Insurance for Tea Baggers

We all know people that see the world like Soros, Jimmy Carter, Barney Frank, Obama, SWGB, etal. But, they are neither sinners or Saints. By and large they are well intentioned albeit diametrically opposite from me. Periodically America chooses their point of view and elections have consequences. Hence, we have endured the cram-down of legislation and regulation that is contrary to most everyhing I believe in. On Tuesday America took the initial step (largely at the impetus of the Tea Party) to realign to government with the People's wishes. This process will be completed in 2012 with a new President. My hope is that we can turn down the rhetoric over the next two years and new people with a dedication to the prosperity of America and the principles of the Constitution will emerge and surge with the Tea Party behind them all the way.

Spot on.

My hope is that we can turn down the rhetoric over the next two years and new people with a dedication to the prosperity of America and the principles of the Constitution will emerge and surge with the Tea Party behind them all the way.

You mean people with a dedication to big corporations and the billionaires who run them, right? That is who the tea bagger movement and their politicians support.

Also, don't try associate the tea bagger movement with the principles of the Constitution. They have their own interpretation of it, and it is far less friendly and "American" than you might believe it to be.

You mean people with a dedication to big corporations and the billionaires who run them, right? That is who the tea bagger movement and their politicians support.

Also, don't try associate the tea bagger movement with the principles of the Constitution. They have their own interpretation of it, and it is far less friendly and "American" than you might believe it to be.

Honest to God. Listen to yourself. "big corporations", "billionaires", "tea bagger", "less friendly" (what the heck does that mean?)

Reduce the size the the Federal Government = More Individual Freedom

Sheez.

Reduce the size the the Federal Government = More Individual Freedom

Sheez.

Yes, the freedom to drive on dirt roads that once were paved, the freedom to watch old people live in the streets dieing without Social Security and Medicare, the freedom to watch poor people do the same without Welfare, housing, and medicaid. The freedom for billionaires to break records of wealth while trampling the less fortunate. Yes, it's a beacon of the future we can only hope doesn't happen.

What I find interesting is that while the Tea Party espouses America and all her greatness their policies seem to want to turn us back to a Monarchy style with benevolent leaders that might toss gold coins to the peasants on holidays.

Yes, the freedom to drive on dirt roads that once were paved, the freedom to watch old people live in the streets dieing without Social Security and Medicare, the freedom to watch poor people do the same without Welfare, housing, and medicaid. The freedom for billionaires to break records of wealth while trampling the less fortunate. Yes, it's a beacon of the future we can only hope doesn't happen.

What I find interesting is that while the Tea Party espouses America and all her greatness their policies seem to want to turn us back to a Monarchy style with benevolent leaders that might toss gold coins to the peasants on holidays.

Awesome.

Since none of that was happening 20 years ago, let's support our newly elected representatives to rolling back the budget to 1990 levels.

I knew we could find common ground!

"you people" Ross Perot...alpha tea bagger

Excuse me?

Yes, the freedom to drive on dirt roads that once were paved, the freedom to watch old people live in the streets dieing without Social Security and Medicare, the freedom to watch poor people do the same without Welfare, housing, and medicaid. The freedom for billionaires to break records of wealth while trampling the less fortunate. Yes, it's a beacon of the future we can only hope doesn't happen.

What I find interesting is that while the Tea Party espouses America and all her greatness their policies seem to want to turn us back to a Monarchy style with benevolent leaders that might toss gold coins to the peasants on holidays.

You know,SWGB, I always gave you credit for being intelligent but totally misdirected and misinformed but able to reason. However, one of two things have occurred. Either you have totally flipped or my judgement of you was totally flawed. Your posts here and in other threads recently, IMO, have been without merit and mean sprited and I'm really sorry to see that.

When you tea party people chant reduce the federal government, what, precisely, do you mean? Cut the Department of Defense? Cut the Department of TransportatIon? Cut the Department of Homeland Security? How about the FBI, or the CIA? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? The real costs of the Federal Goverment is Social Security and Medicare. If you are talking about reducing or abolishing them, then "man up" (to use a Sarah Palin slogan) and say that you want to abolish Social Security. This slogan of reduce Big Goverment is just that: an empty slogan. Any of you want to come up with any viable specific plan?

Excuse me?

mackdaddytea bagger?

When you tea party people chant reduce the federal government, what, precisely, do you mean? Cut the Department of Defense? Cut the Department of TransportatIon? Cut the Department of Homeland Security? How about the FBI, or the CIA? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? The real costs of the Federal Goverment is Social Security and Medicare. If you are talking about reducing or abolishing them, then "man up" (to use a Sarah Palin slogan) and say that you want to abolish Social Security. This slogan of reduce Big Goverment is just that: an empty slogan. Any of you want to come up with any viable specific plan?

it means don't let brown people have anything. the greatest generation wants to cash their own gov'ment checks and play lotto.

Yes, the freedom to drive on dirt roads that once were paved, the freedom to watch old people live in the streets dieing without Social Security and Medicare, the freedom to watch poor people do the same without Welfare, housing, and medicaid. The freedom for billionaires to break records of wealth while trampling the less fortunate. Yes, it's a beacon of the future we can only hope doesn't happen.

What I find interesting is that while the Tea Party espouses America and all her greatness their policies seem to want to turn us back to a Monarchy style with benevolent leaders that might toss gold coins to the peasants on holidays.

it's easier to deny the majority of our wealth is in the hands of the few and bash poor people than recognize you are are hypocritical in your thinking

Awesome.

Since none of that was happening 20 years ago, let's support our newly elected representatives to rolling back the budget to 1990 levels.

I knew we could find common ground!

You know,SWGB, I always gave you credit for being intelligent but totally misdirected and misinformed but able to reason. However, one of two things have occurred. Either you have totally flipped or my judgement of you was totally flawed. Your posts here and in other threads recently, IMO, have been without merit and mean sprited and I'm really sorry to see that.

Once again the tea party doesn't present an argument, they either go into lala land or insult the person posting the comment or question.

It's clear that the Tea Party is a movement of some kind.

Once again the tea party doesn't present an argument, they either go into lala land or insult the person posting the comment or question.

It's clear that the Tea Party is a movement of some kind.

Do I smell a clever innuendo straight from the bowels of your imagination?

For many tea partiers, including me, everything is on the table. Medicare, Social Security, all Federal depts. Everything!!! How many times do we have to tell you that are of a liberal bent, that we are for limited or smaller government, less spending, more private enterprise, more states rights and a freedom to use our "freedoms" by all? We will see what happens, won't we? (Hopefully, this post is not as tacky as some of the ones above, but I doubt that many can accept it without being duly snarky.)

For many tea partiers, including me, everything is on the table. Medicare, Social Security, all Federal depts. Everything!!! How many times do we have to tell you that are of a liberal bent, that we are for limited or smaller government, less spending, more private enterprise, more states rights and a freedom to use our "freedoms" by all? We will see what happens, won't we? (Hopefully, this post is not as tacky as some of the ones above, but I doubt that many can accept it without being duly snarky.)

I notice that military was left off your list, is military spending something the Tea Partiers are willing to cut? Yes or No?

I notice that military was left off your list, is military spending something the Tea Partiers are willing to cut? Yes or No?

There are plenty of places the military can cut. My list was not all inclusive. the answer is yes. Now, what do liberals want to cut and where? Or, maybe they don't want to cut, just keep spending.

There are plenty of places the military can cut. My list was not all inclusive. the answer is yes. Now, what do liberals want to cut and where? Or, maybe they don't want to cut, just keep spending.

There's a need to cut spending. There's a need to raise revenue. I know this sounds too simple (therefore it will never fly), but here goes: Let the Bush tax cuts end a peaceful quiet death. Then start, across the board spending cuts on absolutely every line in the budget (NO EXCEPTIONS). I'm talking about a blanket cut of 1 to 3 %, every year, on federal wages & benefits, SS payments and medicare, defense spending, everything. And then do it again next year. Perhaps for five years running. Just think of the savings in paperwork of a bill that simply says "-1%"!

Once again the tea party doesn't present an argument, they either go into lala land or insult the person posting the comment or question.

It's clear that the Tea Party is a movement of some kind.

Interesting how you throw up a strawman, get me to bite and offer an idea, then switch from calling the wave from a sexual act to a bowel movement.

Channeling Bob now, are we? ;-)

For those that want to to cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget, start here:

How to Cut the Federal Budget | The Heritage Foundation

There are plenty of places the military can cut. My list was not all inclusive. the answer is yes. Now, what do liberals want to cut and where? Or, maybe they don't want to cut, just keep spending.

No, I'm all for cutting the budget, but the military has to be included. We spend more than the next 27 countries combined on our military and 26 of those countries are our allies.

Interesting how you throw up a strawman, get me to bite and offer an idea, then switch from calling the wave from a sexual act to a bowel movement.

Channeling Bob now, are we? ;-)

For those that want to to cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget, start here:

How to Cut the Federal Budget | The Heritage Foundation

That list doesn't include military spending, unless you count the part about cutting benefits to veterans, which I'm against.

Ultimately your argument still doesn't hold water since you preach the cut spending and cut taxes mantra that is proven to not work. That report simply dumps about half of the programs on that states who will, in turn, have to raise taxes to account for the additional spending.

Perhaps you don't understand what cutting means or finance isn't your thing, but shifting the spending to another form of government doesn't save the tax payers any money nor does it actually stop the spending. What that report also fails to address is the fact that if you shift 1 program to 50 states you have now increased its overall spending since it will be duplicated 50 times. Now that's conservative math.

For those that want to to cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget, start here:

How to Cut the Federal Budget | The Heritage Foundation

I took a quick look at this - I think many of the things they want to eliminate are horrible ideas that will weaken our country academically and will remove safety nets and much needed regulatory agencies, or just shift the burden to the states, but some could be easily done w/o hurting anyone.

There is a glaring lack of detail for most of the items and many red flags, but I would definitely like to learn more - especially since one of the biggest items where we could save was Medicare errors.

One WTF item that jumped out at me - we could save $70 million by having federal employees fly coach on domestic flights. I cannot think of any reason why this cannot or should not be done.

No, I'm all for cutting the budget, but the military has to be included. We spend more than the next 27 countries combined on our military and 26 of those countries are our allies.



That list doesn't include military spending, unless you count the part about cutting benefits to veterans, which I'm against.

Ultimately your argument still doesn't hold water since you preach the cut spending and cut taxes mantra that is proven to not work. That report simply dumps about half of the programs on that states who will, in turn, have to raise taxes to account for the additional spending.

Perhaps you don't understand what cutting means or finance isn't your thing, but shifting the spending to another form of government doesn't save the tax payers any money nor does it actually stop the spending. What that report also fails to address is the fact that if you shift 1 program to 50 states you have now increased its overall spending since it will be duplicated 50 times. Now that's conservative math.

Looks like there is a new Party Of No in town!

I'm guessing that if you believe that lower taxes are good and you are talking to someone who believes higher taxes are good, or that, you believe that a larger federal government is bad and are talking to someone who believes that a larger federal government is good, you don't make much progress in your conversation.

The people have spoken. 60% of America agrees. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid version of American has been resoundly rejected.

We need to start cutting the out-of-control federal government.

Can we agree that the federal government growth simply cannot be sustained (even if you tax 100% of the rich)?

The people have spoken. 60% of America agrees. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid version of American has been resoundly rejected.

Not to nitpick, but both Pelosi and Reid were reelected, Obama is still President, Democrats were voted in as governors and Senators, and few candidates got 60% of the vote.

Looks like there is a new Party Of No in town!

I'm guessing that if you believe that lower taxes are good and you are talking to someone who believes higher taxes are good, or that, you believe that a larger federal government is bad and are talking to someone who believes that a larger federal government is good, you don't make much progress in your conversation.

The people have spoken. 60% of America agrees. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid version of American has been resoundly rejected.

We need to start cutting the out-of-control federal government.

Can we agree that the federal government growth simply cannot be sustained (even if you tax 100% of the rich)?

If your just going to fall back on partisan rants then the discussion is over.

If, on the other hand, you'd like to actually discuss this then feel free to post something else.