Tea Party Or OWS Agenda. Which Do You Prefer?

[paulitician]

I see one vote so far for supporting both. That's interesting but is it possible?

I don't believe so considering the Tea party embraces capitalism and limited government and 80% of OWS supports large government and socialism. Of course you have the intelligent libertarians out there that are just pissed off at Wall Street for some pretty good reasons. The others just envy anyone that has more than they do and feel entitled.

Not to mention all the OWS organizers and funders are anti-capitalists and anti-Tea Party, Bill Ayers, Michael Moore, Susan Serandon (sp) and the rest of the Hollyweird losers..

Yea you do make a strong argument against the idea of supporting both.

 

[Mr.Nick]

This is a very rich country. If we didn't have environmentlists controlling the economy we would be much richer. We have a SPENDING problem. Not only do we spend too much but we borrow money to spend more. Stop spending. obama just pledged 50 million dollars more to fight aids in Africa. We don't have it. Stop SPENDING.

It is a very rich country, I agree.

And most of the unnecessary SPENDING goes to programs that protect the interests of the rich.

You know, the roads that corporate goods travel on, the military that invades countries the corporations want to rape the resources of, the schools that train people for corporate jobs.

But the right-wing ditto-heads would have you think that all of our tax money goes to welfare, and that the poor, poor rich folks in this country pay way too much in taxes, and just can't get a fair shake.

What a crock of shit - democrats handout free money to anyone who supports them...

The ******* bailouts went right into the pockets of labor unions - no only that but Obamafuck created the cash for clunkers program just to stimulate UAW after he violated the Fifth Amendment by hijacking GM...

The only reason why democrats support higher taxes is because they want the government to give them free money... If republicans were so into government welfare then why the hell do they oppose tax increases???

 

[Mr.Nick]

I see one vote so far for supporting both. That's interesting but is it possible?

I don't believe so considering the Tea party embraces capitalism and limited government and 80% of OWS supports large government and socialism. Of course you have the intelligent libertarians out there that are just pissed off at Wall Street for some pretty good reasons. The others just envy anyone that has more than they do and feel entitled.

Not to mention all the OWS organizers and funders are anti-capitalists and anti-Tea Party, Bill Ayers, Michael Moore, Susan Serandon (sp) and the rest of the Hollyweird losers..

Yea you do make a strong argument against the idea of supporting both.

IMO, I think OWS is a total contradiction to everything the Tea Party stands for.

The Tea Party just wants smaller government and true capitalism, in my opinion OWS wants the opposite... Not to mention some of OWS don't even have an idea of what they want - they're just there to party - its one big everlasting rave to them.

 

[paulitician]

This is really tight. Almost even.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I have yet to see the Tea Party articulate exactly how their plan of low taxes and "smaller" government will lead to increased opportunities for the majority of Americans. I don't agree with everything the OWS people have to say, but at least their plans and ideas would directly translate to increased opportunities for Americans.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I support each group's right to free speech. The Tea Party protests are orderly, clean, and without violence. With OWS, you get rape, murder, drug use, and sex. Why is that?

Both groups are arguing for more money in their pockets.......just very different ways.

 

[paulitician]

Another vote for both. Hmm?

 

[DontBeStupid]

I support each group's right to free speech. The Tea Party protests are orderly, clean, and without violence. With OWS, you get rape, murder, drug use, and sex. Why is that?

Both groups are arguing for more money in their pockets.......just very different ways.

It's due to how the protests are being carried out. The TPers show up, protest and then leave. The OWS protesters are protesting 24/7. That kind of longevity opens up the possibility of trouble makers entering in. If the TPers set up shop somewhere and protested 24/7, I would all but guarantee the same problems would happen for them.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Both groups are arguing for more money in their pockets.......just very different ways.

I should also add, one of the aspects I like about the OWS movement is the emphasis on bettering society as a whole, and what each of us could do to achieve that end. For example, pulling your money out of a major international bank and depositing it in local banks. This would send a message to the big banks while benefiting local lending and local communities and is something all of us could do.

The Tea Party has no equivalent of this. In fact, the Tea Party has no emphasis, that I've seen, on society at all. Their demands are purely based on a personal level.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I have yet to see the Tea Party articulate exactly how their plan of low taxes and "smaller" government will lead to increased opportunities for the majority of Americans. I don't agree with everything the OWS people have to say, but at least their plans and ideas would directly translate to increased opportunities for Americans.

Here is the Dr. Seuss version...

The less money the government takes from you - the more you have to spend hence a better stimulated private sector economy..

Well unless you like getting ripped off by the government... Our government only pays people excess amounts of money to do nothing, lets not forget about the pensions either..

Our government doesn't work on supply and demand - it works on demands. Our government paying 75 bucks for a role of toilet paper is NOT good for the economy.

Our government has its own economy and the private sector has its own economy and the governments economy is destructive to the private sector because its the private sector that is funding that economy.

The notion that the government can just charge taxpayers 75 bucks for a roll of toilet paper via some government no-bid contract IS NOT supply and demand economics its just demand and that KILLS THE DOLLAR..

Why do you think gold skyrocketed???? because there is little demand for our dollar.

Less government means less taxes and less taxes equals more money in the private sector - the sector that actually relies on supply and demand as its basis for even existing..

 

[Mr.Nick]

I support each group's right to free speech. The Tea Party protests are orderly, clean, and without violence. With OWS, you get rape, murder, drug use, and sex. Why is that?

Both groups are arguing for more money in their pockets.......just very different ways.

Because OWS is the lowest denominator in our society and their actions certainly prove that.

The Tea Party wants nothing from the government other than it shrinking...

The Tea Party isn't begging government for free handouts or forgiveness of debt or even free college... The Tea Party is more than happy to work hard and pay their way in life unlike OWS...

The Tea Party cant afford to play "camp out" because they have families that need to eat among other responsibilities unlike OWS...

 

[Mr.Nick]

I don't even understand how anyone could support a bunch of dirty baboons like OWS....

People who shit, piss and puke everywhere while they burn their brains out with hard drugs and who don't even have a plan or a message cant possible be appealing to any intelligent individual...

People can hate Wall Street all they want but apes like OWS are only showing their stupidity via their behavior....

Would any rational intelligent person take some drunk drug addict who shits and pisses where he sleeps opinion seriously???

I mean they're only spreading diseases like TB and Hep C among others to boot..

WTF..

 

[DontBeStupid]

I have yet to see the Tea Party articulate exactly how their plan of low taxes and "smaller" government will lead to increased opportunities for the majority of Americans. I don't agree with everything the OWS people have to say, but at least their plans and ideas would directly translate to increased opportunities for Americans.

Here is the Dr. Seuss version...

The less money the government takes from you - the more you have to spend hence a better stimulated private sector economy..

But what if I choose not to spend it? Or I choose to spend it out of the country or invest abroad? How does my sending my money overseas stimulate the U.S. economy?

See, this is the problem with the faith-based economic policies of the right. Just because you cut taxes on a millionaire does not mean he will run out and buy a million dollars worth of goods and services. After all, he has the freedom to what he wants with his own money, right? So he has the freedom to NOT stimulate our economy, right? How does this help us?

Again, this is a stark difference between the two movements. The TPers talk about how changes will benefit themselves, period. Full stop. The OWS movement talks about how changes will affect the entire country. For example, forgiving all student debt. You may hate OWS, but you can't deny that forgiving all student debt would benefit every sector and every community in this country.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I have yet to see the Tea Party articulate exactly how their plan of low taxes and "smaller" government will lead to increased opportunities for the majority of Americans. I don't agree with everything the OWS people have to say, but at least their plans and ideas would directly translate to increased opportunities for Americans.

Here is the Dr. Seuss version...

The less money the government takes from you - the more you have to spend hence a better stimulated private sector economy..

But what if I choose not to spend it? Or I choose to spend it out of the country or invest abroad? How does my sending my money overseas stimulate the U.S. economy?

See, this is the problem with the faith-based economic policies of the right. Just because you cut taxes on a millionaire does not mean he will run out and buy a million dollars worth of goods and services. After all, he has the freedom to what he wants with his own money, right? So he has the freedom to NOT stimulate our economy, right? How does this help us?

Again, this is a stark difference between the two movements. The TPers talk about how changes will benefit themselves, period. Full stop. The OWS movement talks about how changes will affect the entire country. For example, forgiving all student debt. You may hate OWS, but you can't deny that forgiving all student debt would benefit every sector and every community in this country.

It doesn't matter how you spend it or where you spend it just as long as you're getting a product/production back.

If you buy a microwave from a guy in the UK for 30 bucks - you now have an asset (the microwave).. Then maybe a few months later you sell it to your neighbor for 30 bucks??

The government doesn't give you value for your tax dollars - the government has no competition hence no reason to even adhere to supply and demand...

A union government employee makes 30% more than a worker in the private sector doing the same job...

That destroys our economy...

Would you pay 500 bucks for a microwave??? what if you had to and owning a microwave was mandatory???

Would you find that economically viable??? especially if some people were allowed to buy a microwave for 30 bucks - well that is a perfect analogy of our government and how it destroys the economy... Obama playing grabass with GE while he bans light bulbs is a fantastic example of that...

Apparently supply and demand only applies to the private sector and our government and even private companies that play ball with our government such as GE are immune from competition and supply and demand principals.

I suppose my point is that if we had a smaller government there would be less of that because people would be supporting a supply and demand based private sector economy instead of a government dictated economy (taxes)... You'd have more money to spend hence stimulating the economy instead of paying overpriced bureaucrats and 75 dollar rolls of toilet paper...

I'm sure you wouldn't spend 75 bucks on a roll of toilet paper so why should the government??? That creates an economic conflict ...

 

[paulitician]

4 votes for both. Interesting.

 

[DontBeStupid]

It doesn't matter how you spend it or where you spend it just as long as you're getting a product/production back.

That is utterly false.

If you gave me $1000 to spend and I drove up to Canada and bought $1000 worth of hockey equipment, how does that benefit U.S. workers and companies? It doesn't. Additionally, if I come back here and sell it for $1000, as you suggest, how does that benefit U.S. workers and companies? It doesn't. What it does do is benefit me, and only me. I get $1000 or Canadian hockey equipment. My choice.

And this is my point. This is how the TP movement is operating. The members want changes that benefit them as a person, with ZERO interest in how it affects the country or society as a whole. As an example, TPers want smaller government so they can pay less in taxes. They don't care at all about the fact that in order for this to happen, hundreds of thousands of people need to be laid off. Military included. How would that size of job loss affect the economy and the country? The TPers have no answer for that.

 

[DontBeStupid]

4 votes for both. Interesting.

How so?

 

[Mr.Nick]

It doesn't matter how you spend it or where you spend it just as long as you're getting a product/production back.

That is utterly false.

If you gave me $1000 to spend and I drove up to Canada and bought $1000 worth of hockey equipment, how does that benefit U.S. workers and companies? It doesn't. Additionally, if I come back here and sell it for $1000, as you suggest, how does that benefit U.S. workers and companies? It doesn't. What it does do is benefit me, and only me. I get $1000 or Canadian hockey equipment. My choice.

And this is my point. This is how the TP movement is operating. The members want changes that benefit them as a person, with ZERO interest in how it affects the country or society as a whole. As an example, TPers want smaller government so they can pay less in taxes. They don't care at all about the fact that in order for this to happen, hundreds of thousands of people need to be laid off. Military included. How would that size of job loss affect the economy and the country? The TPers have no answer for that.

It doesn't matter because now you have $1,000 worth of hockey equipment that is valued at $1,000 dollars.

Hell, you could turn around and sell it for $1,200..

Why does it matter if you have $1,000 dollars in cash or $1,000 in hockey equipment if thats what you wanted??

Via accounting practice both would be considered monetarily the same...

You driving up to buy that equipment helps the economy that trip cost you gas money no?? maybe you buy a few snacks on the way snickers and some lays chips??? well guess what?? you just created jobs for gas station attendants and demand for more snickers and lays chips and demand for those who transport those products, and those who package them, bag them and make them...

You see how that works???

 

[Mr.Nick]

Hell, you could send manufacturing jobs over to Ethiopia and that would only create more transportation jobs and more retail jobs.... I mean I'm sure less people would buy an LCD TV if they cost $1,000 bucks however at $300 bucks a pop they're affordable, since they're affordable there is more demand hence more demand for shipping, receiving, retail clerks etc.... The only reason why the TV is affordable in the first place is because we manufacture them in countries where our dollar translates into 20 of their dollars...

So maybe we send jobs overseas however those jobs are created right back via demand for cheap products...

Why pay a guy 15 bucks an hour when you can pay a person 3 bucks in another country to do it when that 3 bucks equates in his nation to 15 bucks an hour US..

Of course it not always works out that way and I realize some countries (China) enjoys exploiting their own people however that doesn't change the fact it makes sense from an economic and business perspective...

People can cry all they want but they would drop real tears if they were paying 5 bucks for a jar of Carmex..

 

[DontBeStupid]

It doesn't matter how you spend it or where you spend it just as long as you're getting a product/production back.

That is utterly false.

If you gave me $1000 to spend and I drove up to Canada and bought $1000 worth of hockey equipment, how does that benefit U.S. workers and companies? It doesn't. Additionally, if I come back here and sell it for $1000, as you suggest, how does that benefit U.S. workers and companies? It doesn't. What it does do is benefit me, and only me. I get $1000 or Canadian hockey equipment. My choice.

And this is my point. This is how the TP movement is operating. The members want changes that benefit them as a person, with ZERO interest in how it affects the country or society as a whole. As an example, TPers want smaller government so they can pay less in taxes. They don't care at all about the fact that in order for this to happen, hundreds of thousands of people need to be laid off. Military included. How would that size of job loss affect the economy and the country? The TPers have no answer for that.

It doesn't matter because now you have $1,000 worth of hockey equipment that is valued at $1,000 dollars.

Hell, you could turn around and sell it for $1,200..

Why does it matter if you have $1,000 dollars in cash or $1,000 in hockey equipment if thats what you wanted??

Via accounting practice both would be considered monetarily the same...

You driving up to buy that equipment helps the economy that trip cost you gas money no?? maybe you buy a few snacks on the way snickers and some lays chips??? well guess what?? you just created jobs for gas station attendants and demand for more snickers and lays chips and demand for those who transport those products, and those who package them, bag them and make them...

You see how that works???

So you believe that buying $100 of gas and $5 worth of chips at an American gas station and $1000 worth of Canadian hockey equipment stimulates the economy EXACTLY the same as buying $100 of gas and $5 worth of chips at an American gas station and $1000 worth of American hockey equipment? That's what you believe?

I really wish schools would teach macroeconomics.