A Question for Teabaggers

Post Reply New Topic

I never had the chance to ask this in any thread:

If you care about freedom than why are the working class taxed over twice as much as the richest Americans? Is that not state enforced discrimination?

Thank God that my father's side is able to financially support my grandparents because they would otherwise still be working (and they are over 70).

So why could they never get away with only paying 18% in federal taxes?

I'm pretty sure that's not an accurate statement. Most Tea Partiers aren't big fans of the current tax code, most would probably favor a flat tax if not a complete elimination of the income tax.

Yep, flat tax! The rich will have their ways to stimulate the economy...

Perhaps because they don't get 75% worth of services for the 75% of the federal budget they currently subsidize? Say for example that they pay for our military to protect the worlds energy supply, there is still everything else to be accounted for. The premium that we take from their wallets are deserving of state police escorts everywhere, free upkeep by state workers of their property, and other little gestures of gratitude for the hefty portion of Americana they subsidize.

I don't mind increasing taxes on the wealthy so long as they are also increased on everyone else as well, including the poor, which currently pay no taxes. A disconnected subsidized taxpayer that gets everything and doesn't have to pay for anything makes one an ingrate, or the collective a nation of ingrates.

It surely is. That is why tax levels must be lowered and government (so-called) services must be curtailed. Also cutting our military budget 2/3 would help a great deal. We simply must stop fighting the Forever War.

ruveyn

I hope the butt hole that originaly invented the word "teabaggers" gets his face steamroll smashed on camera.

I would like to see the whole Income Tax Code thrown out.

Do any of us actually know Tea Party people?

Are any of us actually Tea Party People?

You keep hearing about them, but for all evidence to the contrary they might be a fabrication by the KGB.

I know at least one libertarian-conservative Tea Partier.

How do you propose to pay for your government? Or do you even want to have a government?

ruveyn

the oregon tea party is based in my home city of Beaverton(the former Oregon libertarian headquarters also used to be based here as well). One of my local organizers, marc delphine, is a gay republican, but lost his bid for the Senate against the more well-known Ron Wyden. I don't mind as much, since Wyden would have been my second choice anyways as he is a voice for reason and bipartisanship in the DNC, the Democrats McCain. But yes, I am a member in the Tea Party movement, and self-identify as a tea-party activist who is not as active anymore, but adheres to some of the principles of the movement. I don't mind that pro-gay marriage, or anti-gay marriage types join the movement, as the battle to keep the movement pure in its mission is an ongoing one - but we are not here to advance or oppose social policy despite the social backgrounds of many of our members. Individual tea party members will do that, We are here to be an effective tool in reducing entitlements, reduce federal wasteful spending, and reducing the federal and trade deficit.

that liberals give equal time calling our outlook draconian as they do in making us out to be racists is politics.

I've contributed to all three of the major Tea Party organizations and to a number of their candidates, so I guess that makes me a Tea Party member. As I see it, the Tea Party is basically a libertarian party with a bit more political savvy.

I'm not a teabagger, though.

Yea. The wealthy in the USA are sooo put upon.

Missouri might be a better place to hunt them than the suburbs of Upper Midwest university towns, There MIGHT be some affiliated with that incredibly hardline radio station I have mentioned from time to time. Pretty well all of our acquaintances, including the definitely non-academic, are straight Democrats. Even one who is close enough to mainline Evangelical to set off dozens or PPR alarms voted for Obama.

And as far as taxing the poor is concerned, you can't get blood from a stone. My family and I don't pay taxes for a good reason - stripping us of what little we have would leave us absolutely destitute.
Is it just me, or is there a genuine class hatred felt in the Tea Bagger movement for poor people? I think a great deal of it comes from the class resentment that poor people are perceived as given a free ride for paying no taxes, but qualify for social programs. That, and the fact that conservative politics have been so taken over by the evangelical movement, with it's completely unbiblical Prosperity Theology. That is, the completely false teaching that those who are in God's grace are blessed with material wealth, while the rest of us sorry bastards are going to hell - and in the meantime are cursed by God to live without.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

First off, I don't think it is proper for anyone to be reading into anyone else's situation. It is fine that you may read into your cancer diagnosis or the repocesion of your house by the bank as an act of God or a judgement of God based on your levels of faith in God. But it is not moral or ethical to go around assuming the fortunes of others as an act of God or a judgment of faith, and it is both perverse and sick. Rabbi Harold Kushner's "Why Bad Things Happen To Good People" brought me clarity on the issue, and may bring some to you as well.


I'm just saying...

to have the top 10% pay for 85% of this country's day-to-day operations is not justice or justifiable. Our federal spending as a percent of GDP passed 40% under George Bush, and is heading to 45% under Obama. And to continue to have the wealthy subsidize this alone makes for a disconnect between the majority of taxpayers ( who also happen to not be rich) and their spend-happy government.

Sort of an off tangent... that Evangelical President George Bush gave poor people a free ride by expanding the portion who qualify for not having to pay taxes more then any of the last 5 presidents who came before him. His progressive tax policy hit the upper middle class (the largest section that decreased in size) the hardest while you saw heavy increases in the bottom half of the middle class swell up over the last decade as the bush tax cuts allowed more lower-income people to move into the lower middle-class then ever before.

Don't make this about hating poor people, I'm not being cold blooded by suggesting that perhaps, they too should pay a little more for the services they use. On fairness alone, everyone should pay taxes. On fairness alone, the rich should pay a little more (not shoulder the entire nation) so that we can subsidize the lower classes, and provide upward mobility into a productive middle-class. On fairness alone, we got rid of most social programs except for those in dire situations. Was the Clinton era that cold blooded? Cut back Bush's prescription drug plan, raise our taxes back to Clinton era levels and slash federal spending towards a balanced budget, decrease the trade deficit, cut Obamacare, etc

All I'm saying is if you want these services, pay for them. You have to pay for social security(even though SS recipients today are costing 1.5X the amount of money they put into the system, and will only increase with the contiued rise in health care costs), and medicare, and an activist foreign policy that ensures the American way of life and secures up global energy supplies from despotic regimes.