It's On! The Teaparty Lashes Back At Boehner Calling Him A Liberal

[thereisnospoon]

"chickification" = equal rights for all Americans, male and female, as guaranteed under the Constitution.

All Americans should be "biased against" any who are against our Constitutional rights but, as we all know, the right has no love for equality.

That is YOUR opinion based on some screwed up belief.
You are free to hold that opinion. I dismiss it out of hand due to its basis in falsehoods.
As with most advocacy groups claiming to be "in support of", feminists are not pro women's issues, they are 'anti-male'.
All who claim advocacy MUST have a group to demonize.

Okay, please list ANY example of the League of Women Voters being "anti-male".

Here is a link to the VA Chapter of the League.
I read through the first few positions for 2013..
It is obvious the League's positions are solidly liberal.
So for you to take the position that the League is non-partisan is based on your liberal viewpoint. With liberal being neutral.
http://lwv-va.org/files/positions-2013-positons-full.pdf
Your premise was the League of Women Voters should be trusted as a non-partisan group is nonsense.
I used to be a supporter of NOW. That is until they got swallowed up in their own fundraising enrichment and went politically dead left.
Please do not be naive. Your statements have meaning. Anyone reasonably intelligent, with a healthy dose of cynicism can detect the bias of these groups.
Now that reality has been exposed, we're quite through here.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Genuine fiscal conservatives would hold the wealthy elite 1% accountable for the trillions of debt that has been racked up at taxpayer expense for failing to create the jobs. However the situation we currently see is that all attempts to recover those trillions are being stymied by the GOP.

Pure swill.

The debt has been run up by liberals and gutless moderate jerks who never met a worthless government program, that they couldn't throw billions upon billions of dollars at.

And government doesn't create jobs, people who create things others want to buy create jobs.

For a claimed "moderate", you talk an awful lot like a committed progressive socialist central planner.

Notice the injection of the lib talking point ( 1% er) Horse crap.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You are the mainstream of the Democrat Party.

Even though I'm one of the new kids on the block here, it's plain to recognize that you are a poser and nobody with 1/3 of a brain believes you are who you claim to be.

Give it up.

You are not alone in your assessment.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...is-jake-starkey-a-main-stream-republican.html

The far right of the board, like Ernie S. and Helena who are so far right that Goldwater looks liberal to them, keep frothing and foaming.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/327662-ernie-s-retarded-or-just-stupid-11.html

Oh shut up...You think anyone with a right turn signal on their car is an extremist.
You are the worst kind of politically involved person. You are dishonest.
You're the type democrat operatives use to infiltrate the local chapter of the republican club in hopes up digging up 'dirt'...

 

[thereisnospoon]

The current "mess" consists of too little income for the current level of spending. At the turn of the century tax revenues were reducing the deficit and on a path to bring down the national debt. That trend was reversed when "tax cuts" were given to the wealthy elite 1% on the bogus premise that they were "job creators" and would use the additional funds to actually "create jobs". Those additional "jobs" would result in greater tax revenues that would ultimately reduce the deficit and the debt.

However in the real world none of those jobs actually materialized. The wealthy elite 1% continued to enjoy their massive tax cuts while jobs that paid a living wage with benefits were offshored in a wholesale manner. This too resulted in greater tax savings for the wealthy elite 1%. This Ponzi scheme was not a matter of consensus and compromise. Instead it was pushed through congress while the GOP had control of both houses and the Whitehouse.

Genuine fiscal conservatives would hold the wealthy elite 1% accountable for the trillions of debt that has been racked up at taxpayer expense for failing to create the jobs. However the situation we currently see is that all attempts to recover those trillions are being stymied by the GOP.

The sane and moderate consensus solution is to find a way to reduce spending and increase revenues.

Should I assume that you are talking about the tax cuts from the Reagan administration or the Bush administration?
In either case, those tax cuts were given to every level of income, not just the 1% that you pretend. Since you either don't know that fact or refuse to acknowledge it will make it difficult for me to explain my point and difficult for you to understand it. I'll try nevertheless.

You are correct when you say "The current "mess" consists of too little income for the current level of spending." I think the point at which you and I diverge on are agreement to the possible solution. Yours being to tax the wealthy (a nebulous definition) and mine being to cut federal spending (also somewhat nebulous).

As a fiscal conservative, I find the outlandish spending of the federal government to be at fault, not the taxpayer (1%'er or not) that is paying taxes.

Millions of US citizens live within their available budget, thousands of US companies live within their budget, why can't the government?

The Reagan taxcuts were overturned by Reagan himself when he discovered that his own spending goals exceeded his revenues. What he failed to do was to raise revenues to meet his increased spending. That was left up to Bush Sr and he increased revenues with what was then the largest tax increase in the history of the nation and he was subsequently punished by the right for doing so. (Although he was correct that spending did need to be increased to cover both GW1 and the larger Defense budget.)

Clinton then passed an even larger Tax increase and with the support of the Republican congress they effectively reduced spending as well. These 2 tax increases did not stop "job creators" from investing heavily and the largest economic boom this nation has ever seen occurred during the WJC administration. Not only was deficit spending eliminated but the national debt was being reduced under those revenue and spending policies. Please note that they included funding for additional teachers and policemen.

The current mess started when the revenues were slashed and spending skyrocketed (largely off the books) under the following administration. The measly $300 pa that the average taxpayer received was a pittance compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars that ended up in the pockets of the top 1%. Those tax cuts threw the whole system out of balance and the unfunded spending spree increase set the path for the current $17 trillion in debt.

If you want to "live within a budget" then you must be willing to cut defense spending levels back to below where they were before Reagan took office. Are you willing to reduce Defense spending to that level? Because if you aren't then you are going to have to find the revenues to pay for it. Please note that SS and Medicare are funded through payroll taxes and only a minor tweak is needed to keep them solvent. Defense spending, and that includes all of the corporate welfare and veterans benefits, is the big issue that needs to be addressed. How much are you willing to cut and how do you intend to address the shortfall?

You can stick with that 1% er stuff all you like.
The problem is too much spending on a lot of nonsense.
You said so yourself....Revenue cannot keep up with current spending levels..
Here's an idea..Cut discretionary spending....It's real easy.
Look, your side is not fooling anyone. You people could not care less about revenue. You despise people who you view as 'having more than they need'. Combining that with your faux compassion for the less fortunate.
The left has always believed the poor can be enriched by making the rich poorer.
An example of this is illustrated in what would happen if a person of limited means was given a certain amount of money over and above their income level. Invariably, that person would end up spending the money unwisely and ending right back where they started. Or worse.
Contrary to lefty popular belief, taxation is not intended to be a means to punish or satisfy your desire to 'get even'.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Query: WTF is a "real conservative" these days? Is it a loon like Bachman or a big business darling like Boehner? Seems to be the only kinds we have to choose from.

I liked herman cain, palin is also a good choice. I liked ryan until he caved on the budget.

The federal system is out of control. Anyone who gets in there will cave or get trampled.

What we need is for states to rise up and create amendments to the Constitution to restrain the federal beast. First they should impose term limits on them and then a balanced budget amendment.

Polls show that about 75% of Americans favor both.

Here's the problem with that. Members of Congress are not going to pass legislation which could limit their power( balanced budget) or limit their income( term limits)
What is needed is a return to the citizen legislature with statesmen( non gender specific term) as representatives and senators.
People who will promise to serve the country and their constituents for a definite period of time and then go home.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I liked herman cain, palin is also a good choice. I liked ryan until he caved on the budget.

The federal system is out of control. Anyone who gets in there will cave or get trampled.

What we need is for states to rise up and create amendments to the Constitution to restrain the federal beast. First they should impose term limits on them and then a balanced budget amendment.

Polls show that about 75% of Americans favor both.

Here's the problem with that. Members of Congress are not going to pass legislation which could limit their power( balanced budget) or limit their income( term limits)
What is needed is a return to the citizen legislature with statesmen( non gender specific term) as representatives and senators.
People who will promise to serve the country and their constituents for a definite period of time and then go home.

I think he's talking about the amendment process that Mark Levin wrote about.

It doesn't require the hopelessly corrupt to police themselves.

Mark Levin | The Liberty Amendments | Sequester

 

[SwimExpert]

Polls show that about 75% of Americans favor both.

Then you won't mind presenting said polls, right?

 

[candycorn]

That is YOUR opinion based on some screwed up belief.
You are free to hold that opinion. I dismiss it out of hand due to its basis in falsehoods.
As with most advocacy groups claiming to be "in support of", feminists are not pro women's issues, they are 'anti-male'.
All who claim advocacy MUST have a group to demonize.

Okay, please list ANY example of the League of Women Voters being "anti-male".

Here is a link to the VA Chapter of the League.
I read through the first few positions for 2013..
It is obvious the League's positions are solidly liberal.
So for you to take the position that the League is non-partisan is based on your liberal viewpoint. With liberal being neutral.
http://lwv-va.org/files/positions-2013-positons-full.pdf
Your premise was the League of Women Voters should be trusted as a non-partisan group is nonsense.
I used to be a supporter of NOW. That is until they got swallowed up in their own fundraising enrichment and went politically dead left.
Please do not be naive. Your statements have meaning. Anyone reasonably intelligent, with a healthy dose of cynicism can detect the bias of these groups.
Now that reality has been exposed, we're quite through here.

So, liberal is "anti-male"? Are you really that dense?

For decades, the LOWV managed the presidential debates. They were much more informative, they were much more free-willing. Groups can have all sorts of bias but can get somethings correct. Where you detect bias...okay that's your opinion. But the result was debates that were something other than co-hosted infomercials.

Let me ask you this; were you happy with last year's fiasco with the audience in the 2nd debate? What, 6 questions were asked and 12 answers were given with no or little resemblance to the core of the question that was asked? This is the standard?

Romney got his ass handed to him twice. Paul Ryan once. And the only reason Romney didn't get his ass handed to him a third time was because Obama slept through the first debate. I would wager you have no clue of who organizes the debates you saw last year? It's not the "evil" left or the "evil" right, both sides agree to the formats, the moderators, and the time and place and length. Having a third party TELL the candidates what the stipulations are instead of having them chisel out any obstruction to the packaging is a good thing.

You're the only right wing loon who looks back fondly to the shellacking your boys took. With that, we're done here.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Should I assume that you are talking about the tax cuts from the Reagan administration or the Bush administration?
In either case, those tax cuts were given to every level of income, not just the 1% that you pretend. Since you either don't know that fact or refuse to acknowledge it will make it difficult for me to explain my point and difficult for you to understand it. I'll try nevertheless.

You are correct when you say "The current "mess" consists of too little income for the current level of spending." I think the point at which you and I diverge on are agreement to the possible solution. Yours being to tax the wealthy (a nebulous definition) and mine being to cut federal spending (also somewhat nebulous).

As a fiscal conservative, I find the outlandish spending of the federal government to be at fault, not the taxpayer (1%'er or not) that is paying taxes.

Millions of US citizens live within their available budget, thousands of US companies live within their budget, why can't the government?

The Reagan taxcuts were overturned by Reagan himself when he discovered that his own spending goals exceeded his revenues. What he failed to do was to raise revenues to meet his increased spending. That was left up to Bush Sr and he increased revenues with what was then the largest tax increase in the history of the nation and he was subsequently punished by the right for doing so. (Although he was correct that spending did need to be increased to cover both GW1 and the larger Defense budget.)

Clinton then passed an even larger Tax increase and with the support of the Republican congress they effectively reduced spending as well. These 2 tax increases did not stop "job creators" from investing heavily and the largest economic boom this nation has ever seen occurred during the WJC administration. Not only was deficit spending eliminated but the national debt was being reduced under those revenue and spending policies. Please note that they included funding for additional teachers and policemen.

The current mess started when the revenues were slashed and spending skyrocketed (largely off the books) under the following administration. The measly $300 pa that the average taxpayer received was a pittance compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars that ended up in the pockets of the top 1%. Those tax cuts threw the whole system out of balance and the unfunded spending spree increase set the path for the current $17 trillion in debt.

If you want to "live within a budget" then you must be willing to cut defense spending levels back to below where they were before Reagan took office. Are you willing to reduce Defense spending to that level? Because if you aren't then you are going to have to find the revenues to pay for it. Please note that SS and Medicare are funded through payroll taxes and only a minor tweak is needed to keep them solvent. Defense spending, and that includes all of the corporate welfare and veterans benefits, is the big issue that needs to be addressed. How much are you willing to cut and how do you intend to address the shortfall?

You can stick with that 1% er stuff all you like.
The problem is too much spending on a lot of nonsense.
You said so yourself....Revenue cannot keep up with current spending levels..
Here's an idea..Cut discretionary spending....It's real easy.
Look, your side is not fooling anyone. You people could not care less about revenue. You despise people who you view as 'having more than they need'. Combining that with your faux compassion for the less fortunate.
The left has always believed the poor can be enriched by making the rich poorer.
An example of this is illustrated in what would happen if a person of limited means was given a certain amount of money over and above their income level. Invariably, that person would end up spending the money unwisely and ending right back where they started. Or worse.
Contrary to lefty popular belief, taxation is not intended to be a means to punish or satisfy your desire to 'get even'.

Your ignorance and bigotry is not a substitute for rational argument. Have a nice day.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

As though your paternalistic hubris is is rational.

 

[Dot Com]

I hope Turd Blossom (Rove) opens the flood gates to all that secret foreign (chinese prolly) money he has to run ads against the teapartiers like Cruz 24/7

 

[Derideo_Te]

As though your paternalistic hubris is is rational.

Monotonous!

 

[NoVote]

What is needed is a return to the citizen legislature with statesmen( non gender specific term) as representatives and senators.
People who will promise to serve the country and their constituents for a definite period of time and then go home.

If a candidate were to say he wanted to serve for 15 terms of congress, and do nothing helpful in that time, would you vote for him?

Or that he wanted to win election so he would get full pay and forever healthcare for free till he dies, would you vote for him?

 

[thereisnospoon]

What is needed is a return to the citizen legislature with statesmen( non gender specific term) as representatives and senators.
People who will promise to serve the country and their constituents for a definite period of time and then go home.

If a candidate were to say he wanted to serve for 15 terms of congress, and do nothing helpful in that time, would you vote for him?

Or that he wanted to win election so he would get full pay and forever healthcare for free till he dies, would you vote for him?

I have entertained people who have asked dumb questions...
This one is Hall of Fame material.

 

[NoVote]

What he means is he didn't understand the question.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What he means is he didn't understand the question.

Would you mind quoting the person to whom you are responding?...Thanks

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Reagan taxcuts were overturned by Reagan himself when he discovered that his own spending goals exceeded his revenues. What he failed to do was to raise revenues to meet his increased spending. That was left up to Bush Sr and he increased revenues with what was then the largest tax increase in the history of the nation and he was subsequently punished by the right for doing so. (Although he was correct that spending did need to be increased to cover both GW1 and the larger Defense budget.)

Clinton then passed an even larger Tax increase and with the support of the Republican congress they effectively reduced spending as well. These 2 tax increases did not stop "job creators" from investing heavily and the largest economic boom this nation has ever seen occurred during the WJC administration. Not only was deficit spending eliminated but the national debt was being reduced under those revenue and spending policies. Please note that they included funding for additional teachers and policemen.

The current mess started when the revenues were slashed and spending skyrocketed (largely off the books) under the following administration. The measly $300 pa that the average taxpayer received was a pittance compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars that ended up in the pockets of the top 1%. Those tax cuts threw the whole system out of balance and the unfunded spending spree increase set the path for the current $17 trillion in debt.

If you want to "live within a budget" then you must be willing to cut defense spending levels back to below where they were before Reagan took office. Are you willing to reduce Defense spending to that level? Because if you aren't then you are going to have to find the revenues to pay for it. Please note that SS and Medicare are funded through payroll taxes and only a minor tweak is needed to keep them solvent. Defense spending, and that includes all of the corporate welfare and veterans benefits, is the big issue that needs to be addressed. How much are you willing to cut and how do you intend to address the shortfall?

You can stick with that 1% er stuff all you like.
The problem is too much spending on a lot of nonsense.
You said so yourself....Revenue cannot keep up with current spending levels..
Here's an idea..Cut discretionary spending....It's real easy.
Look, your side is not fooling anyone. You people could not care less about revenue. You despise people who you view as 'having more than they need'. Combining that with your faux compassion for the less fortunate.
The left has always believed the poor can be enriched by making the rich poorer.
An example of this is illustrated in what would happen if a person of limited means was given a certain amount of money over and above their income level. Invariably, that person would end up spending the money unwisely and ending right back where they started. Or worse.
Contrary to lefty popular belief, taxation is not intended to be a means to punish or satisfy your desire to 'get even'.

Your ignorance and bigotry is not a substitute for rational argument. Have a nice day.

Please explain how you make the great leap from fiscal responsibility inside the Beltway to "ignorance and ....Oh I love this ....Bigotry..
Save your lib talking points and platitudes for your neighborhood cul de sac gatherings..
You suburban yuppies are a trip.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

My guess is that the Tea Party will now fizzle out, or, go nuclear and become a real party with a presidential candidate in 2016, which,

all else being equal, will guarantee that the Democrats win the presidency.

Be careful for what you wish for, if the tea party can get nominated a true conservative. I would say we win in 2016, and you can thank obamacare for it.

2016? The democrats will be lucky if they survive the tar and feathering after obamacare implodes in early 2016

 

[Dot Com]

 

[thereisnospoon]

Geez..When's that from? The mid 1990's?