Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So sad about these tea party people, they are misdirected.
Tea Party people are infuriated about the massive government spending that is going on in Washingston. That's being misdirected?!?
If someone wishes that Our Country go further and further into debt that our grandchildren won't be able to pay off and our $dollar and savings will become worthless, then that person is more than just "misdirected" but "clueless" or even worse, an enemy of America.
The Tea Party is against massive spending? Where were you guys during Bush? I mean seriously. I think war protestors back then were segregated to free speech "zones." We were ignored at best, called traitorious and threatened in other cases. I remember being one of the only people at my fairly large company in Orange County, Ca. who was against the War in Iraq. Someone actually reported me to HR for not supporting the President. No joke. I didn't see too many people protesting spending back then, either.
I'm not a fan of either party but I don't see Tea Partiers discussing the massive overspending on wars of aggression. Or do they now? I am a fan of Ron Paul and what I read about the original tea parties (except they are a bit too right for me regarding border fences, etc), but the Tea Party of today seems like theocratic, war-hungry brownshirts (ie neocons). No thanks. (I am not sure if I will vote for Obama, btw, the 2nd time. I didn't support him in the primaries and have since left the Democratic party.)
I don't fully agree. Did they pay into a system that provided for SS and medicare for over 40 years? Yes they did. To want what you have helped to pay for is NOT hypocritical.
The vast majority did not pay the full cost of the benefits they are receiving. My father-in-law paid into SS for about 35 years. In the early years, he was earning entry-level pay. (He was a house painter.) He paid into Medicare for about 10 years. (Medicare was not encacted until 1965.) He lived and received these benefits for 32 years after he retired. He used to joke that he thought he got back everything he paid in. He knew he was getting a deal.
The Tea Party is against massive spending? Where were you guys during Bush? I mean seriously. I think war protestors back then were segregated to free speech "zones." We were ignored at best, called traitorious and threatened in other cases. I remember being one of the only people at my fairly large company in Orange County, Ca. who was against the War in Iraq. Someone actually reported me to HR for not supporting the President. No joke. I didn't see too many people protesting spending back then, either.
I'm not a fan of either party but I don't see Tea Partiers discussing the massive overspending on wars of aggression. Or do they now? I am a fan of Ron Paul and what I read about the original tea parties (except they are a bit too right for me regarding border fences, etc), but the Tea Party of today seems like theocratic, war-hungry brownshirts (ie neocons). No thanks. (I am not sure if I will vote for Obama, btw, the 2nd time. I didn't support him in the primaries and have since left the Democratic party.)
You probably did not hear us grumbling over the screaming of the progressives on everything that was 'Bush Doctrine'. The bailouts, starting with TARP - which was initiated by Bush - floored most of us. McCain was not against it and I have no doubts that is one of the reasons he lost - I didn't vote for him...just more of the same republican crap as was dominant in the 8 years of Bush. Who knew that Obama, although definitely different, is still the same...*chuckle*
How you identify Tea Party as NeoCon leaves me bewildered. NeoCons are not Nationalistic, most Tea Party supporters are.
The vast majority did not pay the full cost of the benefits they are receiving. My father-in-law paid into SS for about 35 years. In the early years, he was earning entry-level pay. (He was a house painter.) He paid into Medicare for about 10 years. (Medicare was not encacted until 1965.) He lived and received these benefits for 32 years after he retired.
What about the those who started their work around 1965? they have paid their full adult lives to those 2 systems. You realize that those folks have started to retire and use their 'benefits' just in the past few years, right? What do you suppose is the current percentage of folks who have paid 30 years or more of their 'working' careers into those systems? Could you clarify what you mean by 'vast majority'?
What about the those who started their work around 1965? they have paid their full adult lives to those 2 systems. You realize that those folks have started to retire and use their 'benefits' just in the past few years, right? What do you suppose is the current percentage of folks who have paid 30 years or more of their 'working' careers into those systems? Could you clarify what you mean by 'vast majority'?
A college graduate who started working in 1965 was born ~ 1943. These people are now 67 years old, and just starting to collect SS/be covered by Medicare. Since most people didn't graduate from college back then, the "average" person starting work in 1965 was born ~ 1945, and is just now turning 65 and retiring. Anyone born earlier did not pay into the system their entire working life. All these retirees out there tea-partying are getting a ride from the govt., yet they won't acknowledge that (as my FIL did).
I don't know the percentage of people now on SS who paid 30+ years of their careers into SS and Medicare, but they would have retired in 1995 or later, 15 years ago or less. They would be in their 60s/70s. Anyone over 80 did not pay in to Medicare 30+ years.
The vast majority would be those born before ~1945, in other words, people now 65+ (for Medicare), e.g. virtually everyone on Medicare.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 03-02-2010 at 05:51 PM..
Reason: Clarify
I wouldn't say it's spreading. A good analogy would probably be a fungus: Just when you think it's gone, it shows back up again. At the end of the day, it's more of an irritant that anything.
You probably did not hear us grumbling over the screaming of the progressives on everything that was 'Bush Doctrine'. The bailouts, starting with TARP - which was initiated by Bush - floored most of us. McCain was not against it and I have no doubts that is one of the reasons he lost - I didn't vote for him...just more of the same republican crap as was dominant in the 8 years of Bush. Who knew that Obama, although definitely different, is still the same...*chuckle*
How you identify Tea Party as NeoCon leaves me bewildered. NeoCons are not Nationalistic, most Tea Party supporters are.
TARP was not initiated by bush. it was initiated by a democratic congress, sponsored by democratic legislators, and signed by the biggest jackass (IMO ) that the republican party has ever produced.
obama voted for it (as well as mccain), so literally it did not matter who you voted for and both parties understood that on election day. it didn't matter who won because the bases were covered.
TARP was not initiated by bush. it was initiated by a democratic congress, sponsored by democratic legislators, and signed by the biggest jackass (IMO ) that the republican party has ever produced.
obama voted for it (as well as mccain), so literally it did not matter who you voted for and both parties understood that on election day. it didn't matter who won because the bases were covered.
There's always a way to blame the Dems, isn't there?
TARP was not initiated by bush. it was initiated by a democratic congress, sponsored by democratic legislators, and signed by the biggest jackass (IMO ) that the republican party has ever produced.
obama voted for it (as well as mccain), so literally it did not matter who you voted for and both parties understood that on election day. it didn't matter who won because the bases were covered.
Did Bush sign it?? Sure, Congress has some blame...but where does the 'buck' stop? On the POTUS Desk.
BTW - Paulson, Secretary of Treasury, under Bush, was the creator of TARP. Sounds like 'Bush's Baby' to me.
Last edited by LoneSentinel; 03-03-2010 at 07:56 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) that the republican party has ever produced.
