How Trump exposed the Tea Party

[JakeStarkey]

You don't have to be unbiased to be right.

The left hasn't been correct about anything in a very long time.

Like what?

You have difficulty with words?

What does anything mean to you in your pink sky world?

It means you think liberals are wrong to support preserving Medicare and Social Security.

Where are the Dems policies for preserving them?
Putting more on them without raising FICA taxes.

The FICA tax should be raised to a cap of a million income yearly.

 

[Mac1958]

This is a pretty freakin' interesting piece:

How Trump Exposed the Tea Party

It addresses the screamingly obvious fact that the GOP base is more populist than Libertarian, as evidenced by the fact that they're constantly forgiving his more moderate views and statements, which certainly are pushing smaller government.

Tea Partiers, your thoughts?
.

This T.E.A. party member has done nothing but warn of the truth about Trump since his announcement to run. I'm not even sure who it is you are talking about.

Admittedly, it's tough to put a finger on precisely who Tea Partiers are.

I can say, though, that Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin have clearly been VERY pro-Tea Party from the beginning, and despite the fact that it can be difficult to find conservatives who admit to listening to any of them, their influence is pretty clear. All of those talk show hosts have also been supportive of Trump, so it's not difficult to draw a line here.
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The listeners here who admit to listening to Rush, Sean, Glenn, etc., kudos to you for being honest. The rest of you are fraidy cats. Here is an image of The Rabbi and JimBowie.

 

[Stephanie]

BINGO, No one can tell by a person if they are from the Tea party. so anyone claiming they know and can write some article about them, is full of shit. that's it nuff said.

 

[Darkwind]

This is a pretty freakin' interesting piece:

How Trump Exposed the Tea Party

It addresses the screamingly obvious fact that the GOP base is more populist than Libertarian, as evidenced by the fact that they're constantly forgiving his more moderate views and statements, which certainly are pushing smaller government.

Tea Partiers, your thoughts?
.

This T.E.A. party member has done nothing but warn of the truth about Trump since his announcement to run. I'm not even sure who it is you are talking about.

Admittedly, it's tough to put a finger on precisely who Tea Partiers are.

I can say, though, that Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin have clearly been VERY pro-Tea Party from the beginning, and despite the fact that it can be difficult to find conservatives who admit to listening to any of them, their influence is pretty clear. All of those talk show hosts have also been supportive of Trump, so it's not difficult to draw a line here.
.

Well, the T.E.A. party is for responsible, small government that adheres to clearly defined budgetary policy. Despite what the nutjobs on this forum think, any conservative who IS conservative supports that.

As for the pundits and news outlets supporting Trump......well, it is what it is.....Unlike the left, most conservatives are not lemmings and don't simply follow a populist meme........or so I used to think.

The right's support of Trump has Me reevaluating that notion.

 

[Darkwind]

Polutico jumped the shark of being UNBIASED when Sarah Palin was running for Vice President of the country. they led the charge in VILE and hate that was put out about her. You see what they put out with this garbage article about the Tea party. they've become just another leftwing HATE site in my book

You don't have to be unbiased to be right.

The left hasn't been correct about anything in a very long time.

Like what?

You have difficulty with words?

What does anything mean to you in your pink sky world?

It means you think liberals are wrong to support preserving Medicare and Social Security.

It means no such thing. Liberals don't support preserving Medicare and Social Security.....Otherwise, they would move it off budget (put it in an untouchable lock-box and return it to actually belonging to the people who contribute to it) and support sensible reforms......

 

[SwimExpert]

Seriously folks, who want to go over to a party (Democrat) who calls people in the country, Teabaggers?

Yeah, because you're so flattering yourself when talking about them....

lol, well I don't call her that but. it's damn fitting. I just call her what she is: a nasty corrupted WITCH

If it's smutty or un-American they are all for it

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I think that Trump is just the latest outlet for the misdirected rage of the White Working Class.

If these people realized that it was the 1% who were the source of most of their misery, we'd see real change.

Trump is rejecting the homophobia and religious bigotry and just going direct with racism and misogyny.

There's no racism or misogyny. Thats just more emotional goo manufactured by libs. However, Im not a trump fan. His views on taxation, bigger govt progs are antithetical to the constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't have to be unbiased to be right.

The left hasn't been correct about anything in a very long time.

Like what?

You have difficulty with words?

What does anything mean to you in your pink sky world?

It means you think liberals are wrong to support preserving Medicare and Social Security.

It means no such thing. Liberals don't support preserving Medicare and Social Security.....Otherwise, they would move it off budget (put it in an untouchable lock-box and return it to actually belonging to the people who contribute to it) and support sensible reforms......

It's already in a lockbox. It's invested in US securities and cannot be used for anything other than paying recipients.

Stop being an ass.

 

[Stephanie]

You see the same old talking points. they want to get rid of or cut blaa blaa blaa

what everyone should want, I don't care what party you belong.... is CUTTING down this government that is consuming us with the need of more and more ways to TAX us to pay for it. and that would be Gutting some of these Government Agencies that are worthless and redundant that WE THE PEOPLE has to pay for. but you can't get that through these people's heads who supports the Democrats. they always come back with the Fearmongering. they want to cut SS, welfare, the police and fire department, which by way is paid for by your State and property taxes and on and on. we now have a Tyrant Government who thinks they should be RULING on what size soda cups we can have, what kind of light bulbs we need and the BIG ONE is this OBAMACARE.
It's becoming a waste of time trying to get that though to people... so this Federal Government will continue to just STEAMROLL over us. But you can bet the whining from the left/liberal/commies, if Republican takes back President and does the crap this administration has to us.

 

[Darkwind]

The left hasn't been correct about anything in a very long time.

Like what?

You have difficulty with words?

What does anything mean to you in your pink sky world?

It means you think liberals are wrong to support preserving Medicare and Social Security.

It means no such thing. Liberals don't support preserving Medicare and Social Security.....Otherwise, they would move it off budget (put it in an untouchable lock-box and return it to actually belonging to the people who contribute to it) and support sensible reforms......

It's already in a lockbox. It's invested in US securities and cannot be used for anything other than paying recipients.

Stop being an ass.

Like I said.....never correct about anything.

 

[bodecea]

ah yes, good ole Polutico. we knew it only time before they dug up and dumped on the Tea Party.

shun that garbage site. they are BIASED against any and all Republican

What do you think of Trump's views on health care, infrastructure and individual income taxation?

Just get specific, don't worry about partisan politics, I'd like to know.
.

What I think about him: is MY business. but that doesn't mean some ass from polutico has a crystal ball and knows what people from the Tea party thinks about Trump either

You don't want to share your opinions on politicians on a political message board?

Okay.
.

You know why, don't you?

 

[bodecea]

This is a pretty freakin' interesting piece:

How Trump Exposed the Tea Party

It addresses the screamingly obvious fact that the GOP base is more populist than Libertarian, as evidenced by the fact that they're constantly forgiving his more moderate views and statements, which certainly are pushing smaller government.

Tea Partiers, your thoughts?
.

Donald Trump is exposing the Republican Establishment, not the Tea Party.

All the Tea Party wanted was to cut spending and keep Obama from getting his ACA.

The reason being that the ACA isn't just socialized medicine, but a massive tax increase and a path to almost total control of our lives by big government.

So are you confident that Trump would repeal the ACA and actually cut spending on top of that?
.

I don't think anyone is Confident with any of these of politicians. Well unless they are a Democrat, they seem to just swallow what their party says no questions asked.
But, They all say they are going to do one thing and turn around and stab us in the back. Hell look at Obama for that. Look at these snake Republicans who just got control of Congress and stabbed us in the back. but unless this person who wrote that crap for Polutico has a crystal ball, they have NO IDEA what anyone thinks or what they are FORGIVING. I mean really

I thought you were happy about the 2014 election. You sure bring it up a lot.

 

[bodecea]

Seriously folks, who want to go over to a party (Democrat) who calls people in the country, Teabaggers? As for Trump that's up to the person if they support him or support someone else. but that person who wrote that article doesn't know jack shit about The Tea party unless they have a Crystal ball. and he should just take a hammer to it, because it's a dirtbag and so was that article.

Teabaggers called themselves Teabaggers until someone pointed out their ignorance on the name.....and now you all pretend you never called yourselves that at all and it was some mean left wing name calling. Can't you take responsibility for ANYTHING you do?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Like what?

You have difficulty with words?

What does anything mean to you in your pink sky world?

It means you think liberals are wrong to support preserving Medicare and Social Security.

It means no such thing. Liberals don't support preserving Medicare and Social Security.....Otherwise, they would move it off budget (put it in an untouchable lock-box and return it to actually belonging to the people who contribute to it) and support sensible reforms......

It's already in a lockbox. It's invested in US securities and cannot be used for anything other than paying recipients.

Stop being an ass.

Like I said.....never correct about anything.

You tell us what you think a lockbox would be, exactly.

 

[whitehall]

The Tea Party is "less a libertarian movement than a (right wing) version of populism". Is that it? Does this trite simplistic sentence pass for an "exposure" of the Tea Party? The left must be desperate.

 

[Darkwind]

You have difficulty with words?

What does anything mean to you in your pink sky world?

It means you think liberals are wrong to support preserving Medicare and Social Security.

It means no such thing. Liberals don't support preserving Medicare and Social Security.....Otherwise, they would move it off budget (put it in an untouchable lock-box and return it to actually belonging to the people who contribute to it) and support sensible reforms......

It's already in a lockbox. It's invested in US securities and cannot be used for anything other than paying recipients.

Stop being an ass.

Like I said.....never correct about anything.

You tell us what you think a lockbox would be, exactly.

There is a pretty standard definition of what a lock-box is, but I am not surprised you don't know what it is..

If the SS and Medicare funds were in a lockbox and "off-budget" then if there was a reason to defund government, the President would not have the authority to withhold retirement and medical payment checks as a matter of political posturing....However, since we know that the SS and Medicare systems are essentally treated as "on budget", even though SS is allegdly 'off-budget, we still have the use of these funds in the general ledger and are subject to use as political weapons.

The BEA budget treatment of Social Security basically remains the law to the present day. Specifically, present law mandates that the two Social Security Trust Funds, and the operations of the Postal Service, are formally considered to be "off-budget" and no longer part of the unified federal budget. (The Medicare Trust Funds, by contrast, are once again part of the unified budget.) So where matters stand presently is that the transactions to the Social Security Trust Funds and the operations of the Postal Service are "off-budget" and everything else is "on-budget."

However, those involved in budget matters often produce two sets of numbers, one without Social Security included in the budget totals and one with Social Security included. Thus, Social Security is still frequently treated as though it were part of the unified federal budget even though, technically, it no longer is.

To illustrate the difference between the "on-budget" and "off-budget" parts of the federal budget, we can observe that for fiscal year 2004 the following figures were reported by OMB:

Social Security History

A lock-box would take from the President AND Congress, the ability to stop payments to the recipients of these monies even if the entire federal government collapsed.

If liberals actually cared about SS and Medicare, they would remove these programs from ANY political influence, regardless of what party was in power.

Have a nice day.

 

[peach174]

Like what?

You have difficulty with words?

What does anything mean to you in your pink sky world?

It means you think liberals are wrong to support preserving Medicare and Social Security.

It means no such thing. Liberals don't support preserving Medicare and Social Security.....Otherwise, they would move it off budget (put it in an untouchable lock-box and return it to actually belonging to the people who contribute to it) and support sensible reforms......

It's already in a lockbox. It's invested in US securities and cannot be used for anything other than paying recipients.

Stop being an ass.

Like I said.....never correct about anything.

In this case yes he is.
Social Security History

The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

 

[Darkwind]

You have difficulty with words?

What does anything mean to you in your pink sky world?

It means you think liberals are wrong to support preserving Medicare and Social Security.

It means no such thing. Liberals don't support preserving Medicare and Social Security.....Otherwise, they would move it off budget (put it in an untouchable lock-box and return it to actually belonging to the people who contribute to it) and support sensible reforms......

It's already in a lockbox. It's invested in US securities and cannot be used for anything other than paying recipients.

Stop being an ass.

Like I said.....never correct about anything.

In this case yes he is.
Social Security History

The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

Yeah...the problem is.....it is still treated as "on-budget".......

If were off budget as he claims, then Obama (or any President for that matter) would not have the authority to stop payments to the retired because the government did not have any funds......

 

[whitehall]

How can anybody get excited about an essay that makes an inane issue about the difference between libertarians and populists when neither is clearly defined. It's pretty sad when the left thinks it has a gotcha moment when the Tea Party (which isn't really a political party) turns out to be a little bit populist and a little bit rock and roll.