Foes of Tea Party movement to plan to infiltrate them

[1bad65]

No, I just think your opinion that we're somehow going to become a third world country as soon as we start paying more taxes is silly and alarmist. that is all.

I never said that.

Now I have stated on numerous times that Gov't spending will not end a recession. And so far, I've been proven correct. I've also stated that massive tax cuts will fix most of our current economic issues. If this policy is implemented, we will see if I'm right, yet again.

[David Jamieson]

I never said that.

Now I have stated on numerous times that Gov't spending will not end a recession. And so far, I've been proven correct. I've also stated that massive tax cuts will fix most of our current economic issues. If this policy is implemented, we will see if I'm right, yet again.

No you haven't, if anything you've been proven wrong because government spending did keep the recession from going into a depression and also you never felt the real pinch of the consequences of what really happened because of that spending.

don't forget they were essentially using your tax money to help the money system stay afloat. at the same time, you felt a minor loss because of it if you and any investments you probably lost about 1/3 of them like everyone else and that money is written off.

now you are going through economic recovery in teh states and soon to follow will be all the jobs that were lost and in effect, government loosening of the purse strings and stimulus spending will have more or less aided in the correction and the majority of the people will not have felt the pinch of the disaster that would have happened if no stimulus spending took place and no bail outs occurred.

[1bad65]

No you haven't, if anything you've been proven wrong because government spending did keep the recession from going into a depression and also you never felt the real pinch of the consequences of what really happened because of that spending.

Here you go with that purple dragon argument again.

Face it, after the 'stimulus' bill got passed that we were told would fix the problems and keep unemplyment below 8%, unemployment hit 10% and is still over 9%. And the regime has openly admitted unemployment will be between 9-10% for at least another year.

[1bad65]

now you are going through economic recovery in teh states and soon to follow will be all the jobs that were lost and in effect, government loosening of the purse strings and stimulus spending will have more or less aided in the correction and the majority of the people will not have felt the pinch of the disaster that would have happened if no stimulus spending took place and no bail outs occurred.

LMAO at an economic recovery in the states! Isn't unemployment close to 20% in Michigan now? Is California recovering?

[Pork Chop]

Disclaimer: this may come off "touchy feely".

Everyone should be taxed to the point we are all living as the lowest common denominator.

Sadly, you are right.

this is where i got that idea that you said that (about increased taxes sending us all back to 3rd world status)....

btw- i think our only real disagreements are thus:

1. I don't think increased taxation is going to kill us (financially).
I understand your viewpoint, I've just seen enough evidence to the contrary that I'm willing to try other options. We'll see how this health insurance thing goes and if I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

2.I have no problem paying for people who refuse to work.
Yeah, it's not fair.
But money that might be going to these "derelicts" might be going to other people who have a perfectly legitimate reason for their situation.

3. I don't think "liberals" are evil.
Just like you, I hate people who legislate what I am and am not able to do.
I feel the same way about the Christian right that encourages a mindset similar to the theory behind chick-fil-a not being open on Sundays, evolution not being taught in school, and alcohol not being sold at certain times/places - the same that you do about legislation that states unhealthy fast food restaurants are not allowed to market toys to kids if it requires purchasing unhealthy foods, being forced to pay for derelicts, gun control, and other stuff that's been (admittedly) forced through lately.

I think the opposing view point is valid; even if I don't agree with it, because it encourages me to think about things I would otherwise think should just be "common sense".

I try to understand the motivations that encourage your opinions on matters.
I would hope you try to understand my motivations that encourage my opinion on matters.

The last thing any of us needs are more reasons to hate the "other side". Liberals who want to see people in trouble relieved of some sorrows, are not that fundamentally different than conservatives that don't want to be burdened to pay for it. Ultimately, if we can find some common ground, I think we could discover a resolution that encouraged a "win win" situation.

No legislation should be inherently evil if both sides are allowed to debate on issues; granted when bush was in office this did not happen enough, and the same can be said for legislation that's going through now. That being said, I've been on both sides of the abortion issue and "abstainment" seems to be the route that makes the most moral sense.

The great thing about our system is that poor legislation can be reversed.
If the people in office are not willing to do it, then we can elect others in office to get it done - there is some democracy in the process.

(Selfishly) I would hope you would not think of us try different approaches as being "evil' just as I'll try to keep an open mind about the recent legislation in Arizona, among other things that occurred during Bush's reign. The Arizona thing by the way, I don't have that big a problem in theory - I'm just tired of seeing friends with jobs and needed job skills get deported due to an immigration system that seems broken at the most fundamental levels.

Admittedly, I have very little love for corporations (too many greeburgs and kozlowskis, not enough mulcahys and kellys); which is why i lean the direction I do. I would rather fight a government program, because at least some office with enough clout could be elected to enact change; whereas some businesses have boards with decade upon decade of control.

My brother worked for a lawyer investigating social security fraud, which is why I understand (somewhat) your viewpoint- at least as far as "welfare".

I would just hope to "agree to disagree" and not harbor serious bad blood towards either side. Because different viewpoints can be extremely beneficial in understanding an issue.

My problem with the Tea Party is that the propaganda for the movement thus far has seem entirely too closed-minded, one-sided, black & white, and "us vs them".
If you can admit that some racist elements have targeted the movement, then I can admit that they've got some good points about getting back to basics and fiscal responsibility.