours to take. It's not yours to redistribute. It's not the government's to do with as they see fit. It is their wealth and they earned it. If you don't like what they are doing with it, then start your own company and become rich yourself. Then you can spend it your Marxist principles as you see fit. And you know what? I will 100% support you and your free will to believe in and practice Marxism with your own wealth. It really is that simple my friend.

So you believe the less you earn, the greater percentage of that you should pay in taxes, and the more you earn, the less you should pay. Got ya. We need a regressive tax system. Makes sense to me. Or maybe you just believe we shouldn't tax anybody anything. Yea, let's do that and see how well it works.

BTW, I am a business owner and pay taxes, so blow me with your Marxist bullshit.

No, I believe the entire country should pay 10% in income tax, have absolutely no deductions available (closes the loopholes and not necessary when you're allowed to keep 90% of the wealth you earn), and all other forms of taxes should be elliminated immediately (sales tax, property tax, death tax, capital gains tax, etc.). By the way, 10% of a billion is $100 million. 10% of $60,000 is $6,000. So the rich do pay more as it currently stands and they would pay more how it should be. By closing loopholes, you no longer 90% of the IRS, because there would be nearly nothing to audit. That would save an ungodly amount of money alone. As would recovering the dollars lost to loopholes and tax evasion.

That is what I believe. But of course, you need to lie and put words in other people's mouth to further your failed cause. Our government has grown into an unconstitutional monstrosity that is all about waste. They waste trillions in hard earned tax payer dollars, and most of us are damn tired of it. I'm sorry if you like wealth being confiscated and wasted, simply because you have anger and bitterness towards those who have been more successful than you in life, but the rest of us do not.

 

[kwc57]

For all the praise that the forum Teabasturd lovers are showing they know their beloved Congressional Teabasturds will not get reelected.

I have to admit something here. You amaze me. Simply amaze me. I never thought it possible that any person could be as fucking clueless as you, but you proved me wrong. Those "Teabasturds" are the only politicians actually doing what they the campaigned and got elected for. Those who elected them are pleased that they are actually receiving the representation they voted for. They will be reelected handily.

no, your facking teabasturds haven't done shat, where are the jobs? They didn't get elected to make the government default and lower its credit rating, go back and look at what they campaigned on, jobs, thats the lie that those fackers sold.

You need to educate yourself if you don't want to continue looking like the doofus you are.

Let me help. Have your mom read and explain this to you.

Tea Party Patriots | Mission Statement and Core Values

Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.


Core Values
•Fiscal Responsibility
•Constitutionally Limited Government
•Free Markets


Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.


Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots, Inc. as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual. As an organization we do not take stances on social issues. We urge members to engage fully on the social issues they consider important and aligned with their beliefs.

Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tea Party movement (TPM) is an American populist[1][2][3] political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian,[4][5] and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[6][7][8] It endorses reduced government spending,[9][10] opposition to taxation in varying degrees,[10] reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit,[9] and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.[11]

The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773 and demonstrated by dumping British tea taken from docked ships into the harbor.[12] Some commentators have referred to the Tea in "Tea Party" as the backronym "Taxed Enough Already".[13][14]

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

We may need a default just to put an end to the crackpot tea partiers once and for all.

The Dems in the senate and the president are no better than the teapartiers.

The senate dems unanimously voted against both bills the repubs put forth and the President did not bargain in good faith when the dems and reps did give him a compromise bill they all agreed to (he then added more revenue to it making the compromise fail)

At least be honest NYcarbineer.....you know the left is not better than the tea party in this one.

Oh and yeah.....the teapartier plan below is so horrible right?

How do we get debt? From spending and bad budgets. What did the cut cap and balance bill do? It tries to control spending and bad budgets. The things in the bill are directly related to the debt ceiling

The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011

CUT

Cuts total spending by $111 billion in FY 2012. The savings is divided as follows:
•Reduce non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels, which saves $76 billion.
•$35 billion cut to non-veterans, non-Medicare, non-Social Security mandatory spending.
•Defense budget at President's level.

CAP

Total federal spending is scaled back based on the glide path for the fiscal years below:
•2012, 22.5% of GDP.
•2013, 21.7% of GDP.
•2014, 20.8% of GDP.
•2015, 20.2% of GDP.
•2016, 20.2% of GDP.
•2017, 20.0% of GDP.
•2018, 19.7% of GDP.
•2019, 19.9% of GDP.
•2020, 19.9% of GDP.
•2021, 19.9% of GDP.

BALANCE

Requires the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment before raising the nation's debt limit.

DEBT CEILING INCREASE CONTINGENT ON BBA

Provides for the President's request for a debt ceiling increase if a qualifying Balanced Budget Amendment passes Congress and is sent to the states for ratification.

 

[Article 15]

Their plan is to keep the markets as unstable as possible, to hinder growth, and play political football with the economy until the election all while accusing Obama of purposely trying to destroy the economy.

 

[Liability]

I'd love nothing more than an immediate and permanent government "default".

There you have it, folks. Tea Party patriotism on display. What's bad for America is good for the Tea Party.

Wrong. The contention is that what's GOOD for America is what the Tea Party applauds.

It is only in your fevered imagination that sticking to their guns is "bad for America." It isn't. In this instance, being stubborn is the only path to helping to SAVE the American Republic.

I would be happier if there was no brinksmanship.

The liberal Democratics can avoid this. ALL they have to do is agree with the guys trying to put the brakes on the irresponsible borrowing, debts acquisitions, deficit and spending.

In short, it is and ought to be incumbent on the liberal Democratics to stop playing games and to get down to the very hard business of being responsible.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama and Reid didn't want to compromise

 

[P@triot]

Something that those of you who support a Balanced Budget Amendment do not understand is that such an amendment does not guarantee reduced spending. What it would guarantee is that when Congress determines that we need to spend more, for whatever reason, if the money isn't there, then taxes will have to be raised. This could be catastrophic to the economy at certain times.

Let's say we get that Balanced Budget Amendment and Republicans control the House, Senate, and the White House. In the event that the economy does not improve, all of a sudden, voters do what they normally do, and vote for more Liberal representation. What you will get is increased spending, and massive tax increases on the wealthy. I really don't think this is the road you want to go down.

Like everyone else, you're twisting the truth. Nobody claimed the Balanced Budget amendment "reduces spending". It stops them from spending beyond the budget. Henced "balanced" (not "reduced") like the rest of America. If we had it now, the Marxist Barack Hussein would not have been able to spend $5 trillion beyond the budget in only 2.5 years, and our national debt would still stand at $9 trillion like it did the day he took office.

Do you understand now?

Maybe, maybe not. They may have just raised taxes on the wealthy. Let me give you another example. Medicare is unsustainable on its present course. However, if it is determined that we are going to pay for it, and we have a Balanced Budget Amendment, then the only option will be to raise taxes. Do you understand now?

Probably not.

Raising taxes is not the only option. We could get rid of it. Or turn it over to the private sector. Or just allow charity to handle the social issues of this nation while the federal government focuses on it's constitutional responsibilities.

Either way, at least we'd be having an honest debate about it up front, and not kicking the can down the road to ensure power by promising social programs we can't afford while running up $14 trillion in debt. If you're so worried about higher taxes for Medicare in the future, why are you not worried about the taxes it will take to pay off the $14 trillion debt? Furthermore, that debt is accumulating millions in interest every second.

That's what the Balanced Budget does - it forces the Dumbocrats to have an honest debate on what their programs will cost the nation, instead of hiding it in debt spending and kicking it down the road for future generations to deal with. And that's exactly why Obama and the Dumbocrats are panicking over that suggestion.

The conservatives want responsible spending, the liberals want the debt ceiling raised. Both parties get what they want with each bill the House has passed and that is the very definition of compromise - yet it is Obama and Reid who refuse to agree to that deal or budge. And it's exactly why his poll numbers keep dropping and he will find himself a 1 term wonder and be along side Jimmy Carter in the discussion of biggest failures in US history.

 

[Liability]

Obama and Reid didn't want to compromise

They are angling for a crisis

and they just don't care about the suffering of the people they profess to care for as long as they perceive some cheap political advantage in it.

 

[Modbert]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKqk6ci-96c]‪Paul Ryan: I Never Thought It Was Realistic To Pass A BBA‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Their plan is to keep the markets as unstable as possible, to hinder growth, and play political football with the economy until the election all while accusing Obama of purposely trying to destroy the economy.

cut cap and balance did no such thing. It was actually a very good plan which would have reigned in much of this out of control spending from both parties.

The dems in the senate obstructed the plan and obama indicated he would obstruct it if they didn't.

All I see is republicans offering up plans to settle it and dems just saying NO NO NO NO NO

The dems are now the party of NO like the republicans were.

 

[Modbert]

I like how the "Conservative" talking point has gone from "We won't default or take damage if we don't raise the debt ceiling" to "If we default or take damage, it's Obama and the Democrats fault."

It's pretty amusing to see both talking points being used at the same time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Democrats are economic Jihadists

 

[Modbert]

Democrats are economic Jihadists

I'm unsure as to whether or not you're serious at this point or just a Liberal trying to troll the right.