So I infiltrated a "coffee Party" meeting and i found out....

[Vast LWC]

The tea party doesn't have any specific canidates we just have criteria for canidates. We will support any Republican, Libertarian, Independant, Democrat, ect ect who fit the criteria.

What is that criteria? Here:


-Being Fiscally responsible (AKA no defecit spending, balancing budgets, cutting spending in order to keep taxes flat or lower them)
-Keeping the size and scope of the federal government as small as possible
-Respecting the constitutional limits placed on the federal government


Pretty simple isn't it? I think this has been explained to you, by me, several times now but you still don't seem to grasp what the tea parties are all about. Its ok though I'm patient and happy to keep reminding you and correcting your misconceptions.

It is extremely simple. And, in principle, these are not bad points....

But, (and there's always a "but"), what happens when you break down these principles and get specific?

-Being fiscally responsible- breaks down to making cuts in the following areas:

• Social Security
• Medicare
• Defense Spending

Without making cuts in these areas, there is NO chance at all that the budget will be balanced at any time in the near future. You can cut every single other program in the federal budget, and, if you keep these programs going as they are, you will still have a deficit.

So, my point was not that we need to make cuts in these projects, which I believe we do (I know, surprised, right?) but instead:
How would the people you talked to react if you gave them the specific cuts that need to be made?

-Keeping the size and scope of the federal government as small as possible- Breaks down to making cuts across the board in federal projects, and abandoning the invasions of other countries as part of the "War on Terror". And it also pertains to point 1.
How do you think people that are currently out of work will respond to the complete elimination of child labor laws, worker's compensation, and unemployment insurance?

-Respecting the constitutional limits placed on the federal government- This is a broad and undefined category, and by it, I assume you mean re-interpreting the "General Welfare" clause in the Constitution, going against almost 80 years of precedent. This will of course require a Constitutional amendment to specifically define the meaning of the clause, and will ELIMINATE Social Security, Medicare, etc.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It is extremely simple. And, in principle, these are not bad points....

But, (and there's always a "but"), what happens when you break down these principles and get specific?

-Being fiscally responsible- breaks down to making cuts in the following areas:

• Social Security
• Medicare
• Defense Spending

Without making cuts in these areas, there is NO chance at all that the budget will be balanced at any time in the near future. You can cut every single other program in the federal budget, and, if you keep these programs going as they are, you will still have a deficit.

So, my point was not that we need to make cuts in these projects, which I believe we do (I know, surprised, right?) but instead:
How would the people you talked to react if you gave them the specific cuts that need to be made?

-Keeping the size and scope of the federal government as small as possible- Breaks down to making cuts across the board in federal projects, and abandoning the invasions of other countries as part of the "War on Terror". And it also pertains to point 1.
How do you think people that are currently out of work will respond to the complete elimination of child labor laws, worker's compensation, and unemployment insurance?

-Respecting the constitutional limits placed on the federal government- This is a broad and undefined category, and by it, I assume you mean re-interpreting the "General Welfare" clause in the Constitution, going against almost 80 years of precedent. This will of course require a Constitutional amendment to specifically define the meaning of the clause, and will ELIMINATE Social Security, Medicare, etc.

Cutting the Ideological Left out of US Governance... entirely, doesn't cost a single US Citizen a DIME.

Seniors are not entitled to tens of millions of dollars each in Medical treatment at the ends of their lives; unless and where they have made arrangements for 10s of millions of their OWN dollars to be sitting there for them towards the end of their lives...

Which, HAD they taken the SAME CASH which the US government confiscated in SS over a working lifetime and invested that money in the US Economy; under the same untouchable scenario in which those confiscated monies had rested... they'd HAVE certainly millions... if not tens of millions to spend on whatever they wanted. And if that was medical care... FINE.

And NONE of that, has ANYTHING to do with the US Military. US National Defense does not compete for entitlement dollars... Entitlement dollars ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.

If there was no SS, and No Medicare, Medicaid or other entitlements... THERE'D BE NO US NATIONAL DEBT.

So it's not a complex equation... You're gonna die... get used to the idea.

You do NOT have a right to force someone else to pay for your medical care... and the US Government is NOT vested by its citizens with the morally justifiable power to confiscate your income to subsidize someone else, FOR ANY REASON. PERIOD!

 

[Vast LWC]

I doubt he forgot it... given that it's a discussion of principle.

Once we agree in principle; once the principles are outlined, specificed and re-established; the programs which are to be cut become self-evident. The issue then simply becomes which ones will demand that the principles be damned... and those will of course be THE LEFTISTS.

We do in fact agree in principle, though you might find it strange. I believe that things like Social Security, Medicare and Defense Spending all need to be cut.

With Social Security and Medicare, I would raise the retirement age to a level more applicable to an age where people are living longer and healthier lives.

With Defense, I would close the vast majority of our foreign bases, and cut programs that are not directly related to the defense of our nation. That would amount to about a 50% cut.

Growing economies don't raise taxes... they cut taxes, and the slashed expenditures, coupled with the growing economy pays down the debt.

As has been discussed previously in other threads, the point on the Laffer Curve where cutting taxes raises revenues is long past, ESPECIALLY due to the fact that the economy collapsed in itself recently to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars.

Thus, eliminating the deficit would in fact require a significant tax increase, at least for the short term, until some of the debt has been paid back, reducing interest costs.

ROFL... Notice how she's already turned on the principles? Never takes long.

Who's "she"?

There are no "Republican Programs" that need funding... ZERO, None, Nada... There are only Constitutionally required government necessaties... After that, if it's not being provided by private interests, it isn't provided.

Two easy examples, right off the top of my head are:

-Medicare Part D
-Various Defense programs

In fact, federal spending under Bush, and the Republican congress increased more than under any other president since Johnson.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf

Like it or not, these are, specifically, "Republican Programs that need funding".

And that's not even including the vast amount of pork expenditures, like the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" that were undertaken by REPUBLICANS.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not leaving Democrats blameless for unnecessary spending, but your point that Republican programs do not require spending is clearly fallacious.

There's only one relevant faction and that is the American Faction... Everything else is merely a rationalization of the Ideological Left and can readily be dismissed as an irrelevant means to an entitlement end.

Oh universal position on those factions begins and ends with FUCK YOU!

Not really sure where you're going with this except to plant a couple of talking points into the conversation.

The Founder of the Tea-Party has not held a "Niggar sign". This is a myth created by the Moderate, Centrist, Mainstream Progressives and their photo-shop equipped minions...

But again kids... What you're looking at here is the desperation of the last gasps of the Progressive movement. Deciet and Fraud...

It's all they've ever had; so it serves reason that it's all they've got left.

Like it or not, the founder of the tea party did in fact hold up that sign. Alan Colmes, formerly the punching bag of FoxNews, called him on it in an interview. This link holds the text of that interview:

Alan Colmes Busts Dale Robertson on Racist Photo The Washington Independent

But it can be found in many other places, including Colmes' site.

 

[Vast LWC]

Cutting the Ideological Left out of US Governance... entirely, doesn't cost a single US Citizen a DIME.

And does not save a dime on the deficit. Republicans are responsible for more of the debt than any "ideological leftists". That is a fact.

Seniors are not entitled to tens of millions of dollars each in Medical treatment at the ends of their lives; unless and where they have made arrangements for 10s of millions of their OWN dollars to be sitting there for them towards the end of their lives...

Which, HAD they taken the SAME CASH which the US government confiscated in SS over a working lifetime and invested that money in the US Economy; under the same untouchable scenario in which those confiscated monies had rested... they'd HAVE certainly millions... if not tens of millions to spend on whatever they wanted. And if that was medical care... FINE.

That cash was not "confiscated" by "Ideological leftists", it was used to pay for federal spending by both parties, more Republican than Democrat, though the Democrats did in fact contribute a significant amount to the rape of the fund.

My generation in fact, has to pay twice as much as the generations before it. The original level for social security taxes was 3 percent of income (plus 3 percent from employers) it is now 6 percent of income (plus 6 percent from employers).

In other words, that money went to YOU and the rest of the people of our country to pay for roads, schools, and most especially our bloated defense budget, which leads us to:

And NONE of that, has ANYTHING to do with the US Military. US National Defense does not compete for entitlement dollars... Entitlement dollars ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.

If there was no SS, and No Medicare, Medicaid or other entitlements... THERE'D BE NO US NATIONAL DEBT.

So it's not a complex equation... You're gonna die... get used to the idea.

You do NOT have a right to force someone else to pay for your medical care... and the US Government is NOT vested by its citizens with the morally justifiable power to confiscate your income to subsidize someone else, FOR ANY REASON. PERIOD!

All of this has to do with military spending. We spend more on our military than the REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. We spend 6 times as much as our closest competitor, China.

This is well beyond the Constitutional mandate to spend for the defense of our country. Our country would be quite well defended from any possible attacker if we cut the military by half, or 2/3 for that matter.

Any additional funding is not "defense", it is "offensive" in nature, and therefore Unconstitutional.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The tea party doesn't have any specific canidates we just have criteria for canidates. We will support any Republican, Libertarian, Independant, Democrat, ect ect who fit the criteria.

What is that criteria? Here:


-Being Fiscally responsible (AKA no defecit spending, balancing budgets, cutting spending in order to keep taxes flat or lower them)
-Keeping the size and scope of the federal government as small as possible
-Respecting the constitutional limits placed on the federal government


Pretty simple isn't it? I think this has been explained to you, by me, several times now but you still don't seem to grasp what the tea parties are all about. Its ok though I'm patient and happy to keep reminding you and correcting your misconceptions.

It is extremely simple. And, in principle, these are not bad points....

But, (and there's always a "but"), what happens when you break down these principles and get specific?

-Being fiscally responsible- breaks down to making cuts in the following areas:

• Social Security
• Medicare
• Defense Spending

Without making cuts in these areas, there is NO chance at all that the budget will be balanced at any time in the near future. You can cut every single other program in the federal budget, and, if you keep these programs going as they are, you will still have a deficit.

So, my point was not that we need to make cuts in these projects, which I believe we do (I know, surprised, right?) but instead:
How would the people you talked to react if you gave them the specific cuts that need to be made?

-Keeping the size and scope of the federal government as small as possible- Breaks down to making cuts across the board in federal projects, and abandoning the invasions of other countries as part of the "War on Terror". And it also pertains to point 1.
How do you think people that are currently out of work will respond to the complete elimination of child labor laws, worker's compensation, and unemployment insurance?

-Respecting the constitutional limits placed on the federal government- This is a broad and undefined category, and by it, I assume you mean re-interpreting the "General Welfare" clause in the Constitution, going against almost 80 years of precedent. This will of course require a Constitutional amendment to specifically define the meaning of the clause, and will ELIMINATE Social Security, Medicare, etc.

We will all have to sacrifice to fix the problem. I'm personally willing to give up every dollar i've paid into social security and do away with providing benefits to anyone who isn't receiving it or about to in the next 10 years.

Child labor laws are not entitlements they are regulations. Worker's compensation insurance is paid by the employer not the federal government and employers are responsible to pay the unemployment adminstration for workers they have on unemployment.

Yes some people will be pissed and we will have some civil unrest over it (see france) but its something we have to do if we are to survive as a nation in the long run. I for one am willing to sacrifice any benefits i may receive from the government, other than national defense, to do so. (National defense is really the only constitional authority the federal government has a responsibility to us for anyway)

As far as your general welfare clause comment and 80 years of precedent I have a question for you. When was the constitution written? It was written in 1787 and became effective in 1789. 1789-1930 was 141 years of precedent and it was overturned for social security.

 

[Vast LWC]

We will all have to sacrifice to fix the problem. I'm personally willing to give up every dollar i've paid into social security and do away with providing benefits to anyone who isn't receiving it or about to in the next 10 years.

Yes some people will be pissed and we will have some civil unrest over it (see france) but its something we have to do if we are to survive as a nation in the long run. I for one am willing to sacrifice any benefits i may receive from the government, other than national defense, to do so. (National defense is really the only constitional authority the federal government has a responsibility to us for anyway)


As far as your general welfare clause comment and 80 years of precedent I have a question for you. When was the constitution written? It was written in 1787 and became effective in 1789. 1789-1930 was 141 years of precedent and it was overturned for social security.

The average lifespan in 1789 was around 40 years old.

Therefore there was never a need to enumerate powers that took care of the elderly, because, in general, there were no elderly to speak of.

However, the founding fathers, in their wisdom, intentionally left vague wording in the Constitution to provide for unforeseen circumstances.

"Provide for the General Welfare" is certainly not the only example of this open-ended writing. There was an excellent op-ed in the Times last week that addressed this very subject, among other things.

Op-Ed Contributor - Our Fill-in-the-Blank Constitution - NYTimes.com

Specifically:

...we need only look to the text of the Constitution. It defines our most fundamental rights and protections in open-ended terms: “freedom of speech,” for example, and “equal protection of the laws,” “due process of law,” “unreasonable searches and seizures,” “free exercise” of religion and “cruel and unusual punishment.” These terms are not self-defining; they did not have clear meanings even to the people who drafted them. The framers fully understood that they were leaving it to future generations to use their intelligence, judgment and experience to give concrete meaning to the expressed aspirations.

Putting this aside, however, the point is that the founding fathers themselves were of two schools on the subject, one led by Madison and one by Hamilton. Court decisions since the 1930's have sided with the Hamiltonian point of view, therefore that is the Constitutional point of view, until either a new court decision is made reversing all 80 years of precedent, or a Constitutional Amendment is created, adding specific limitations on the General Welfare clause.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I dont follow the "constitution as a living doctrine" dogma as you do (well i'm assuming since you seem to enjoy that NYtimes article which is a justification for the constitution being a living and not static document)

Thats where our opinions always diverge, we just wont agree on certain things because of this.

 

[Modbert]

If PI sincerely tells me good job and to keep up the good work, I'd feel dirty inside and question what I'm doing.

 

[Vast LWC]

I dont follow the "constitution as a living doctrine" dogma as you do (well i'm assuming since you seem to enjoy that NYtimes article which is a justification for the constitution being a living and not static document)

Thats where our opinions always diverge, we just wont agree on certain things because of this.

But my argument is not that it's a "living document". I am saying that the General Welfare clause specifically allows for this.

No changes need to be made. The document literally states "Provide for the General Welfare".

It does not list any specifics on the subject, and can therefore be interpreted in the way it has been by the Supreme Court.

After all, that is their job.

 

[rightwinger]

[/IMG]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win -Ghandi

Problem for the Tea Parties is that nobody has gotten past the "then they will laugh at you" part

the problem with your dishonest comment is that it is:

Untrue. That is of course the nature of dishonesty. But since you are generally dishonest, this should come as no news to you, Leftwinger.

The acts of infiltration and the disinformation campaigns are all part of the fight against them.

I'm sorry Tea Party persons (see..I didn't even call you Tea Baggers). Nobody is laughing at you

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

If PI sincerely tells me good job and to keep up the good work, I'd feel dirty inside and question what I'm doing.

 

[rightwinger]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win -Ghandi

Problem for the Tea Parties is that nobody has gotten past the "then they will laugh at you" part

the problem with your dishonest comment is that it is:

Untrue. That is of course the nature of dishonesty. But since you are generally dishonest, this should come as no news to you, Leftwinger.

The acts of infiltration and the disinformation campaigns are all part of the fight against them.

Really....nobody is laughing at Tea Party participants

 

[Modbert]

Have a full supply?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I dont follow the "constitution as a living doctrine" dogma as you do (well i'm assuming since you seem to enjoy that NYtimes article which is a justification for the constitution being a living and not static document)

Thats where our opinions always diverge, we just wont agree on certain things because of this.

But my argument is not that it's a "living document". I am saying that the General Welfare clause specifically allows for this.

No changes need to be made. The document literally states "Provide for the General Welfare".

It does not list any specifics on the subject, and can therefore be interpreted in the way it has been by the Supreme Court.

After all, that is their job.

Provide the general defense and PROMOTE the general welfare. This discussion we have also had before . I feel they differentiated between the two because they didn't say provide they said promote.

sorry i paraphrased if anyone has a problem use google, lol.

 

[rightwinger]

This is really serious.......Tea Party going people need respect

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

"Yawn" old pictures of either infilitrators or idiots. Do you actually have anything you can grasp enough to debate?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Have a full supply?

LOL i do, trust me i need it constantly much for a similar reason as why you wanted it

 

[Vast LWC]

Provide the general defense and PROMOTE the general welfare. This discussion we have also had before . I feel they differentiated between the two because they didn't say provide they said promote.

sorry i paraphrased if anyone has a problem use google, lol.

No, as we also discussed...

It says "Promote" in the preamble to the Constitution, which does not specifically dictate anything, it's just an introduction.

It says "Provide for" in Article I, Section 8 where enumerated powers are listed.

Article I | LII / Legal Information Institute

Specifically:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

yes I remember that....i actually thought of it while i was writing another post and just came back here to try and edit my post before you responded

too late

 

[Vast LWC]

Unfortunately I have to take off for the evening.

Pilgrim, as always, though we disagree, it was a pleasure debating you.

I'm going to give you rep on a random post just for being such a civil debater.