This is annoying. I don't need celebrities to show up. I don't need a 'leader' to step between me and my government. I don't need to pay someone for a ticket to a rally. I don't need anyone that isn't there as a pure volunteer. And I certainly don't need a political party that does not understand me putting themselves up as "the" tea party when it is not a party but a movement that has been around for years.
Ronald Reagan was a sell out, not a conservative, just another a neo-conservative who talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk.. I'm sick of these republicans holding up Reagan as the beacon of conservatism.
One can almost smell the money that reeks from this cabal of usurers and money changers. An unpleasant foul odor of greed, avarice and corporate malfeasance. Their free market has given us the home mortgage meltdown, oil speculators, unmitigated credit card company usury, and a government owned and controlled by corporations and wealthy elitists. Your all a major disappointment to our founding fathers that hoped for a citizen electorate that focused of "the good" of the republic not money
Ta Daaaaaaaah! The tea parties worked everyone! Obama's going to assemble a team to go through the budget line by line and figure out which items are worth keeping and which ones can be eliminated!
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. He's been saying that since before he was innaugurated. Damn my memory is short.
If these idiots don't want to pay taxes, fine. Give half of them shovels and half of them machine guns and ship em off to work. On second thought, let them pay for there own shovels and machine guns. We don't want to have to use tax dollars our hard earned tax dollars now do we??
I want to pay for everything that I use to the extent; that is, food, clothing, electricity, roads, schools, police, etc. I don't want to pay for those things that I don't want; military invasions overseas, unorganized and ineffective social services, enforcement of vice-laws (i.e. drug laws, prostitution, etc). Each person should be able to pay for whatever services they want, and not for the ones they don't. A system of taxation does not leave this choice up to each individual.
Well, there will never be an tax system that allows people to pick and chose which programs to pay for. But the beauty of democracy is that you have the freedom to vote for officials that support the same values as yourself. That system has worked (not counting Bush).
Re: Taxes; Yes, that's what I said :-). This is why we need to discover non-tax methods of funding services, so that each person can choose what is important to them.
Bush is not the first bad president, and he's not unique. The "beauty of democracy" that you describe is not a beauty at all, but a tyranny of the majority imposing their will on the minority. There is nothing beautiful about giving some people the right to dispose of the efforts of others. That's slavery.
Do you really think that privatising the police and military is a good idea?? I personally don't want our national security to be in the hands of mercenaries. If all roads are were privately owned, don't you think that it would cost more than we pay in taxes to travel on them? That idea is rediculous that is why there is no developed country that uses such a system.
I don't know if privatizing police/military is a good idea. I prefer a citizen military ala Switzerland, and we can see how well that's worked for them, at peace over the past two centuries.
There have been volumes written on how much safer and cheaper private roads would be. Look up some of Walter Block's essays.
A fully voluntary system is probably at least a century outside of humanity's reach. I advocate returning choice to individuals as a method of transitioning to a voluntary society.
nicktoons: So are you saying that if you can't afford to pay a company each time you flush a toilet then you are shit out of luck? What happens if there are not enough consumers participating in the toilet flushing market and the prices become ridiculus for those who do participate? Taxes are a way of spreading out the cost making it cheaper for everyone. That's a weak example but my brain hurts from commenting all day and that's the best one I can think of right now. There are better ones.
No pun intended about the toilet and being out of luck, right?
You're right about the characteristics of taxes; it spreads the cost of services to people who don't use them. Why should someone who never flushes their toilet, or who may not even have a toilet, pay for everyone else that does?
The question is not why do you have to pay for the water to flush your toilet. The question is why must someone else be forced to pay for it?
But it doesn't. It makes it cheaper for those that use it at the expense of those who don't. That is, it makes it more expensive for those who don't, who otherwise wouldn't have to pay for it.
How about if you pay for some of the gas that goes in my car? That would certainly make it cheaper for me, but you'd be hard-pressed to argue that that makes it cheaper for everyone.
I see what you're saying. There is, however, an interconnectedness to all things. If I pay for some of your gas then it will be easier for you to go to work. If you go to work you may be able to contribute to society in ways that benefit me whether I realize it or not.
And it's not always monetary. If you were an aspiring author or composer who is unemployed and a few pennies of my tax money goes towards your education then you may end up creating a work of art that changes my life forever. It's not always cut and dried but that's the theory.
And who's to decide if your money is to fund a potentially great work of art? You, or someone else? Why should anyone else have the authority to spend your money that you've earned in ways that you may not agree with?
That's why we set up public institutions like community colleges. That way people can explore their own potential. We don't tell them what to do but we give them a pathway to do it.
My comment was in response to your comment that government should take money from you and give it to someone that may at some point create a great work of art.
I then asked whose decision it should be to give your money to a potential artist. If your answer is that someone else should decide how your money is spent, then my question would be "why?" If you earn the money that you have, shouldn't it be up to you how it's spent, like giving to a potential artist?
Like I said. We all decide by setting up public institutions like colleges or things like grants and scholorships, etc. We don't know specifically who is getting the money but we know that the money will be there for those who need it. It can only help our society in the long run to have an educated and sophisticated population. It may not seem to be worth the money to you but that's the general idea.
I understand what you're getting at, but the flaw is when you say "We all decide..." Unless there is unanimous consent, we don't all decide. More commonly, the majority decides. What about the wishes of the minority?
Let the people who decide that such institutions are worthwhile fund them. Some people do not believe in the value of many things they are forced to fund.
(I thought I replied to this days ago, but it's not here).
So because you may not realize it, someone in the legislature who's "smarter" than you should take your money from you and give it to me, because they know better what's good for you than you do. Is that right?
Yea AZ, capitalism worked so well that there was no need for socialistic regulations. I don't know why the evil government had the audacity to step in an keep our entire financial system from collapsing when these corporations could have easily fixed it themselves.
We don't have capitalism in this country, and never have. So blaming the non-existent for the problem is fallacious.
Government (through credit expansion), not corporations, created the mess that they are blaming businesses for.
Every depression in US history has been caused by government intervention, specifically from the central bank. More intervention equals deeper depressions. Compare 1921 to 1929. One was resolved in less than 12 months, the other in 12 years.
To: AZ MarineSniper. Tell that to England, France, Canada and all the other countries that provide WAY more public services for their citizens. They seem to be doing fine. They may not be Socialist but they might as well be and that's how their people like it. If their governments even tried to take away their free healthcare or any other part of their social safety net there would be riots in the streets.
just making sure all know who ar going to have socialists signs and such be sure if you have medicare rip up your cards and your parents cards we can suport our parents without using the Socialist program medicare and social security sick of paying for old people and dont want when I am old people paying in for me so rip up those medicare cards right lets go everyone we saport our parents medical bills and lives our selves from now on woohoo!!!
Sounds typical of an uneducated, ignorant don't-even-know-why-I'm-a-Republican, pawn-in-the-big-business-game-of-taking-over-the-world idiot if you ask me.
bush created the trillion dollar war in Iraq fhalliburton.The problems that President Obama now face were of bush administration and hacks who tore up the Constitution. bush gave the richest 1% tax breaks they did not deserve.
I can't stand Bush anymore than the next guy, but I want to clarify some misinformation.
Bush gave everyone tax breaks, larger breaks for the poor than the rich.
But why do you say the richest 1% don't deserve tax breaks? They're the ones that create all the jobs that the rest of us have. Imagine the chaos in a world without those that create the infrastructure of production. If those people haven't earned tax breaks, then I'm curious about the criteria used in making that decision.
To much is given, much is required. I love living in a country where I can afford to pay taxes as the result of doing so well. The top 1% that received these tax cuts DID NOT NEED THEM, and the idea that they would stimulate our economy just did not happen. It was simply a pay back and idealogical knee jerk response that too many have about paying their fair share.
The richest ALREADY HAVE THEIR TAX BREAKS, accountants, lawyers and tax havens that avoid taxes. They did not deserve any more.
Wait a second, "need" and "deserve" are not the same thing. If you're arguing that they don't need tax breaks in order to survive, then I agree, but that wasn't your original assertion. Your claim was that they didn't deserve them, which has nothing to do with need.
The rich pay far more in taxes than everyone else. The top 1% income earners pay more than 30% of all the federal income taxes. So this idea of "loopholes" is a myth, but it's irrelevant your claim about "deserving" tax breaks.
But I'll make my own claims about who deserves tax breaks. A tax break is simply the government allowing individuals to keep the money that they have earned, and spend it as they wish. That being the case, doesn't everyone deserve a tax break? Isn't it right that people should be able to determine how the money that they earned is spent, instead of having it taken from them to be spent in ways with which they may not agree?
Some people may not know that the richest 1% of Americans own 34% of the nations wealth. Higher taxes for them is absolutely fair. I find it absurd that these people are fishing for sympathy because they will have to settle for the $4 million mansion rather than the one that they really wanted for $8 million. While a single mother can't afford to feed her children or provide a roof over their heads.
If people have wealth because they earned it, then they deserve it. If people have it by government favor, then they don't. I don't know what the breakdown is of the above. But for those that have it by favor of government, government is to blame for practicing authority over the rest of us that they don't rightly have.
The example of the millionaire vs. the single mother totally evades the issue of "deserve." One does not deserve something by virtue of claiming a need.
What makes someone born into a wealthy family who has never worked or contributed to the well being of the nation more "deserving" than...say a wounded Vietnam vet who gave his leg to secure our freedom?
A Vietnam vet didn't give anything to secure the freedom of any American, unless you have reason to believe that the Vietnamese were a threat to our freedoms.
But to answer your question, people deserve to use the product of their efforts (the wealth they generate) however they choose. If I make millions of dollars and leave it to my children, it is not they who are deserving of it, but it is I who have deserved the right to give it to them by virtue of the fact that I created it.
WWII is a better example, but it could be argued that the attack on Pearl Harbor was provoked.
In any case, we're veering off-topic. We're talking about who deserves what, and I propose that the people who earn money deserve to do with it what they want (so long as they don't initiate force against anyone), even if others don't approve of how they spend it.
The reason why we give tax incentives for the rich is because we are saying to them, "We want you to do so well that you start a business and hire people thus providing them a source of income. That hasn't seemed to be working lately so it makes sense to just take the money right off the bat and skip the whole "please create some jobs for us" charade.
Trickle down economics only seems to result in "trickle up" these days. Even Greenspan said that we are in an era of unprecidented greed.
That's the wrong reason to give tax breaks. Tax breaks should be given to everyone, because people deserve to keep the money they earn. It is not the job of government to try and direct our lives by forcing people to give up a portion of their lives to everyone else.
But addressing your point, by what metric are you saying that it doesn't work? Until recently (which is caused by government credit expansion), we've had incredibly low unemployment, which means many jobs created.
Of course Greenspan conceded. He used to be a capitalist; back in the 60s. That all changed when he took his position at the Fed, an organization that's completely contradictory to capitalism. Once he was put into a position of power, he couldn't accept it *and* be a capitalist because the two are in conflict. He had to renounce capitalism. But he never did it publicly (until recently), only in practice.
congratulations tea party of arizona. Waht a positive effect you are having...idiots... sew hate... reap hate... always has been...always will be
americanmaoist 1 year ago
This is annoying. I don't need celebrities to show up. I don't need a 'leader' to step between me and my government. I don't need to pay someone for a ticket to a rally. I don't need anyone that isn't there as a pure volunteer. And I certainly don't need a political party that does not understand me putting themselves up as "the" tea party when it is not a party but a movement that has been around for years.
tuvoca 1 year ago
Ronald Reagan was a sell out, not a conservative, just another a neo-conservative who talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk.. I'm sick of these republicans holding up Reagan as the beacon of conservatism.
bbburton 1 year ago
One can almost smell the money that reeks from this cabal of usurers and money changers. An unpleasant foul odor of greed, avarice and corporate malfeasance. Their free market has given us the home mortgage meltdown, oil speculators, unmitigated credit card company usury, and a government owned and controlled by corporations and wealthy elitists. Your all a major disappointment to our founding fathers that hoped for a citizen electorate that focused of "the good" of the republic not money
SOLISDEUS 2 years ago
No more tax's in Arizona either!!!
Stay involved!
When In Doubt - Vote Them OUT!
Barry Goldwater Jr ROCKS for Campaign For Liberty too!
winslowwind 2 years ago
Pass this along and keep the faith strong! We've just begun!
/watch?v=ZBXV1gkcENE
iliadterra 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ta Daaaaaaaah! The tea parties worked everyone! Obama's going to assemble a team to go through the budget line by line and figure out which items are worth keeping and which ones can be eliminated!
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. He's been saying that since before he was innaugurated. Damn my memory is short.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
If these idiots don't want to pay taxes, fine. Give half of them shovels and half of them machine guns and ship em off to work. On second thought, let them pay for there own shovels and machine guns. We don't want to have to use tax dollars our hard earned tax dollars now do we??
anishinaabe 2 years ago
I want to pay for everything that I use to the extent; that is, food, clothing, electricity, roads, schools, police, etc. I don't want to pay for those things that I don't want; military invasions overseas, unorganized and ineffective social services, enforcement of vice-laws (i.e. drug laws, prostitution, etc). Each person should be able to pay for whatever services they want, and not for the ones they don't. A system of taxation does not leave this choice up to each individual.
nickcoons 2 years ago
Well, there will never be an tax system that allows people to pick and chose which programs to pay for. But the beauty of democracy is that you have the freedom to vote for officials that support the same values as yourself. That system has worked (not counting Bush).
anishinaabe 2 years ago
Re: Taxes; Yes, that's what I said :-). This is why we need to discover non-tax methods of funding services, so that each person can choose what is important to them.
Bush is not the first bad president, and he's not unique. The "beauty of democracy" that you describe is not a beauty at all, but a tyranny of the majority imposing their will on the minority. There is nothing beautiful about giving some people the right to dispose of the efforts of others. That's slavery.
nickcoons 2 years ago
Do you really think that privatising the police and military is a good idea?? I personally don't want our national security to be in the hands of mercenaries. If all roads are were privately owned, don't you think that it would cost more than we pay in taxes to travel on them? That idea is rediculous that is why there is no developed country that uses such a system.
anishinaabe 2 years ago
I don't know if privatizing police/military is a good idea. I prefer a citizen military ala Switzerland, and we can see how well that's worked for them, at peace over the past two centuries.
There have been volumes written on how much safer and cheaper private roads would be. Look up some of Walter Block's essays.
A fully voluntary system is probably at least a century outside of humanity's reach. I advocate returning choice to individuals as a method of transitioning to a voluntary society.
nickcoons 2 years ago
nicktoons: So are you saying that if you can't afford to pay a company each time you flush a toilet then you are shit out of luck? What happens if there are not enough consumers participating in the toilet flushing market and the prices become ridiculus for those who do participate? Taxes are a way of spreading out the cost making it cheaper for everyone. That's a weak example but my brain hurts from commenting all day and that's the best one I can think of right now. There are better ones.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
No pun intended about the toilet and being out of luck, right?
You're right about the characteristics of taxes; it spreads the cost of services to people who don't use them. Why should someone who never flushes their toilet, or who may not even have a toilet, pay for everyone else that does?
The question is not why do you have to pay for the water to flush your toilet. The question is why must someone else be forced to pay for it?
nickcoons 2 years ago
Like I said it makes it cheaper for everyone.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
But it doesn't. It makes it cheaper for those that use it at the expense of those who don't. That is, it makes it more expensive for those who don't, who otherwise wouldn't have to pay for it.
How about if you pay for some of the gas that goes in my car? That would certainly make it cheaper for me, but you'd be hard-pressed to argue that that makes it cheaper for everyone.
nickcoons 2 years ago
I see what you're saying. There is, however, an interconnectedness to all things. If I pay for some of your gas then it will be easier for you to go to work. If you go to work you may be able to contribute to society in ways that benefit me whether I realize it or not.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Comment removed
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Comment removed
brothermikefan 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And it's not always monetary. If you were an aspiring author or composer who is unemployed and a few pennies of my tax money goes towards your education then you may end up creating a work of art that changes my life forever. It's not always cut and dried but that's the theory.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
And who's to decide if your money is to fund a potentially great work of art? You, or someone else? Why should anyone else have the authority to spend your money that you've earned in ways that you may not agree with?
nickcoons 2 years ago
That's why we set up public institutions like community colleges. That way people can explore their own potential. We don't tell them what to do but we give them a pathway to do it.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
You misunderstood what I said.
My comment was in response to your comment that government should take money from you and give it to someone that may at some point create a great work of art.
I then asked whose decision it should be to give your money to a potential artist. If your answer is that someone else should decide how your money is spent, then my question would be "why?" If you earn the money that you have, shouldn't it be up to you how it's spent, like giving to a potential artist?
nickcoons 2 years ago
Like I said. We all decide by setting up public institutions like colleges or things like grants and scholorships, etc. We don't know specifically who is getting the money but we know that the money will be there for those who need it. It can only help our society in the long run to have an educated and sophisticated population. It may not seem to be worth the money to you but that's the general idea.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
I understand what you're getting at, but the flaw is when you say "We all decide..." Unless there is unanimous consent, we don't all decide. More commonly, the majority decides. What about the wishes of the minority?
Let the people who decide that such institutions are worthwhile fund them. Some people do not believe in the value of many things they are forced to fund.
nickcoons 2 years ago
(I thought I replied to this days ago, but it's not here).
So because you may not realize it, someone in the legislature who's "smarter" than you should take your money from you and give it to me, because they know better what's good for you than you do. Is that right?
nickcoons 2 years ago
Comment removed
anishinaabe 2 years ago
Capitalism works, socialism doesn't. Stick that in your liberal university indoctrinated pipe and smoke it.
AZMarineSniper 2 years ago
Yea AZ, capitalism worked so well that there was no need for socialistic regulations. I don't know why the evil government had the audacity to step in an keep our entire financial system from collapsing when these corporations could have easily fixed it themselves.
anishinaabe 2 years ago
We don't have capitalism in this country, and never have. So blaming the non-existent for the problem is fallacious.
Government (through credit expansion), not corporations, created the mess that they are blaming businesses for.
Every depression in US history has been caused by government intervention, specifically from the central bank. More intervention equals deeper depressions. Compare 1921 to 1929. One was resolved in less than 12 months, the other in 12 years.
nickcoons 2 years ago
Comment removed
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Comment removed
brothermikefan 2 years ago
To: AZ MarineSniper. Tell that to England, France, Canada and all the other countries that provide WAY more public services for their citizens. They seem to be doing fine. They may not be Socialist but they might as well be and that's how their people like it. If their governments even tried to take away their free healthcare or any other part of their social safety net there would be riots in the streets.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
just making sure all know who ar going to have socialists signs and such be sure if you have medicare rip up your cards and your parents cards we can suport our parents without using the Socialist program medicare and social security sick of paying for old people and dont want when I am old people paying in for me so rip up those medicare cards right lets go everyone we saport our parents medical bills and lives our selves from now on woohoo!!!
stme2008 2 years ago 3
Sounds typical of an uneducated, ignorant don't-even-know-why-I'm-a-Republican, pawn-in-the-big-business-game-of-taking-over-the-world idiot if you ask me.
asu3dvl 2 years ago
bush created the trillion dollar war in Iraq fhalliburton.The problems that President Obama now face were of bush administration and hacks who tore up the Constitution. bush gave the richest 1% tax breaks they did not deserve.
espceo 2 years ago
I can't stand Bush anymore than the next guy, but I want to clarify some misinformation.
Bush gave everyone tax breaks, larger breaks for the poor than the rich.
But why do you say the richest 1% don't deserve tax breaks? They're the ones that create all the jobs that the rest of us have. Imagine the chaos in a world without those that create the infrastructure of production. If those people haven't earned tax breaks, then I'm curious about the criteria used in making that decision.
nickcoons 2 years ago
To much is given, much is required. I love living in a country where I can afford to pay taxes as the result of doing so well. The top 1% that received these tax cuts DID NOT NEED THEM, and the idea that they would stimulate our economy just did not happen. It was simply a pay back and idealogical knee jerk response that too many have about paying their fair share.
The richest ALREADY HAVE THEIR TAX BREAKS, accountants, lawyers and tax havens that avoid taxes. They did not deserve any more.
espceo 2 years ago
Wait a second, "need" and "deserve" are not the same thing. If you're arguing that they don't need tax breaks in order to survive, then I agree, but that wasn't your original assertion. Your claim was that they didn't deserve them, which has nothing to do with need.
The rich pay far more in taxes than everyone else. The top 1% income earners pay more than 30% of all the federal income taxes. So this idea of "loopholes" is a myth, but it's irrelevant your claim about "deserving" tax breaks.
nickcoons 2 years ago
But I'll make my own claims about who deserves tax breaks. A tax break is simply the government allowing individuals to keep the money that they have earned, and spend it as they wish. That being the case, doesn't everyone deserve a tax break? Isn't it right that people should be able to determine how the money that they earned is spent, instead of having it taken from them to be spent in ways with which they may not agree?
nickcoons 2 years ago
Some people may not know that the richest 1% of Americans own 34% of the nations wealth. Higher taxes for them is absolutely fair. I find it absurd that these people are fishing for sympathy because they will have to settle for the $4 million mansion rather than the one that they really wanted for $8 million. While a single mother can't afford to feed her children or provide a roof over their heads.
anishinaabe 2 years ago
If people have wealth because they earned it, then they deserve it. If people have it by government favor, then they don't. I don't know what the breakdown is of the above. But for those that have it by favor of government, government is to blame for practicing authority over the rest of us that they don't rightly have.
The example of the millionaire vs. the single mother totally evades the issue of "deserve." One does not deserve something by virtue of claiming a need.
nickcoons 2 years ago
What makes someone born into a wealthy family who has never worked or contributed to the well being of the nation more "deserving" than...say a wounded Vietnam vet who gave his leg to secure our freedom?
anishinaabe 2 years ago
A Vietnam vet didn't give anything to secure the freedom of any American, unless you have reason to believe that the Vietnamese were a threat to our freedoms.
But to answer your question, people deserve to use the product of their efforts (the wealth they generate) however they choose. If I make millions of dollars and leave it to my children, it is not they who are deserving of it, but it is I who have deserved the right to give it to them by virtue of the fact that I created it.
nickcoons 2 years ago
Then repace Vietnam with WWII
anishinaabe 2 years ago
WWII is a better example, but it could be argued that the attack on Pearl Harbor was provoked.
In any case, we're veering off-topic. We're talking about who deserves what, and I propose that the people who earn money deserve to do with it what they want (so long as they don't initiate force against anyone), even if others don't approve of how they spend it.
nickcoons 2 years ago
Outstanding explanation and defense of personal liberties and the futility of class envy. May I quote you?
TuxLady 2 years ago
Sure, and if you want to attribute credit to the quote, you can link back to my campaign site:
nickcoonsforcongress. com
:-)
nickcoons 2 years ago
The reason why we give tax incentives for the rich is because we are saying to them, "We want you to do so well that you start a business and hire people thus providing them a source of income. That hasn't seemed to be working lately so it makes sense to just take the money right off the bat and skip the whole "please create some jobs for us" charade.
Trickle down economics only seems to result in "trickle up" these days. Even Greenspan said that we are in an era of unprecidented greed.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
That's the wrong reason to give tax breaks. Tax breaks should be given to everyone, because people deserve to keep the money they earn. It is not the job of government to try and direct our lives by forcing people to give up a portion of their lives to everyone else.
But addressing your point, by what metric are you saying that it doesn't work? Until recently (which is caused by government credit expansion), we've had incredibly low unemployment, which means many jobs created.
nickcoons 2 years ago
how bout no federal income tax?
tax breaks? give me a break =)
sky21448 2 years ago 5
I've been supporting the elimination of all taxes, including the federal income tax for years, so you're preaching to the choir :-).
nickcoons 2 years ago
Of course Greenspan conceded. He used to be a capitalist; back in the 60s. That all changed when he took his position at the Fed, an organization that's completely contradictory to capitalism. Once he was put into a position of power, he couldn't accept it *and* be a capitalist because the two are in conflict. He had to renounce capitalism. But he never did it publicly (until recently), only in practice.
nickcoons 2 years ago
Use periods much?
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@stme2008 And they can refund OUR money plus interest. Yeah, right.
tuvoca 1 year ago