"The tea-party ripoff"

**Red_Lizard2** · 01-18-10, 06:06 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/op...17rich.html?em

I thought this was a great op-ed piece i found over on the NY times and interested to what the rest of you think. i figure it will be easy enough to figure who read it and who didn't. Like i said i thought it was interesting and made some good points and brought up things i had not even heard of before hand.

so yeah, what do you think? do you agree with some of it, all of it, none of it?

**CallousDisregard** · 01-19-10, 06:03 AM

It is clearly just another attempt by the evil rich fatcats(G.Beck) to fool the people into thinking that keeping their tax money is a good idea.

We all know that the President's 46% approval rating is due to evil rich fatcats(S.Palin) and that the people of the United States love and trust the Democratic party more than life itself but the fatcats(A.Coulter) have gotten the people to think that the media is biased to we don't listen to the media anymore when they tell us how great things are going.

The evil fat rich cats(M.Steele) have fooled the people into believing that 10% REPORTED unemployment is a bad thing and as long as the tea party money keeps flowing the sheeple won't wake up to the fact that the federal government, run by wall street execs and marxist burnt-out hippie types is our only salvation.

Why, those evil fat cats(R.Limbaugh) even arranged for a "coldest ever" winter just to disrupt the fair and equitable redistribution of the worlds resources at Copenhagen.

The article make very plain that the notion of self reliance and individuality is a total construct, created by rich Republicans, in order to dupe the average person out of their money.

Drink COFFEE

**GReYVee** · 01-19-10, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by CallousDisregard

It is clearly just another attempt by the evil rich fatcats to fool the people into thinking that keeping their tax money is a good idea.
We all know that the President's 46% approval rating is due to evil rich fatcats and that the people of the United States love a trust the Democratic party more than life itself but the fatcats have gotten the people to think that the media is biased to they don't listen to the media anymore when they tell us how great things are going.
The evil fat rich cats have fooled the people into believing that 10 REPORTED unemployment is a bad thing and as long as the money keeps flowing the sheeple won't wake up to the fact that the federal government, run by wall street execs and revolutionary dried out hippie types is our only salvation.
Why, those evil fat cats even arranged for a "coldest ever" winter just to disrupt the fair and equitable redistribution of the worlds resources at Copenhagen.

Drink COFFEE

Less income tax = more high income tax = less investment = expensive commerce = higher cost = less spending = less growth. Why the fuck is it taking so long for some people to figure out?

**Red_Lizard2** · 01-19-10, 04:02 PM

the article makes very good points in bringing up things like Steele's draining the GOP out of a crapload of money, and trying to "supposedly" play the race card to help keep his power.

Its also pointing out how, for example, Palin would rather speak at the Tea Party convention that charges almost $600 a person +hotel and pays speakers a crapload of money and is sponsered by a NYC business for the rich, rather then the grassroots convention that is free.

For those confused basically "Tea Party" is going to be the buzzword of the 2010 and 2012 elections (similar to how "Change" was the 2008 buzzword)

**Imisnew2** · 01-19-10, 04:14 PM

I'm honestly confused with this one.

Less income tax = more high income tax

explain please. - Honestly, I have no clue what you're saying...

I thought income tax = income tax?
So I don't get the
Less income tax = more high income tax
part.

I like to read these threads... but I like to understand them too

**flame** · 01-19-10, 05:56 PM

If conservative X said the same things about Obama they would be the biggest racist around. Reid gets away with it because, why exactly? Not understanding all of this, confusing, drama, bah... fuck washington politics. They are all in it for their pocket books and not the people. It aint just republicans that have money. Greed has corrupted all things govt.

**rock_lobster** · 01-19-10, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Imisnew2

I'm honestly confused with this one.

Less income tax = more high income tax

explain please. - Honestly, I have no clue what you're saying...

I thought income tax = income tax?
So I don't get the
Less income tax = more high income tax
part.

I like to read these threads... but I like to understand them too

Basically I gather that lowering income taxes would put more dollars back into the pockets of people actually paying taxes, to do with what they please. Raising income taxes, takes money out of our pockets and puts it into the hands of our government, who in turn spends it according to what they think we need or should have.

I understand the premise of taxes. We needs roads, certain programs, government, etc... But there comes a point in the equation where our government feels it knows our needs and wants better than we do, so I view an increase in income tax (in some cases) as "Hey, we know how to spend your money better than you do".

I haven't read the article yet, I just wanted to comment on Imisnew's post.

**ems_goof** · 01-20-10, 09:22 AM

How about some damn common sense "Don't spend it if we don't have it"?!?
Hello, basic economics 101 learned in elementary school. If you only have $2, you can't buy the $3 toy!
Throw out the current federal budget (all 10000000 pages or whatever it is), and start over with a bare-bones "This is the absolute necessity to keep the country running" (national defense, basic infrastructure, basic national health stuff).
If you have money left over, great. Pay off some debt. If you still have money left, then drop the taxes to reasonable levels. If still more money left, THEN you can start your pet programs. Nationally based pet-programs don't work because what is good for California might not be what North Dakota needs. Let the states be more responsible for their own pet projects. If ALL governments in the country would run this way, seems to me we'd be in less of a bad spot now. Take care of shit at the lowest level possible.