Dear Teabaggers

[nesterdude]

As well, if we empower communities more and less the fed, I'd wager that we'll see a drastic reduction (not elimination) in irresponsible public domain behavior from the common citizen.

Where's you're logic in that? "I'd wager" is you're best explanation?

And how exactly do we "empower" these communities?

If there is anything that deregulation has shown, it is that companies take advantage of it for their own personal gain, and the consumer and often the nation as a whole, pay for it.

Regulations on business were put there for a reason, and are typically enacted as the result of a poor business practice in the past - something deemed unethical or hurtful to consumers or the state/national economy. So unless were looking for past problems to repeat themselves, it doesn't really make logistical sense to go and start repealing these acts.

Yes, I'd wager, or in other words, I'd bet.
To empower communities, you do many things in fact. You hold people accountable through the community, you allow people to judge, and measure one another, you allow teachers to teach and hold authority, you allow local law enforcement to enforce the law, etc. I'm being abstract here, and you can be a little douche and say "well what do you mean (insert this topic)" or "some other stupid question to distract from common sense (thought not so common these days)"
Some regulations were put there for good reason, others were not. I'd WAGER that we're going to get some shit regulations from the BP spill. But that's prerogative I suppose.
Hold people accountable for their actions through their communities, and things will even out.

[Snorri1234]

I did not know complaining about taxes makes you a membr of the tea party.

It's true. It's like how wizards get picked up in Harry Potter. When you show traits of a tax-complainer you get a letter delivered by a free-market owl telling you you've been accepted by The Tea Party (tm) and a list of Glen Beck books.


You have to take a taxi to school because trains are communist.

[ritz627]

As well, if we empower communities more and less the fed, I'd wager that we'll see a drastic reduction (not elimination) in irresponsible public domain behavior from the common citizen.

Where's you're logic in that? "I'd wager" is you're best explanation?

And how exactly do we "empower" these communities?

If there is anything that deregulation has shown, it is that companies take advantage of it for their own personal gain, and the consumer and often the nation as a whole, pay for it.

Regulations on business were put there for a reason, and are typically enacted as the result of a poor business practice in the past - something deemed unethical or hurtful to consumers or the state/national economy. So unless were looking for past problems to repeat themselves, it doesn't really make logistical sense to go and start repealing these acts.

Yes, I'd wager, or in other words, I'd bet.
To empower communities, you do many things in fact. You hold people accountable through the community, you allow people to judge, and measure one another, you allow teachers to teach and hold authority, you allow local law enforcement to enforce the law, etc. I'm being abstract here, and you can be a little douche and say "well what do you mean (insert this topic)" or "some other stupid question to distract from common sense (thought not so common these days)"
Some regulations were put there for good reason, others were not. I'd WAGER that we're going to get some shit regulations from the BP spill. But that's prerogative I suppose.
Hold people accountable for their actions through their communities, and things will even out.

Well I guess you can call me a little douche...but Im still wondering how exactly do you plan to empower communities? I think that's a pretty common sense thing to ask.

Who's stopping people from holding others accountable for their actions? Who's stopping people from judging others? Who's stopping teachers from teaching and holding authority? Who's stopping law enforcement to enforce the law? No one. Everyone has the right to think of others as they may. There is nothing in the liberal platform against this.

And if by shit regulations you mean proper safety regulations that should have been there in the first place...then yes, I'd say some shit regulations are coming to oil companies.

[ritz627]

[
I did not know complaining about taxes makes you a membr of the tea party.

Again...that's not what I said...

[nesterdude]

As well, if we empower communities more and less the fed, I'd wager that we'll see a drastic reduction (not elimination) in irresponsible public domain behavior from the common citizen.

Where's you're logic in that? "I'd wager" is you're best explanation?

And how exactly do we "empower" these communities?

If there is anything that deregulation has shown, it is that companies take advantage of it for their own personal gain, and the consumer and often the nation as a whole, pay for it.

Regulations on business were put there for a reason, and are typically enacted as the result of a poor business practice in the past - something deemed unethical or hurtful to consumers or the state/national economy. So unless were looking for past problems to repeat themselves, it doesn't really make logistical sense to go and start repealing these acts.

Yes, I'd wager, or in other words, I'd bet.
To empower communities, you do many things in fact. You hold people accountable through the community, you allow people to judge, and measure one another, you allow teachers to teach and hold authority, you allow local law enforcement to enforce the law, etc. I'm being abstract here, and you can be a little douche and say "well what do you mean (insert this topic)" or "some other stupid question to distract from common sense (thought not so common these days)"
Some regulations were put there for good reason, others were not. I'd WAGER that we're going to get some shit regulations from the BP spill. But that's prerogative I suppose.
Hold people accountable for their actions through their communities, and things will even out.

Well I guess you can call me a little douche...but Im still wondering how exactly do you plan to empower communities? I think that's a pretty common sense thing to ask.

Who's stopping people from holding others accountable for their actions? Who's stopping people from judging others? Who's stopping teachers from teaching and holding authority? Who's stopping law enforcement to enforce the law? No one. Everyone has the right to think of others as they may. There is nothing in the liberal platform against this.

And if by shit regulations you mean proper safety regulations that should have been there in the first place...then yes, I'd say some shit regulations are coming to oil companies.

Why the fed of course
you little douche
You are so indicative of the perspective today by your last comment: make decisions because they feel good, not because they make good sense.
Now I'm sure you just won't understand what I'm trying to say...I assure you; it'll come with age.

[ritz627]

As well, if we empower communities more and less the fed, I'd wager that we'll see a drastic reduction (not elimination) in irresponsible public domain behavior from the common citizen.

Where's you're logic in that? "I'd wager" is you're best explanation?

And how exactly do we "empower" these communities?

If there is anything that deregulation has shown, it is that companies take advantage of it for their own personal gain, and the consumer and often the nation as a whole, pay for it.

Regulations on business were put there for a reason, and are typically enacted as the result of a poor business practice in the past - something deemed unethical or hurtful to consumers or the state/national economy. So unless were looking for past problems to repeat themselves, it doesn't really make logistical sense to go and start repealing these acts.

Yes, I'd wager, or in other words, I'd bet.
To empower communities, you do many things in fact. You hold people accountable through the community, you allow people to judge, and measure one another, you allow teachers to teach and hold authority, you allow local law enforcement to enforce the law, etc. I'm being abstract here, and you can be a little douche and say "well what do you mean (insert this topic)" or "some other stupid question to distract from common sense (thought not so common these days)"
Some regulations were put there for good reason, others were not. I'd WAGER that we're going to get some shit regulations from the BP spill. But that's prerogative I suppose.
Hold people accountable for their actions through their communities, and things will even out.

Well I guess you can call me a little douche...but Im still wondering how exactly do you plan to empower communities? I think that's a pretty common sense thing to ask.

Who's stopping people from holding others accountable for their actions? Who's stopping people from judging others? Who's stopping teachers from teaching and holding authority? Who's stopping law enforcement to enforce the law? No one. Everyone has the right to think of others as they may. There is nothing in the liberal platform against this.

And if by shit regulations you mean proper safety regulations that should have been there in the first place...then yes, I'd say some shit regulations are coming to oil companies.

Why the fed of course
you little douche
You are so indicative of the perspective today by your last comment: make decisions because they feel good, not because they make good sense.
Now I'm sure you just won't understand what I'm trying to say...I assure you; it'll come with age.

Lol...right...

The government controls our thoughts, and stops us from judging others. It controls our teachers and stops them from teaching.

How?? By making the pledge of allegiance voluntary to say in class?

What really stops our teachers from teaching is cutting the budget.

And right....the government stops our law enforcement from enforcing the law - despite the fact that the police department is a government institution.

How do you propose they are doing that?? By having them read the Miranda rights to criminals?

So if I'm reading what you're saying correctly - you think we should always make gut decisions , rather than think things through. That is one of the most immature approaches to government I think I've ever heard. But I'm sure you just won't understand what I'm trying to say.

Sorry but I disagree with you there...and Im quite sure that wont change with age. And in fact, judging by your grammar, I'd say I'm probably older than you are.

And btw...if that wasn't enough...you still have answered how exactly you plan to "empower" communities.

[Phatscotty]

What does any of this have to do with the Tea Party?

[thegreekdog]

I guess I'll swing it back to taxes (specifically the "the president cut taxes, why are the Tea Party people worried about taxes" bit of this).

I'm a Tea Party supporter with respect to taxes (but not just taxes). Essentially, what we have right now is spending on, among other things, bailouts for banks, bailouts for car companies, overhaul of the lending industry (potentially), and the "not everyone is covered, but we're still spending billions" healthcare plan. These are all programs of this and the last administration. We also are spending money on two wars. These are two wars prosecuted by this and the last administration. So, we're spending money. The last administration cut taxes (for everyone, although President Bush only gets credit for cutting taxes for the rich... not anyone else). This administration cut taxes (for everyone except the "rich," defined as any couple making more than $250,000). So, we are spending a whole lot more than we used to and we've cut taxes.

So, how are we going to pay for all this spending? Well, we can incur more debt... which we've done. But we have to pay back that debt somehow, so it's a short-term solution to the spending. So, debt is out as a long term solution. We can pay for this new spending one of two ways: (1) raise or implement new taxes or (2) cut other programs. President Obama has indicated he would like to "tighten belts" in the federal government (i.e. #2). I would like to see this, though I doubt it will happen at this point. He said it back in his State of the Union and as far as I can tell he has made no moves to implement any sort of cutting or belt tightening. What President Obama has done is floated the idea of a federal value-added tax ("VAT"), which is the federal equivalent of a sales tax, except that where the sales tax is imposed on the final sale of a product, the VAT is imposed at every transfer of property or services (as an example, if timber is sold to the furniture manufacturer is sold to the furniture retailer is sold to the customer, sales tax only applies to transfer to the customer; VAT would apply to every transaction in the chain). So, there's VAT. There's also a tax on "Cadillac" healthcare plans (i.e. "we don't want people to have too much health insurance" tax). There's also talk of bringing back, increasing the rate, or imposing taxes on various estates, "rich" people (see above for the definition of "rich"), and corporations. There have also been numerous bills (and at least one law) that close loopholes (oh, and by the way, remove deductions).

In sum, while President Obama has not raise the tax rate (RATE) on anyone, he is assuredly trying to implement new taxes and is assuredly trying to increase the tax base (rather than the rate). It is a sound political strategy... he can increase revenue without having to say that he raised taxes by raising the rate (which is what most fly-by-night politicos care about).

So, federal taxes will increase and are increasing. It's only a matter of time until we see those effects on the economy and on an individual basis.

[Timminz]

VAT: that sounds a lot like the sales tax here in Canada. If it is, you're overstating it. Sure, tax is charged on every sale of a product down the supply chain, but each company only remits the difference between what they collect on sales, and what they pay on purchases. But perhaps I'm ignorant to what it would actually entail.

CADILLAC HEALTH PLANS: Again, perhaps I'm just ignorant, but isn't the tax on these meant as a form of income tax? I thought that, for years, employers were able to provide highly valuable health-care plans to their employees as part of their pay, without them having to pay any income tax on the value of them. If $25,000 of someone's annual income comes in the form of a health-care plan, why shouldn't they be taxed for that income?

[thegreekdog]

VAT: that sounds a lot like the sales tax here in Canada. If it is, you're overstating it. Sure, tax is charged on every sale of a product down the supply chain, but each company only remits the difference between what they collect on sales, and what they pay on purchases. But perhaps I'm ignorant to what it would actually entail.

CADILLAC HEALTH PLANS: Again, perhaps I'm just ignorant, but isn't the tax on these meant as a form of income tax? I thought that, for years, employers were able to provide highly valuable health-care plans to their employees as part of their pay, without them having to pay any income tax on the value of them. If $25,000 of someone's annual income comes in the form of a health-care plan, why shouldn't they be taxed for that income?

VAT: I'm not overstating it, although I suppose one could think I was. However, it is an additional tax (which is the point) and it will be a tax in addition to state sales and use taxes (I believe Canada has provincial sales taxes).

Cadillac Health Plans: Depends on the company I think. For example, if I choose to have my wife's health insurance and not mine, my company will not provide me with extra income. Other companies let a person choose whether to participate in the company's health insurance plan or garner additional income. In any event, everyone's annual income comes in the form of health insurance if they choose to get health insurance through their employer. So, perhaps I should say the Cadillac health insurance tax is a tax on rich people and lump it in with that?

Again, the overarching point is that these are additional taxes.

[Snorri1234]

(for everyone except the "rich," defined as any couple making more than $250,000).

No need to put quotation marks around that. A definition of rich where people making more than 98.5% of the population are still not considered rich is an useless definition.

[thegreekdog]

(for everyone except the "rich," defined as any couple making more than $250,000).

No need to put quotation marks around that. A definition of rich where people making more than 98.5% of the population are still not considered rich is an useless definition.

There is a need to put quotation marks around that term when the definition of the term is so out of whack with the presentation of that term in public discussion. When one uses the term "rich" in public discussion (i.e. the rich CEOs and the rich directors and the rich shareholders), one is not referring to couples making over $250,000... one is referring to people making many millions of dollars. There is a significant difference between the "rich" as defined by the federal government and the "rich" who are the target of wealth redistribution.

[jonesthecurl]

VAT: Value Added Tax.

If a wholesaler sells me something at £10, I pay VAT on that. If I sell it at £15, I charge VAT on that. However, I only pay the VAT man the VAT on the Added value - i.e. £5.

It's exactly like a sales tax, except that it's charged at each point in the chain.
The way it actually works is that a retailer adds up all the VAT he's paid and all the VAT he's charged, deducts the one from t'other, and pays the difference. If anything is not sold, the VAT he's already paid will thus be effectively refunded. Also, you claim VAT as paid on everything your business buys, not just the stuff you resell.

Filling in the returns can be a pain, but all tax is a bind that way. In the UK it replaced the old "Purchase tax" in the 70's, which was much the same as US "sales tax". It's not evil in any way in and of itself.

[Snorri1234]

(for everyone except the "rich," defined as any couple making more than $250,000).

No need to put quotation marks around that. A definition of rich where people making more than 98.5% of the population are still not considered rich is an useless definition.

There is a need to put quotation marks around that term when the definition of the term is so out of whack with the presentation of that term in public discussion. When one uses the term "rich" in public discussion (i.e. the rich CEOs and the rich directors and the rich shareholders), one is not referring to couples making over $250,000... one is referring to people making many millions of dollars. There is a significant difference between the "rich" as defined by the federal government and the "rich" who are the target of wealth redistribution.

So? People who make over 250k a year are still fucking rich. You seem to be under the impression that CEO's and directors and shareholders make millions of dollars for the most part. They don't. 250k is already an incredible amount of money for most people. It's 5 times as much as the median income. 5 times what most people make.

When people talk about the "rich" they are in fact talking about those who make more than 250k. Sure, they mention those who make millions too but don't get the idea that they don't think people who make 250k aren't also rich.

[john9blue]

I'd call 250k "rich", but definitions are subjective of course. Certainly they're rich enough to give money to the poor and not be financially crippled.

[Snorri1234]

I'd call 250k "rich", but definitions are subjective of course. Certainly they're rich enough to give money to the poor and not be financially crippled.

Yeah, definitions are subjective. But my point is more that when you make more than 98.5% of the population you qualify as rich by sort of objective standards of richness. That is, the term is subjective but within a society it can be objective. When you have more than everyone else by a large margin, you're rich within the context of you and everyone else.

[thegreekdog]

(for everyone except the "rich," defined as any couple making more than $250,000).

No need to put quotation marks around that. A definition of rich where people making more than 98.5% of the population are still not considered rich is an useless definition.

There is a need to put quotation marks around that term when the definition of the term is so out of whack with the presentation of that term in public discussion. When one uses the term "rich" in public discussion (i.e. the rich CEOs and the rich directors and the rich shareholders), one is not referring to couples making over $250,000... one is referring to people making many millions of dollars. There is a significant difference between the "rich" as defined by the federal government and the "rich" who are the target of wealth redistribution.

So? People who make over 250k a year are still fucking rich. You seem to be under the impression that CEO's and directors and shareholders make millions of dollars for the most part. They don't. 250k is already an incredible amount of money for most people. It's 5 times as much as the median income. 5 times what most people make.

When people talk about the "rich" they are in fact talking about those who make more than 250k. Sure, they mention those who make millions too but don't get the idea that they don't think people who make 250k aren't also rich.

Fair enough. I don't think those people are rich and I think to lump them together with the rich people who are regularly ridiculed in the U.S. is in appropriate.

[thegreekdog]

VAT: Value Added Tax.

If a wholesaler sells me something at £10, I pay VAT on that. If I sell it at £15, I charge VAT on that. However, I only pay the VAT man the VAT on the Added value - i.e. £5.

It's exactly like a sales tax, except that it's charged at each point in the chain.
The way it actually works is that a retailer adds up all the VAT he's paid and all the VAT he's charged, deducts the one from t'other, and pays the difference. If anything is not sold, the VAT he's already paid will thus be effectively refunded. Also, you claim VAT as paid on everything your business buys, not just the stuff you resell.

Filling in the returns can be a pain, but all tax is a bind that way. In the UK it replaced the old "Purchase tax" in the 70's, which was much the same as US "sales tax". It's not evil in any way in and of itself.

Okay. It's an additional tax... on consumption no less.

[pimpdave]

Fair enough. I don't think those people are rich and I think to lump them together with the rich people who are regularly ridiculed in the U.S. is in appropriate.

Yeah, but you're always comparing up, not down. Of course you don't think you're rich.

[thegreekdog]

Fair enough. I don't think those people are rich and I think to lump them together with the rich people who are regularly ridiculed in the U.S. is in appropriate.

Yeah, but you're always comparing up, not down. Of course you don't think you're rich.

I don't make $250K a year. Even though my wife and I together don't make $250K a year, we still get dinged on school loan interest deductions and the like. I calculated this a couple of years ago, but in Year One of lawyering my wife and I paid significantly less in taxes then we did in Year Three, with only a moderate increase in our incomes. It's pretty unfair, all around.

[Phatscotty]

It is NOBODY'S DAMN BUSINESS how much other people make.

The more time you focus on looting other people's success, the less time you spend improving your own lot in life...

[rockfist]

Its called theft. Its what the left does.