Are all people in the Tea Party stupid are just the ones they put on TV

[JakeStarkey]

The Tea Party congressional caucus has a chance to be a real player, but it must not protect the rich at the expense of all other Americans. If it supports populist causes, then it may become a longtime force in politics.

 

[Annie]

The majority of those who swept into the House in the mid-term election of course.

The majority were NOT tea partiers, I know that's hard for some to follow.

However, the number that are TEA Party supporters outnumber the membership of the Congressional Black Caucus. This is not an unsubstantial group in either number or passion.

Which has zero to do with anything above.

 

[uscitizen]

Why do the Tea Party people support candidates that do the bidding of corporations and who support Wall Street?

I'd like to know more which candidates you are referring to. So broad a bush, so light on specifics.

Madeline, you agreed so please, feel free to add to the specifics of what you were agreeing with.

The majority of those who swept into the House in the mid-term election of course.

More specifically those who joined the Tea Party Caucus I would think.

 

[Annie]

I'd like to know more which candidates you are referring to. So broad a bush, so light on specifics.

Madeline, you agreed so please, feel free to add to the specifics of what you were agreeing with.

The majority of those who swept into the House in the mid-term election of course.

More specifically those who joined the Tea Party Caucus I would think.

Have they been voting as a bloc? Not on the Patriot Act I know. In the Senate, last I saw there were 3 members.

right now the most portent force of the tea parties is as influencers. People are coming around to the premises that are the basics. It's not Democrat and Republican, the elitists in both are going to dislike those that agree with the ideas.

 

[debater]

I'd like to know more which candidates you are referring to. So broad a bush, so light on specifics.

Madeline, you agreed so please, feel free to add to the specifics of what you were agreeing with.

The majority of those who swept into the House in the mid-term election of course.

The majority were NOT tea partiers, I know that's hard for some to follow.

They may not have been members of the Tea Party officially, but they follow the agenda of the Tea Party.

 

[debater]

The premise of your question assumes that there is something intrinsically wrong with corporations. They provide almost all the jobs In America and many are owned by billionaire ultra hard-core liberals like George Soros and Ted Turner, and their operations screw people all the time and pollute like mad. So what's your point?

Corporations provide many jobs of course, but that's because they have grown so powerful. The way that most corporations operate is to the detriment of a democratic society, as they manipulate politics and trample over the rights of citizens. Most corporations are not run by liberals and certainly do not function in a liberal manner.

So why do people in the Tea Party, who are angry about the Wall Street bailout, support members of Congress who allow corporations to exercise so much power? These people are fighting against the governments ability to control the power of the corporations that are doing so much damage to the middle class.

Corporations are, by definition, owned by groups who are comprised of those who have invested in the corporation and own the "stock" of the corporation. The Board and the Chairmen of the board are elected by the stock holders. A corporation is, therefore, quite literally a democratic organization of people who are pooling their resources for a common effort and common good.

What does "a liberal manner" mean?

Without corporations, how do you porpose that a middle class first rose then maintained? Prior to the rise of corporations, there was no middle class.

That's not the point. There's nothing wrong with corporations per se, just the way many of them are run and the fact that they are allowed to dominate our political system.

 

[debater]

The premise of your question assumes that there is something intrinsically wrong with corporations. They provide almost all the jobs In America and many are owned by billionaire ultra hard-core liberals like George Soros and Ted Turner, and their operations screw people all the time and pollute like mad. So what's your point?

Corporations provide many jobs of course, but that's because they have grown so powerful. The way that most corporations operate is to the detriment of a democratic society, as they manipulate politics and trample over the rights of citizens. Most corporations are not run by liberals and certainly do not function in a liberal manner.

So why do people in the Tea Party, who are angry about the Wall Street bailout, support members of Congress who allow corporations to exercise so much power? These people are fighting against the governments ability to control the power of the corporations that are doing so much damage to the middle class.

man, your post is so full of it it's amazing

1. Plenty of mega-corporations are run by liberals, cut the crap. That's stupid. Truly. CNN, Dreamworks, Oprah's mega-corp Harpo, billionaire George Soros, MCA/NBC/Universal, those alone are active propagandists and own most of the media, and also own sub-cops that pollute like mad.

2. 99% of corporations in America - at least that many - are small operations that hire less than 40 people - mom and pop stores, small farms, machine shops and the like. Many of those are just a few people, florists, stationary stores, etc. All need to form a corporation to protect themselves against liability. When you go after corporations, you're going after America itself. I know attacking corporations and misrepresenting them as mega, right-wing stereotypes is one of the last weapons of propaganda for the left, but it's still bullshit. We patriots don't like that. Go invade some other country.

Obviously you are ignorant. Only an ignorant person would think that corporations are run in a liberal manner. It doesn't matter what the personal beliefs of the CEO's are. Corporations are run to maximize profit and are conservative in their nature. This is what allows them to dominate our economy.In addition, it's foolish to assume that when talking about how corporations have a stranglehold on our government, that we are talking about local florists.

 

[AllieBaba]

Why do the Tea Party people support candidates that do the bidding of corporations and who support Wall Street?

I'd like to know more which candidates you are referring to. So broad a bush, so light on specifics.

Madeline, you agreed so please, feel free to add to the specifics of what you were agreeing with.

Some Tea Party supporters seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the interests of the mega-wealthy (pass the tax cuts for the rich or else) and those of the middle class, Annie. They seem to believe the economic downturn was not caused by Wall Street and the banks, but by heavy government regulation and taxation. That to reverse this downturn, we need only remove this impediment.

They seem to forget, the LACK of government regulation allowed BP to install a defective well in the Gulf, allowed Bernie Madoff to steal billions, allowed Big Ag to sell bad food, etc. They also seem not to notice how jobs are hemorraging out of this country, or that importing cheap Chinese goods may not be best for us all.

Some people seem to get an emotional high out of perceiving themselves as aligned with the mega-wealthy.....and will fight for their interests even at the cost of their own, to sate this craving.

JMO, of course.

Nice try, Madeline, but the faulty well in the Gulf has exfuckinglutely nothing to do with anything you're talking about. In other words, you're rambling incoherently and just dragging some very fuzzy facts to support your marginal logic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why do the Tea Party people support candidates that do the bidding of corporations and who support Wall Street?

In all fairness, it isn't easy to tell who is and is not in the Tea Party, and I suspect there's a wide divergence among those who view themselves as belonging as to what this movement is about.

But yes, many clearly do support such candidates. I think many people are fearful about the state of the economy and desperately want things to improve. They have come to believe that our pain is caused because government impedes business, and that if business were less regulated, had to pay lower taxes, and were better received by government, the economy would boom.....and there's some truth in this.

The problem is, the economy that would result would have fewer jobs for middle class, educated people, as they'd ship more off-shore. There'd be less made here, as labor is cheaper elsewhere and workplace safety laws are less stringent elsewhere. It can be almost impossible to convince a person making $40k a year that his interests and those of the Billionaries are not the same.

I imagine that corporatists are trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement as it did the social cons and neo-cons to form an alliance that had the votes. We see where all of that went.

I will support any Tea Party candidate who is for reduced spending, recognition of workers rights to bargain collectively, and populist causes.

 

[debater]

If you can't follow Madeline's logic, you are hopelessly lost. Well stated Madeline!

 

[debater]

Why do the Tea Party people support candidates that do the bidding of corporations and who support Wall Street?

In all fairness, it isn't easy to tell who is and is not in the Tea Party, and I suspect there's a wide divergence among those who view themselves as belonging as to what this movement is about.

But yes, many clearly do support such candidates. I think many people are fearful about the state of the economy and desperately want things to improve. They have come to believe that our pain is caused because government impedes business, and that if business were less regulated, had to pay lower taxes, and were better received by government, the economy would boom.....and there's some truth in this.

The problem is, the economy that would result would have fewer jobs for middle class, educated people, as they'd ship more off-shore. There'd be less made here, as labor is cheaper elsewhere and workplace safety laws are less stringent elsewhere. It can be almost impossible to convince a person making $40k a year that his interests and those of the Billionaries are not the same.

I imagine that corporatists are trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement as it did the social cons and neo-cons to form an alliance that had the votes. We see where all of that went.

I will support any Tea Party candidate who is for reduced spending, recognition of workers rights to bargain collectively, and populist causes.

It's the Tea Party members who need to be more aware of how they are being manipulated. You don't have to be in the Tea Party to support the things you listed.

 

[code1211]

The majority were NOT tea partiers, I know that's hard for some to follow.

However, the number that are TEA Party supporters outnumber the membership of the Congressional Black Caucus. This is not an unsubstantial group in either number or passion.

Which has zero to do with anything above.

I was only speaking to the potential for impact by the group of about 40 TEA Party folks. Any group that large whether it's the CBC, the TP or the Stupak amendment folks can have real power in votes if they stick together.

The TEA Party folks appear to have the willingness to stick together.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In all fairness, it isn't easy to tell who is and is not in the Tea Party, and I suspect there's a wide divergence among those who view themselves as belonging as to what this movement is about.

But yes, many clearly do support such candidates. I think many people are fearful about the state of the economy and desperately want things to improve. They have come to believe that our pain is caused because government impedes business, and that if business were less regulated, had to pay lower taxes, and were better received by government, the economy would boom.....and there's some truth in this.

The problem is, the economy that would result would have fewer jobs for middle class, educated people, as they'd ship more off-shore. There'd be less made here, as labor is cheaper elsewhere and workplace safety laws are less stringent elsewhere. It can be almost impossible to convince a person making $40k a year that his interests and those of the Billionaries are not the same.

I imagine that corporatists are trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement as it did the social cons and neo-cons to form an alliance that had the votes. We see where all of that went.

I will support any Tea Party candidate who is for reduced spending, recognition of workers rights to bargain collectively, and populist causes.

It's the Tea Party members who need to be more aware of how they are being manipulated. You don't have to be in the Tea Party to support the things you listed.

I wrote "Tea Party candidate", not Tea Party. There are too many wacks and flakes trying to co-opt the entity to bad purposes.

 

[The Infidel]

Why do the Tea Party people support candidates that do the bidding of corporations and who support Wall Street?

The premise of your question assumes that there is something intrinsically wrong with corporations. They provide almost all the jobs In America and many are owned by billionaire ultra hard-core liberals like George Soros and Ted Turner, and their operations screw people all the time and pollute like mad. So what's your point?

Corporations provide many jobs of course, but that's because they have grown so powerful. The way that most corporations operate is to the detriment of a democratic society, as they manipulate politics and trample over the rights of citizens. Most corporations are not run by liberals and certainly do not function in a liberal manner.

So why do people in the Tea Party, who are angry about the Wall Street bailout, support members of Congress who allow corporations to exercise so much power? These people are fighting against the governments ability to control the power of the corporations that are doing so much damage to the middle class.

You need to change your username to "talking point"

Its more fitting a name for ya

 

[code1211]

Why do the Tea Party people support candidates that do the bidding of corporations and who support Wall Street?

In all fairness, it isn't easy to tell who is and is not in the Tea Party, and I suspect there's a wide divergence among those who view themselves as belonging as to what this movement is about.

But yes, many clearly do support such candidates. I think many people are fearful about the state of the economy and desperately want things to improve. They have come to believe that our pain is caused because government impedes business, and that if business were less regulated, had to pay lower taxes, and were better received by government, the economy would boom.....and there's some truth in this.

The problem is, the economy that would result would have fewer jobs for middle class, educated people, as they'd ship more off-shore. There'd be less made here, as labor is cheaper elsewhere and workplace safety laws are less stringent elsewhere. It can be almost impossible to convince a person making $40k a year that his interests and those of the Billionaries are not the same.

I imagine that corporatists are trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement as it did the social cons and neo-cons to form an alliance that had the votes. We see where all of that went.

I will support any Tea Party candidate who is for reduced spending, recognition of workers rights to bargain collectively, and populist causes.

There are two separate and distinct groups that bargain collectively:

Private sector and public sector.

If a TEA Party Candidate or office holder is against higher taxes, he is logically against the excessively high benefits and wages granted to many in the public sector. When the Public Sector employees have cradle to grave benefits and wages twice that of their private sector bretheran, supporting their "right" to bargain collectively is opposing the "right" of everyone else to enjoy lower taxes.

When Democrat office holders grant huge benefit increases and then accept huge campaign donations from unions with which they "bargained", this is at least suspect and very probably incestuously dishonest.

One needn't use much imagination to connect the dots between this practice and outright bribery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All of that may be true. However, when the union leadership is saying wages, benefits, everything except collective bargaining rights is on the table, then Governor Mubarek Walker's utterances about not being a union buster is suspect.

 

[debater]

The premise of your question assumes that there is something intrinsically wrong with corporations. They provide almost all the jobs In America and many are owned by billionaire ultra hard-core liberals like George Soros and Ted Turner, and their operations screw people all the time and pollute like mad. So what's your point?

Corporations provide many jobs of course, but that's because they have grown so powerful. The way that most corporations operate is to the detriment of a democratic society, as they manipulate politics and trample over the rights of citizens. Most corporations are not run by liberals and certainly do not function in a liberal manner.

So why do people in the Tea Party, who are angry about the Wall Street bailout, support members of Congress who allow corporations to exercise so much power? These people are fighting against the governments ability to control the power of the corporations that are doing so much damage to the middle class.

You need to change your username to "talking point"

Its more fitting a name for ya

You can't identify what talking points are, since your comment is nonsensical. The monster trucks are proof enough.

 

[debater]

In all fairness, it isn't easy to tell who is and is not in the Tea Party, and I suspect there's a wide divergence among those who view themselves as belonging as to what this movement is about.

But yes, many clearly do support such candidates. I think many people are fearful about the state of the economy and desperately want things to improve. They have come to believe that our pain is caused because government impedes business, and that if business were less regulated, had to pay lower taxes, and were better received by government, the economy would boom.....and there's some truth in this.

The problem is, the economy that would result would have fewer jobs for middle class, educated people, as they'd ship more off-shore. There'd be less made here, as labor is cheaper elsewhere and workplace safety laws are less stringent elsewhere. It can be almost impossible to convince a person making $40k a year that his interests and those of the Billionaries are not the same.

I imagine that corporatists are trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement as it did the social cons and neo-cons to form an alliance that had the votes. We see where all of that went.

I will support any Tea Party candidate who is for reduced spending, recognition of workers rights to bargain collectively, and populist causes.

There are two separate and distinct groups that bargain collectively:

Private sector and public sector.

If a TEA Party Candidate or office holder is against higher taxes, he is logically against the excessively high benefits and wages granted to many in the public sector. When the Public Sector employees have cradle to grave benefits and wages twice that of their private sector bretheran, supporting their "right" to bargain collectively is opposing the "right" of everyone else to enjoy lower taxes.

When Democrat office holders grant huge benefit increases and then accept huge campaign donations from unions with which they "bargained", this is at least suspect and very probably incestuously dishonest.

One needn't use much imagination to connect the dots between this practice and outright bribery.

Nice fantasy, but in fact private sector jobs on average have far higher wages than the public sector. Where are you getting your information? And unlike many private sector jobs, public service contributes to the community.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Walker admits to 'Koch' that union-busting is ultimate goal

Governor Walker admit he wants to bust unions. It's time for Wisconsin citizens to bust him and any legislator who supports him.

 

[wihosa]

Thanks to Gov. Walkers willingness to run his mouth about his and the GOP's real agenda for American workers, to what he thought was his corporate overlord, David Koch, we now know that the the fiscal crises he created with his massive tax give away to the wealthy was just a pretext for Union Busting.

This has always been the agenda of the wealthy and the corporations, bust the unions!

If you're one of the suckers who have been fooled into hating unions think about what was created by unions for a minute and you might change your minds.

Before unions, most employees worked 10 hrs. a day, six days a week. There was no such thing as a "week end". There was no such thing as "overtime pay". No sick pay, no workers compensation, no unemployment insurance, no Social Security (fully half of seniors lived below the poverty line), no medicare, no child labor laws.

Essentially, every thing we think of as standard employment practices were created by unions. People literally died for these gains and now the wealthy want to do away with all of it, then we'll be just like Mexico, the uber rich living behind guarded gates and the rest living at subsitance levels.

The vast majority of Americans have seen a reduction in their buying power (real wages) over the last three decades of the GOP agenda.

If the righties win this battle, which direction do you think wages will be heading in the future?