Another Republican leaves due to Tea Party extremism

The tea party thinks it won the 2012 elections with fewer votes.

 

Ask the insurance companies who used the disinformation promulgated by the Right as an excuse to raise rates higher than they normally do. And you bought the lies.

 

It is what happens when one begins to believe their own propaganda.

 

No I did t you must have me confused with someone else. Obama's people and the insurance companies wrote this law. So of course the insurance company will make sure they make millions from it. And the left wants them to. Big pharma and insurance lobbyist has made sure that the Obama healthcare tax will increase their profits. Just look at how their stocks jump up as soon as Obama announced the ACA tax.

 

Why were you asking him a question that everyone would answer "No"?

So we shouldn't care than. Just keep raising it to infinity?

Do you realize how stupid those comments are? You will not even claim credit for the sequester in trying to prove some talking point.

 

.......and the hits just keep on comin'. Pass me the popcorn please, I'm enjoying watching the GOP/Tea Party becoming irrelevant.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...o/marco-rubio-says-sequester-was-obamas-idea/
Read who's idea was it? He played the American people as pawns.

 

You mean they are a party of tax-HATERS. That's why the IRS targeted them. They are the most likely place to find tax-cheats.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100491803
I love pointing liberal lies.

 

I've still got mine. Ask the insurance companies who callously canceled the policies of people why they couldn't keep their cheap policies?

 

Except that your the one lying. Obamacare made these cancelled policies illegal (they lacked adequate coverage under the new guidelines). Do you honestly think Insurance companies can afford to add additional elements to these policies without increasing premiums? When the law forces you to recall a cheaper product for a more expensive one, the price will go up. What did you expect??

 

I'm not familiar with the New Orleans story. Can you post a link? I can't comment until I know the story and the context.

On your second point, do you know the difference between wanting to do something and actually doing it? I know the president hasn't said anything like that. Until guns are actually being confiscated, your point is nonsense.

 

So they should have provided adequate coverage. Of course they can afford it. They are making huge profits as it is. They are rip-off artists. Even Riot agrees on that point (see post 203)

 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q2BXH0JfOc
And I don't want to hear about the source it's the best put together piece. But there are many others. Cause this really happen. I'm from here. I know trust me. I'm lucky cause I'm 60 mile south of New Orleans.

 

Well your ilk didn't do a very job predicting the one in 2008 and that crash was seen in the making for months.

 

On domestic issues, I agree with you, he has for certainly the majority, pampered the large corporations. That being said, right wingers were predicting the opposite.

 

I never said anything about 2008? Why are you pinning that date on me? I never said I was a tea party member either. I just understand where they are comming from. As well as the progressive side. I try to keep an open mind and just don't call someone extreme cause they disagree with me.

 

Well few people despise the Tea Party more than me, while I understand the Koch brothers underwrite many of the Tea Party causes, they do have some grass roots, even though they are misguided.

 

I didn't call you out as a Tea Party member, but your posts on this issue align with them. That being said, the Tea Party is extreme, in fact a significant number are always suggestions tyranny. To reiterate, the notions that Pres Obama's policies will ruin the nation have not come true, yet I will accept his term isn't over, but while the economy is anemic the large corps are still doing well. It was the Pres Bush Jr Admin that was the one that brought the US to the very edge.

 

Yes I forgot I was speaking to liberals. They did not vote for the war at all. They just voted Yes when Bush asked them for permission to go to war. Historical Fact is not debatable. Would you like the vote posted for all to see?
Whatever BS you spew isn't going to change the fact that dems agreed with bush. Specifically Hillary.

 

I think the end of the petro dollar is part of that. I think wall streets dividends trading. Inflated stocks like Facebook. Worth millions yet they don't make even close to much of any income. Inflation is coming soon. The Feds say so also.

 

Talk to Obama, he's the one who said he bowled like a retarded person.

 

What is extreme about demanding the US government abide by the US Constitution, live with its means, and stop running up the national debt? Is it extreme to demand the government stop putting up more and more obstructions to people taking risk and accumulating wealth?

Of course the left sees nothing extreme in their agenda of punishing achievement, openly call for the IRS to continue targeting people who openly disagreement with the government, sue a group of Nuns for not obeying Obamacare, and ignore the NSA increased snooping of the citizens

 

I have no problem with those that would address spending by Congress but Congress is still responsible for determining spending regardless of special interest groups. What Congress authorized must be paid for is a fundamental requirement for fiscal conservatism. An example I've used before related to the person provides an excellent analogy.

As a person I may have agreed to a mortgage at a high interest rate and may want to reduce that interest rate. In the meantime, as a fiscally conservative person, I pay the monthly mortgage and don't borrow more to pay for the mortgage. To reduce my monthly expenditures I will seek to refinance the loan reducing my monthly financial obligation but I continue to pay the loan. I don't stop paying the mortgage will I still have the requirement to pay the higher interest rates.

All financial obligations created by Congress are a financial obligation of the People of the United States. We're responsible for "paying the bills" regardless of how much they are. When we reduce the financial obligations to below what is collected in taxation then we can reduce taxation. In the meantime we need to collect more in taxation because the expenditures are greater than the income from the taxation. The Tea Party argues that "we can't afford it" but that is false.

The United States has over $13 trillion in personal income and we cannot state that the People don't have the money to pay for the full costs of the authorized expenditures of Congress. Yes, to pay the bills would require an average tax rate of about 25% across the board if all Americans had the identical income but we don't. Logically those with higher incomes can afford a higher effective tax rate than those with lower incomes.

What doesn't make sense is that the highest income earners in the United States all derive their vast income from investments that are only taxed at a maximum rate of 20% under the Capital Gains tax and they're the ones most capable of affording a tax rate above the 25% necessary to fund federal expenditures. At the same time a small business owner (and small businesses create over 70% of all jobs in the US) with $100,000 in net income has a tax rate of over 37% on their net income.

The Tea Party advocates not paying the actual authorized costs of the federal government and cutting the taxes for everyone including the highest income earners in America today that aren't even paying the minimum necessary 25% tax rate necessary to fund the federal government. This is not only fiscal irresponsibility but is downright stupid from a financial standpoint. It would make sense to reduce the tax obligation of the small business owner making $100,000 a year to 25% and increase the tax rate for those earning over $1 million a year to 37% but the Tea Party doesn't advocate that.

Is it any wonder that "conservative ideologies" are linked to "low intelligence" when the most extreme "right-wing" conservatives make such ignorant propositions?

 

I would like to remind you the top 1% earn about 22% of all the income and yet pay over 40% of all the Federal Income taxes. Meanwhile the bottom 50% pay a measly 3% of all Federal Income taxes collected

When you add up Federal. state, local, and other taxes it is not uncommon to see the top 1% handing over more then half their income to the government

At what point is someone paying their "fair share"?