PDA

View Full Version : Will the Tea Party support the Cali Marijuana Legalization measure this Nov?



Wei Wu Wei
03-28-2010, 06:31 PM
Individual liberties and Big Government, an issue about what you do with your body in your home. This sounds exactly like a Tea Party issue.

Also how about legalizing prostitution?

Rockntractor
03-28-2010, 06:34 PM
Also how about legalizing prostitution?

Go to Vegas, it's legal there.

Wei Wu Wei
03-28-2010, 06:39 PM
Yes and the results have been amazing. Decreases in STD's, less violence, tax revenues, and more.

The thread wasn't "where can I find a prostitute?", it's "will the Tea Party support these measures?"

I'm asking because if the Tea Party is about individual liberties and smaller government, these are the perfect issues for them to support.

Apocalypse
03-28-2010, 07:00 PM
Hey wee wee, since you seem to try and demonize the Tea party movement, tell me how many of these core party principals do you have a problem with.

* Balance the federal budget
* Lower taxes across the board
* Increase state sovereignty in political, economic, and social issues
* Institute constitutional term limits in Congress
* Decrease federal spending
* Borrow less money from foreign powers such as China, Russia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
* Make Congress cite chapter & verse in the Constitution when passing bills
* End all federal bailouts
* Increase ballot access for Independent & Third Party candidates
* Increase the value of our Dollar
* Throw out every single candidate, regardless of party affiliation, who voted for any of the federal bailouts
* Increase transparency & accountability at the Federal Reserve
* Reform the entire tax code
* Elect Washington outsiders in upcoming elections
* Start paying down the national debt
* Throw out big government & big spending incumbents, regardless of party affiliation
* Make Congress read the bills before they actually vote
* Build the foundation for a new, third party
* Start running for political office ourselves

Rockntractor
03-28-2010, 07:04 PM
Yes and the results have been amazing. Decreases in STD's, less violence, tax revenues, and more.

The thread wasn't "where can I find a prostitute?", it's "will the Tea Party support these measures?"

I'm asking because if the Tea Party is about individual liberties and smaller government, these are the perfect issues for them to support.
Of course the tea parties will support it! We conservatives are all about extramarital sex with anything that moves....you friggen moron!

Wei Wu Wei
03-28-2010, 08:29 PM
Hey wee wee, since you seem to try and demonize the Tea party movement, tell me how many of these core party principals do you have a problem with.

* Balance the federal budget
* Lower taxes across the board
* Increase state sovereignty in political, economic, and social issues
* Institute constitutional term limits in Congress
* Decrease federal spending
* Borrow less money from foreign powers such as China, Russia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
* Make Congress cite chapter & verse in the Constitution when passing bills
* End all federal bailouts
* Increase ballot access for Independent & Third Party candidates
* Increase the value of our Dollar
* Throw out every single candidate, regardless of party affiliation, who voted for any of the federal bailouts
* Increase transparency & accountability at the Federal Reserve
* Reform the entire tax code
* Elect Washington outsiders in upcoming elections
* Start paying down the national debt
* Throw out big government & big spending incumbents, regardless of party affiliation
* Make Congress read the bills before they actually vote
* Build the foundation for a new, third party
* Start running for political office ourselves

How many Republicans currently in office have voting records that support these?

I'm not saying that their "principles" are bad. I'm saying they are only talking about principles, evoking folksy working-class values that are easy for us to identify with to further one real goal: deregulation and lower taxation of the wealthiest individuals.

It's one thing to say things, but look at their solutions:

Vote Republican - come on, the republicans in congress during the last decade have been the most antithetical to the Tea Party values. Enormous spending, extreme increase in government, unbelievable debt, all of it.

However, all of the Republicans who were in office during that time are getting a free pass from the Tea Party folk.

I respect people who are bringing in new faces into the party, while I disagree with the Tea Party, I admire fighting for what you believe in, but I can promise you that there isn't going to be a big move this year against incumbent Republicans.

Why? Because they talk about values and principles, but they are just a Republican Support Group.

I'm perfectly fine with their values, but isn't it strange that every single solution they come up with is the exact same as the Bush-era Republicans?

Why aren't they talking about the Marijuana issue? Why aren't they talking about Prostitution? Why aren't they publicly outing all of the Bush-era Republicans currently in congress?

Wei Wu Wei
03-28-2010, 08:31 PM
Of course the tea parties will support it! We conservatives are all about extramarital sex with anything that moves....you friggen moron!

I thought Conservatives were about individual liberties protected against an unnecessarily Big Government.

You're telling me that a libertarian organization thinks that the Feds should say you're not allowed to smoke a joint after work in y our living room? You're telling me that a libertarian organization thinks Big Government should be able to tell you what sexual activities you can partake in with a consenting adult?

Rockntractor
03-28-2010, 08:31 PM
How many Republicans currently in office have voting records that support these?

I'm not saying that their "principles" are bad. I'm saying they are only talking about principles, evoking folksy working-class values that are easy for us to identify with to further one real goal: deregulation and lower taxation of the wealthiest individuals.

It's one thing to say things, but look at their solutions:

Vote Republican - come on, the republicans in congress during the last decade have been the most antithetical to the Tea Party values. Enormous spending, extreme increase in government, unbelievable debt, all of it.

However, all of the Republicans who were in office during that time are getting a free pass from the Tea Party folk.

I respect people who are bringing in new faces into the party, while I disagree with the Tea Party, I admire fighting for what you believe in, but I can promise you that there isn't going to be a big move this year against incumbent Republicans.

Why? Because they talk about values and principles, but they are just a Republican Support Group.

I'm perfectly fine with their values, but isn't it strange that every single solution they come up with is the exact same as the Bush-era Republicans?

Why aren't they talking about the Marijuana issue? Why aren't they talking about Prostitution? Why aren't they publicly outing all of the Bush-era Republicans currently in congress?

Answer his question!

Rockntractor
03-28-2010, 08:32 PM
I thought Conservatives were about individual liberties protected against an unnecessarily Big Government.

You're telling me that a libertarian organization thinks that the Feds should say you're not allowed to smoke a joint after work in y our living room? You're telling me that a libertarian organization thinks Big Government should be able to tell you what sexual activities you can partake in with a consenting adult?

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/plug-whores.png?t=1269822728

Wei Wu Wei
03-28-2010, 08:35 PM
Answer his question!

I did. "I'm perfectly fine with their values, but isn't it strange that every single solution they come up with is the exact same as the Bush-era Republicans?"

Like I said, my problem isn't with the professed principles of the Tea Party members, it's about the inconsistency between those principles and the issues/candidates they choose to (or not to) support.

If you look at those values alongside the people they are supporting, the issues they are trumpeting, the issues they are ignoring, and the solutions they are offering, it doesn't match up.

Wei Wu Wei
03-28-2010, 08:36 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/plug-whores.png?t=1269822728

answer the question :)

Rockntractor
03-28-2010, 08:37 PM
I did. Like I said, my problem isn't with the professed principles of the Tea Party members, it's about the inconsistency between those principles and the issues/candidates they choose to (or not to) support.

If you look at those values alongside the people they are supporting, the issues they are trumpeting, the issues they are ignoring, and the solutions they are offering, it doesn't match up.

There are 19 answer them point by point.

Wei Wu Wei
03-28-2010, 08:41 PM
There are 19 answer them point by point.

No see you're not getting it. My problem is not with their values or principles. It's about consistency between principles and actions. I'm accepting their principles as neutral, and comparing those principles to their actions and support.

If the Tea Party is all about lower spending, lower debt, smaller government, and individual liberty, they should be very outspoken about the 2 issues in the OP and they should be EXTREMELY vocal about getting rid of the Bush-era incumbent Republicans who are the total opposite of Tea Party values.

If they don't, then it seems as if they are more interested in Republican party loyalty, values be damned.

Rockntractor
03-28-2010, 08:41 PM
answer the question :)

You keep throwing one question after another at us and when we ask you questions you don't consider them or answer. Why do you think I'm doing this to you?

Rockntractor
03-28-2010, 08:46 PM
No see you're not getting it. My problem is not with their values or principles. It's about consistency between principles and actions. I'm accepting their principles as neutral, and comparing those principles to their actions and support.

If the Tea Party is all about lower spending, lower debt, smaller government, and individual liberty, they should be very outspoken about the 2 issues in the OP and they should be EXTREMELY vocal about getting rid of the Bush-era incumbent Republicans who are the total opposite of Tea Party values.

If they don't, then it seems as if they are more interested in Republican party loyalty, values be damned.
Answer the 19 point by point and I will give you an answer to this post.

Wei Wu Wei
03-28-2010, 08:47 PM
The question to me was about my (assumed) disagreement on Tea Party values and I explained it's not their values but the inconsistency between their values and their actions.

The first question I asked was about the libertarian Tea Party supporting those 2 issues, still waiting on an explanation.

Then I asked about the Tea Party adhering to it's values and publically ousting incumbent Bush-era Republicans (which they aren't). I'm also still waiting for an explanation on this.

Wei Wu Wei
03-28-2010, 08:48 PM
Answer the 19 point by point and I will give you an answer to this post.

Answer what? The 19 things aren't questions :confused:

What's there to answer? I already said I'm not arguing against the values.

Rockntractor
03-28-2010, 08:51 PM
Answer what? The 19 things aren't questions :confused:

What's there to answer? I already said I'm not arguing against the values.

List each of them and whether you agree or disagree.

Wei Wu Wei
03-28-2010, 08:56 PM
* Balance the federal budget - Agree

* Lower taxes across the board - Disagree (With legal obligations to entitlement programs, it's not realistic to lower everyone's taxes and still balance the budget)

* Increase state sovereignty in political, economic, and social issues - Neutral, I think this is too broad of a thing to take a position on, it's case by case.

* Institute constitutional term limits in Congress - Sure, if there's enough support for a constitutional amendment I'm all for it.

* Decrease federal spending - Agree, the real debate is what to cut.

* Borrow less money from foreign powers such as China, Russia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc. - Agree

* Make Congress cite chapter & verse in the Constitution when passing bills - Disagree, while it seems nice, the Constitution isn't the sole item at issue when passing bills. Tax codes, hundreds of years of laws passed since the constitution, court cases. How on earth could you cite the section in the Constitution when looking at something like Nuclear policy or space travel or telecommunications or digital copyright law. see what I mean?

* End all federal bailouts - I don't have the economic credentials to argue this but I think such a thing is realistic. I hated the bank bailouts but it's still accepted that without them we would be ruined.

* Increase ballot access for Independent & Third Party candidates - Absolutely

* Increase the value of our Dollar - yep

* Throw out every single candidate, regardless of party affiliation, who voted for any of the federal bailouts - THIS is exactly what I mean. I don't agree with it, but if the Tea Party really believed this we'd see them rallying against all of the republicans in congress who voted for the bailouts.

* Increase transparency & accountability at the Federal Reserve - agree

* Reform the entire tax code - definitely agree

* Elect Washington outsiders in upcoming elections -agree

* Start paying down the national debt - agree

* Throw out big government & big spending incumbents, regardless of party affiliation - again, this is what the thread is about

* Make Congress read the bills before they actually vote - agree

* Build the foundation for a new, third party -agree

* Start running for political office ourselves -agree

There you go, every single point I've stated my position on.

Rockntractor
03-28-2010, 09:10 PM
No see you're not getting it. My problem is not with their values or principles. It's about consistency between principles and actions. I'm accepting their principles as neutral, and comparing those principles to their actions and support.

If the Tea Party is all about lower spending, lower debt, smaller government, and individual liberty, they should be very outspoken about the 2 issues in the OP and they should be EXTREMELY vocal about getting rid of the Bush-era incumbent Republicans who are the total opposite of Tea Party values.

If they don't, then it seems as if they are more interested in Republican party loyalty, values be damned.
The requests you make of the tea Party are against their moral core. Most, not all tea party members are Christian and as such are against extramarital sex and also drug use. But that is not the main issue with them. If you have noticed in the rallies abortion isn't even a topic of protest. right now they are trying not to clutter their message with social issues, they are concentrating on fiscal conservatism. The things you want are libertarian issues which need to be taken up separately on another day. As for the incumbent Rino's, they are very much for removing them at the primaries. When all is said and done conservatives are more individualistic than liberals and that is why you see so many inconsistencies. we have minds of our own and don't like group think.

PoliCon
03-28-2010, 09:54 PM
Isn't it time to ban this idiot again?

Wei Wu Wei
03-28-2010, 10:07 PM
right now they are trying not to clutter their message with social issues, they are concentrating on fiscal conservatism.

"fiscal conservatism" meaning tax cuts for the wealthy (and somehow magically paying for this multi-trillion dollar debt) and economic deregulation (the exact thing the former Fed chairman said he was wrong about, contributing heavily to the financial meltdown)

Tea Party leaders have been outspoken about tax cuts, particularly extending the Bush tax cuts which cost 2.5 times the amount that Obama's health bill.

Rockntractor
03-28-2010, 10:11 PM
"fiscal conservatism" meaning tax cuts for the wealthy (and somehow magically paying for this multi-trillion dollar debt) and economic deregulation (the exact thing the former Fed chairman said he was wrong about, contributing heavily to the financial meltdown)

Tea Party leaders have been outspoken about tax cuts, particularly extending the Bush tax cuts which cost 2.5 times the amount that Obama's health bill.

Businesses and the wealthy have got to have a financial incentive to reinvest their money and ideas into our economy and provide jobs and opportunities for the rest of us.

Rockntractor
03-28-2010, 10:13 PM
Isn't it time to ban this idiot again?

Way past time. If he would start answering our questions instead of us having to pry them out of him with a crowbar it wouldn't be so bad.

PoliCon
03-28-2010, 10:32 PM
Playing GOTCHYA is his MO. He's not interested in discussing things honestly. If he were he would not keep coming back with different names.

Rockntractor
03-28-2010, 10:34 PM
Wei Wu Wei are you or have you ever been associated with ACORN?

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 08:51 AM
Businesses and the wealthy have got to have a financial incentive to reinvest their money and ideas into our economy and provide jobs and opportunities for the rest of us.

We have the largest gap between the super-rich in our country and everyone else (compared to literally every other modernized nation). There's no doubt that big business is important to the economy and to everyone's livelihood, everyone knows that, but big corporations do just fine in Europe and Japan where they have much more reasonable tax rates, much better wages and working conditions for the workers, and less poverty. It's not like the incentive to be an ultra-wealthy capitalist in the richest capitalist society in history is going to just disappear because the rich get taxed a little more.

In the 50's and 60's the tax code was totally different, the rich were taxed more, and the top 20% saw a slight decrease in earnings while EVERYONE ELSE (including the bottom 20% which almost always does poorly) did better. We saw the largest increase in the middle class in the history of our nation, wages for workers shot through the roof (a single income could support a suburban family lifestyle) and continued to rise until the mid-70's.

Guess what? The super rich were still super rich then, they still build factories and they still created jobs.

Now, we can't say that it was simply and only their tax policies that did this (it wasn't, and any reduction like that is absurd), but this is a clear example of how the rhetoric of "taxing the wealthy will make them pack up and close down all their factories and stop investing and just give up and we're all going to lose our jobs" is just a scare tactic with no basis in reality.



The differences between then and now are astronomical and it's partly a result of regressive public policies and tax codes implemented since then.

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 08:52 AM
Playing GOTCHYA is his MO. He's not interested in discussing things honestly. If he were he would not keep coming back with different names.

Um I've only ever used this username here but if it helps you sleep at night to imagine that I'm whoever it is that pulls the strings in your paranoid delusions then go right ahead pal.

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 08:54 AM
We have the largest gap between the super-rich in our country and everyone else (compared to literally every other modernized nation).

Bullshit!

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 08:55 AM
Um I've only ever used this username here but if it helps you sleep at night to imagine that I'm whoever it is that pulls the strings in your paranoid delusions then go right ahead pal.
I don't think he is your pal comrade!

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 09:01 AM
Wei Wu Wei are you or have you ever been associated with ACORN?

It is funny how the commie avoids this. He wouldn't be honest about it any way. I smell plant.

Sonnabend
03-29-2010, 09:12 AM
He really has a thing for taking the wealth off those who have earned it.

Hey WWW...try (http://WWW...try) starting with John Kerry, the Kennedys, Pelosi, Reid,. Byrd, Moore, Soros...let us know how you go with them then get back to us.

Those that are "super rich" have worked their asses off to get where they are. They deserve, as all do, to keep what they have worked for...not to hand it to some layabout who never worked a day in their lives and spent all their time and money doped up on weed.

Bill Gates founded Microsoft...and how many jobs does that corporation provide, hm? The rich also provide one other asset...JOBS. Make it too expensive to do business and they will leave.

Business = profits = jobs.

Simple economic facts.

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 09:18 AM
Bullshit!

Um actually that's a well established fact. In fact, this was cemented in the 1980's (a period where the previously falling poverty rates soared back to record high levels, average wages were stagnant, and the richest 5% got incredible gains) and since then we've been unmatched in inequality. Using the Gini Index (a measure of difference between top earners and bottom earners) we can compare income inequality between nations (the higher the number, the more of a gap there is between the super rich and the average worker)

Japan - 24.9
Germany - 25
France - 32.7
Canada - 33.1
UK - 36
USA - 40.8

(source: UNDP, 2005).

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 09:19 AM
It is funny how the commie avoids this. He wouldn't be honest about it any way. I smell plant.

lol no I'm not affiliated with Acorn or any other big scary institution.

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 09:30 AM
lol no I'm not affiliated with Acorn or any other big scary institution.

Why not? They stand for everything you do.

Gingersnap
03-29-2010, 10:08 AM
The Tea Party is a grassroots movement that embraces a number of political goals - some of them contradictory. This isn't a deal-breaker, it's a normal stage in the development of every political movement.

People in the Tea Party are busy. We've got a lot to do and little time to do it in. While participating in a political witch hunt to punish Bush-era Republicans and RINOs does sound attractive, we just don't have the time right this minute.

I know that liberals would like to see a rift in the Tea Party between Libertarians and social conservatives and some day that might happen but it's not going to happen in the foreseeable future. We have too much in common with each other now and we share most (but not all) political goals. ;)

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 10:24 AM
The Tea Party is a grassroots movement that embraces a number of political goals - some of them contradictory. This isn't a deal-breaker, it's a normal stage in the development of every political movement.

People in the Tea Party are busy. We've got a lot to do and little time to do it in. While participating in a political witch hunt to punish Bush-era Republicans and RINOs does sound attractive, we just don't have the time right this minute.

That's awfully convenient. Why is it then that Democrats are coming down hard under the iron sights of the Tea Party? I guess they have time...depending on party affiliation?

This is exactly what I mean. I'm sure many Tea Party people have good intentions but the talking heads that have been leading the movement ideologically (Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, ect. who I might add despite their folksy sense of humor are both Multi-Millionaires, hardly "average americans") focus the spotlight on certain issues and certain people.

I hear so much about what the Tea Party people believe in and what they value, but at the end of the day, when it comes down to "what action should we take?" the answer is just the same if it were a Republican National Convention: Vote Republican, Defeat Democrats.

Why is it that those are the things that get all the attention, that Fox News and the rest focus on, and that will undoubtably be the push this fall?

I understand most people in the Tea Party are regular folk but the movement has grown so huge you've got to see that big money and interests groups have their hands in it (like in everything with political force).

This is just the next generation of Republican base. for the last 20 years or so they got the religious people in the nation to support them by going on and on and on about morals and values and gays and evolution but at the end of the day the entire point was: Vote Republican.

That strategy isn't working so they are using the exact same playbook, focus on values, morals, principles that working class people can relate to, and tie everything back to Voting Republican.



I know that liberals would like to see a rift in the Tea Party between Libertarians and social conservatives and some day that might happen but it's not going to happen in the foreseeable future. We have too much in common with each other now and we share most (but not all) political goals. ;)

Cut taxes on the wealthiest individuals, deregulate major institutions like health insurance and banks, and remove Democrats.

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 10:25 AM
Just because they tlak about "your values" doesn't mean the policy positions are in your interests. I'm sure you all know that, but it's just something to keep in mind.

Megaguns91
03-29-2010, 10:29 AM
Cut taxes on the wealthiest individuals, deregulate major institutions like health insurance and banks, and remove Democrats.

We all want tax cuts. I make 18k a year. I pay almost two months of my wages annually in taxes. I get almost nothing back in returns. The government takes my dollars and applies them to social programs where lazy drugs addicts benefit if they have more and more kids. It's a vicious cycle that's not going to end unless the underdogs say something. Blue collar workers have in the past swayed towards democrats because of union support. I'm from the blue collar class and I see through the bullsh*t, if you'll excuse my language. I can only cross my fingers and hope that more people will stand up for the grass roots movement of the Tea Party. It's supporting my beliefs, so I support it.

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 10:38 AM
We all want tax cuts. I make 18k a year. I pay almost two months of my wages annually in taxes. I get almost nothing back in returns. The government takes my dollars and applies them to social programs where lazy drugs addicts benefit if they have more and more kids. It's a vicious cycle that's not going to end unless the underdogs say something. Blue collar workers have in the past swayed towards democrats because of union support. I'm from the blue collar class and I see through the bullsh*t, if you'll excuse my language. I can only cross my fingers and hope that more people will stand up for the grass roots movement of the Tea Party. It's supporting my beliefs, so I support it.

in the 1950's taxes were higher, especially on the upper class. between 1950-1970 the top 1/5 got a reduction in their share of the pie, while the middle 3/5th's increased dramatically, leading to the largest expansion of the middle class in our history.

In the 1980's taxes were slashed, especially on the upper class. Since then the top 1/5 has soared to never-before-seen (in our country) levels while everyone else has declined. Also, during that time period the issue of poverty (which had been also declining in the previous 2 decades) came roaring back to life.

I think more emphasis needs to be placed on the interests of working class wage-earners like yourself. Big corporations have bottomless pockets to buy politicians, flood the airwaves with advertisements, pick and choose what issues are debated in the public sphere, and send lobbyists to congress. All you and I have is a vote. I very strongly stand on the side of workers, and believe there needs to be a strong pro-labor force (unions won't cut it, they've lost all the power they had in the 50's through 70's) .

Megaguns91
03-29-2010, 10:42 AM
in the 1950's taxes were higher, especially on the upper class. between 1950-1970 the top 1/5 got a reduction in their share of the pie, while the middle 3/5th's increased dramatically, leading to the largest expansion of the middle class in our history.

In the 1980's taxes were slashed, especially on the upper class. Since then the top 1/5 has soared to never-before-seen (in our country) levels while everyone else has declined. Also, during that time period the issue of poverty (which had been also declining in the previous 2 decades) came roaring back to life.

I think more emphasis needs to be placed on the interests of working class wage-earners like yourself. Big corporations have bottomless pockets to buy politicians, flood the airwaves with advertisements, pick and choose what issues are debated in the public sphere, and send lobbyists to congress. All you and I have is a vote. I very strongly stand on the side of workers, and believe there needs to be a strong pro-labor force (unions won't cut it, they've lost all the power they had in the 50's through 70's) .

Labor unions buy politicians just as much as big corporations. I'm pro-citizen, anti-government control. Let the people make the choice, not the talking suits.

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 10:45 AM
We all want tax cuts. I make 18k a year. I pay almost two months of my wages annually in taxes. I get almost nothing back in returns. The government takes my dollars and applies them to social programs where lazy drugs addicts benefit if they have more and more kids. It's a vicious cycle that's not going to end unless the underdogs say something. Blue collar workers have in the past swayed towards democrats because of union support. I'm from the blue collar class and I see through the bullsh*t, if you'll excuse my language. I can only cross my fingers and hope that more people will stand up for the grass roots movement of the Tea Party. It's supporting my beliefs, so I support it.

The Bush tax cuts cost 2 and a half times the amount of Obama's health bill, and from that the top 1% benefited while everyone else suffered:


Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.

The Tea Party people use rhetoric like "tax cuts" as if it effects everyone equally. Most Americans saw an increase in their tax rates while the super rich saved billions thanks to Bush's "tax cuts". The Tea Party people have been outspoken about extending the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy.


As for Obama's tax policies:


Tea Partyers also seem to have a very distorted view of the direction of federal taxes. They were asked whether they are higher, lower or the same as when Barack Obama was inaugurated last year. More than two-thirds thought that taxes are higher today, and only 4% thought they were lower; the rest said they are the same.

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522.

Gingersnap
03-29-2010, 10:47 AM
That's awfully convenient. Why is it then that Democrats are coming down hard under the iron sights of the Tea Party? I guess they have time...depending on party affiliation?

It's not convenient, it's a strategy. There are only two political parties in this country that have power at the Federal level. Right now, it's the Democrats who are in power and who are enacting legislation that most people don't want.

Here again, you seem to get your information about the Tea Party from some kind of third-hand source. Many incumbent Republicans are being threatened now.

If pressure can be brought to bear on incumbent political animals and they can be retrained to pay attention to fiscal conservatism, state's rights, and issues of liberty - that's great! If they can't be retrained, then they have to go. This applies to politicians in both parties.

Most of the people I know in the Tea Party don't listen to Beck or any other talking heads for political education. They might listen for the entertainment value but a lot of us don't listen at all. Most of us have no faith at all that either the media or it's various pundits have anything useful to say.

I don't know if the Tea Party can take over the Republican party. I hope so because we obviously can't depend on Democrats to pursue anything aside from entitlements.

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 10:48 AM
Labor unions buy politicians just as much as big corporations. I'm pro-citizen, anti-government control. Let the people make the choice, not the talking suits.

lol no they don't.

Where are you getting these figures from?

In the 2004 election cycle, these are the numbers on how much was spent by who to fund candidates and parties:

Labor Unions: $62 Million
Ideological Interest Groups (pro-life groups, gay rights groups): $72 Million
Big Business (Corporations and top executives) : $1.5 Billion (in other words, big business and corporation execs spent over 20 times as much as labor unions to buy politicians)

Megaguns91
03-29-2010, 10:52 AM
lol no they don't.

Where are you getting these figures from?

In the 2004 election cycle, these are the numbers on how much was spent by who to fund candidates:

Labor Unions: $62 Million
Ideological Interest Groups (pro-life groups, gay rights groups): $72 Million
Big Business (Corporations and top executives) : $1.5 Billion

Aren't labor unions supposed to be supporting workers?

If so why are they giving union dues to politicians?
Do you think every worker who has to pay dues wanted their money to go to politics?
What about the current unemployment rate that is growing at a substancial amount?


http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&ctype=l&met_y=unemployment_rate&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&tdim=true&tstart=631152000000&tunit=M&tlen=241&hl=en_US&dl=en

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 10:56 AM
Aren't labor unions supposed to be supporting workers?

If so why are they giving union dues to politicians?

What do you think political power is? Lobbyists and campaign finance are the biggest and most effective forms of getting your point through the government. Unions spend a bit to do that, but that's absolutely dwarfed compared to what big business spends.


Do you think every worker who has to pay dues wanted their money to go to politics?
Maybe not all of them but if that money results in better labor laws, wage increases, and tax cuts for working people then they should be happy about it.


What about the current unemployment rate that is growing at a substancial amount?


What about it? I'll answer whatever your question is I just don't quite get what it's relating to here.

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 11:01 AM
The strongest era of the Labor Union in the last century was during the 50's and 60's (really a golden era economically speaking) where they were a considerable force. The labor union in the US has all but lost it's power. The working class people don't have any group or party with power to fight for their interests.

Megaguns91
03-29-2010, 11:05 AM
What about it? I'll answer whatever your question is I just don't quite get what it's relating to here.

Of course not.

If these labor union's so-called duty is to protect workers, and they're putting forth such expenditures to political campaigns to vote in incumbents who are supposedly working to protect workers, why is it that there's such an astoundingly high unemployment rate?


Labor unions + union dues + politicians = unemployment?

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 11:11 AM
Of course not.

If these labor union's so-called duty is to protect workers, and they're putting forth such expenditures to political campaigns to vote in incumbents who are supposedly working to protect workers,

Stop right here. Such expenditures? I already showed that the other side, the Big Business lobby spends over 20 times that amount. That means 20 times as much influence. Relatively speaking, labor unions spend only a little compared to corporate leaders.

Also, like I said, keep in mind that the power of the union is all but gone today. The real era of the Union was in the 50's and 60's, that's the time period to look for, back when strikes were common and much more of the workforce was unionized.

The size, scope, and power of the Labor Union has shrunk entirely.

Also, like I said, because of the decline in the effectiveness of the Union, working class people are left without anyone to push for their interests in the government.



why is it that there's such an astoundingly high unemployment rate?


Labor unions + union dues + politicians = unemployment?

No see you're ignoring the history of the labor union in the last century, the increased effectiveness of the very wealthy to exert their power over government, not to mention the most obvious thing if we're talking about right now: the extreme recession we have been in.

lacarnut
03-29-2010, 04:17 PM
It's not convenient, it's a strategy. There are only two political parties in this country that have power at the Federal level. Right now, it's the Democrats who are in power and who are enacting legislation that most people don't want.

Here again, you seem to get your information about the Tea Party from some kind of third-hand source. Many incumbent Republicans are being threatened now.

If pressure can be brought to bear on incumbent political animals and they can be retrained to pay attention to fiscal conservatism, state's rights, and issues of liberty - that's great! If they can't be retrained, then they have to go. This applies to politicians in both parties.

Most of the people I know in the Tea Party don't listen to Beck or any other talking heads for political education. They might listen for the entertainment value but a lot of us don't listen at all. Most of us have no faith at all that either the media or it's various pundits have anything useful to say.

I don't know if the Tea Party can take over the Republican party. I hope so because we obviously can't depend on Democrats to pursue anything aside from entitlements.

We, Wee is a waste of breath. He is either too retarded or too stupid to understand the goals of the Tea Party. Like a rat to cheese, he jumps from one issue to another.

Gingersnap
03-29-2010, 04:54 PM
We, Wee is a waste of breath. He is either too retarded or too stupid to understand the goals of the Tea Party. Like a rat to cheese, he jumps from one issue to another.

He's certainly willfully ignorant.

PoliCon
03-29-2010, 05:57 PM
Um I've only ever used this username here but if it helps you sleep at night to imagine that I'm whoever it is that pulls the strings in your paranoid delusions then go right ahead pal.

You may not have used this ID elsewhere - but it's becoming clear that this is not your first time having a membership to this site. You've been banned before and you will be banned again.

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 05:59 PM
You may not have used this ID elsewhere - but it's becoming clear that this is not your first time having a membership to this site. You've been banned before and you will be banned again.

Well no I meant I haven't registered at this site before. I have used this username as my xbox live gamertag. lol but I am curious how it's "becoming clear".

PoliCon
03-29-2010, 06:04 PM
Um actually that's a well established fact. In fact, this was cemented in the 1980's (a period where the previously falling poverty rates soared back to record high levels, average wages were stagnant, and the richest 5% got incredible gains) and since then we've been unmatched in inequality. Using the Gini Index (a measure of difference between top earners and bottom earners) we can compare income inequality between nations (the higher the number, the more of a gap there is between the super rich and the average worker)

Japan - 24.9
Germany - 25
France - 32.7
Canada - 33.1
UK - 36
USA - 40.8

(source: UNDP, 2005).

You're a total fucktard. Poverty rates have not soared. Poverty rates have been edited UPWARDS so that someone who was middle class one day was poor the next. FURTHERMORE - the percentage of our population who are poor has come down pretty consistently despite the constant upward revision of what constitutes poor. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html Or are you going to argue with the census?? NOW - if the number of people in poverty is consistent and middle class is shrinking - where are those missing middle class people going?? COME ON FUCKTARD - WHERE ARE THEY GOING???:rolleyes:

PoliCon
03-29-2010, 06:15 PM
That's awfully convenient. Why is it then that Democrats are coming down hard under the iron sights of the Tea Party? I guess they have time...depending on party affiliation? Lets think about this for a second fucktard. K? You wanna try that for a change? THINKING?? I know it might be painful - but lets see what we can do. Lets imagine that your name is Kyle. And lets pretend that you have a World Of Warcraft account and some dickhead comes out of no where and kills you - and keeps killing you and all of your friends too. Lets say that you and your friends decide to take out that bastard. Now, you have no problem teaming up with Stan and Kenny to take out the bastard - but this anti-semetic prick who you seriously hate is also going to be playing. His name is Cartman. You'd LOVE to take out Cartman because he's a total dick to you all the time - but the griefer on WOW is even worse. Which would you go after first? Anyone with half a brain is going to take out the BIGGER enemy first using the help of the lesser enemy who you sometimes agree with for support. :rolleyes: FUCKTARD.

PoliCon
03-29-2010, 06:17 PM
in the 1950's taxes were higher, especially on the upper class. between 1950-1970 the top 1/5 got a reduction in their share of the pie, while the middle 3/5th's increased dramatically, leading to the largest expansion of the middle class in our history. Lets try thinking again fucktard - IF the number of people who are poor is fairly consistent - and the middle class is shrinking - where are the middle class people going? Are they vanishing into thin air?? :rolleyes:

PoliCon
03-29-2010, 06:22 PM
lol no they don't.

Where are you getting these figures from?

In the 2004 election cycle, these are the numbers on how much was spent by who to fund candidates and parties:

Labor Unions: $62 Million
Ideological Interest Groups (pro-life groups, gay rights groups): $72 Million
Big Business (Corporations and top executives) : $1.5 Billion (in other words, big business and corporation execs spent over 20 times as much as labor unions to buy politicians)

Source?

AND if the labor unions don't but politicians - explain Craig Becker.

PoliCon
03-29-2010, 06:24 PM
What do you think political power is? Lobbyists and campaign finance are the biggest and most effective forms of getting your point through the government. Unions spend a bit to do that, but that's absolutely dwarfed compared to what big business spends.


Maybe not all of them but if that money results in better labor laws, wage increases, and tax cuts for working people then they should be happy about it.




What about it? I'll answer whatever your question is I just don't quite get what it's relating to here. And who gets the most from the Lobbyists? Who consistently raises the most money from special interest groups, unions, and in general? Who out spent their opponent in the last election nearly 2 to 1 and still barely won despite all of the historical indicators saying he should have won by a landslide?

PoliCon
03-29-2010, 06:26 PM
He's certainly willfully ignorant.

and he likes to do the predator thing. He fancies himself a predator charging the heard trying to shave off the weak and the infirm. :rolleyes: He never deals with the real facts and figures that people post. of course he never has in any of his membership incarnations.

Lager
03-29-2010, 06:38 PM
lol no they don't.

Where are you getting these figures from?

In the 2004 election cycle, these are the numbers on how much was spent by who to fund candidates and parties:

Labor Unions: $62 Million
Ideological Interest Groups (pro-life groups, gay rights groups): $72 Million
Big Business (Corporations and top executives) : $1.5 Billion (in other words, big business and corporation execs spent over 20 times as much as labor unions to buy politicians)

I had heard that lawyers consistently rank at the top of campaign contributions. You convienently left them off your list, why was that?

Megaguns91
03-29-2010, 06:38 PM
Poli, don't you know that he's going to out you as a bigot racist now? :p

FlaGator
03-29-2010, 06:43 PM
Go to Vegas, it's legal there.

Actually prostitution is illegal in Vegas and is only legal outside of the city limits in the unincorporated county area of Nevada.

FlaGator
03-29-2010, 06:46 PM
Yes and the results have been amazing. Decreases in STD's, less violence, tax revenues, and more.

The thread wasn't "where can I find a prostitute?", it's "will the Tea Party support these measures?"

I'm asking because if the Tea Party is about individual liberties and smaller government, these are the perfect issues for them to support.

That is true only in the brothels which are outside the city limits of most all the towns and cities in Nevada. The violence, drug use, and STDs are just as high from the illegal prostitution that takes place within the city of Las Vegas. In fact they are worse in Vegas than most other large cities.

Apocalypse
03-29-2010, 06:58 PM
Poli, don't you know that he's going to out you as a bigot racist now? :p

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b211/Dispel_Illusions/shout_racist.jpg

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 07:02 PM
Wei Wei hasn't got hammered yet?:confused:

PoliCon
03-29-2010, 07:15 PM
Personally - I hope that Cali does legalize pot. It would be nice to have the potheads all together in one place and out of the rest of the country.

lacarnut
03-29-2010, 07:49 PM
Personally - I hope that Cali does legalize pot. It would be nice to have the potheads all together in one place and out of the rest of the country.

I would not go that far but I am going to laugh my ass off when the politicians are so disappointed that pot is not the big tax cow that they though it was going to be. Most of the potheads will be buying that black market (without the 33% tax) shit. The Mexicans might be able to import it into the US, pay the 33% tax, sell it cheaper, and run the home grown northern CA dealers out of business. Now, would that not be poetic justice?

Your point is well taken about drug users moving. In the far northwest US, many herion users travel to BC every day to get their fix courtesy of the Canadian governments. Where drugs are cheap and available, the freaks will follow.

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 07:55 PM
I would not go that far but I am going to laugh my ass off when the politicians are so disappointed that pot is not the big tax cow that they though it was going to be. Most of the potheads will be buying that black market (without the 33% tax) shit. The Mexicans might be able to import it into the US, pay the 33% tax, sell it cheaper, and run the home grown northern CA dealers out of business. Now, would that not be poetic justice?

Yes sir, bet the success of your state on pot heads when you have offshore oil, rich agriculture and many other resources you could use to full potential. But the lowest members in their society will pull them through. They should start tapping their crack whores too, now there is some serious potential!

lacarnut
03-29-2010, 08:07 PM
Yes sir, bet the success of your state on pot heads when you have offshore oil, rich agriculture and many other resources you could use to full potential. But the lowest members in their society will pull them through. They should start tapping their crack whores too, now there is some serious potential!

Don't you know those Env. f...ng nuts think oil is an evil product that fuels our cars, heat our houses and has hundreds of other uses. On the other hand pot is good. It makes you cough your ass off, it makes you lethargic and does wonders for your health..

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 08:09 PM
Don't you know those Env. f...ng nuts think oil is an evil product that fuels our cars, heat our houses and has hundreds of other uses. On the other hand pot is good (other forms such as cigs and chew is bad). It makes you cough your ass off, it makes you lethargic and does wonders for your health.

It will turn you into a real go getter. go get cookies, go get chips, go get ice cream....

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 08:16 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/commie.jpg?t=1269908162

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 08:45 PM
I had heard that lawyers consistently rank at the top of campaign contributions. You convienently left them off your list, why was that?

ok if you take away business, labor, and ideological interest groups, every other traceable contribution in 2004 COMBINED adds up to a grand total of $260 Million.

Now, that's not "lawyers", that's ALL OTHERS, which includes all the lawyers as well as everyone else that isn't those 3 listed above, and it still doesn't even come close to Big Business alone at $1.5 Billion

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 08:47 PM
ok if you take away business, labor, and ideological interest groups, every other traceable contribution in 2004 COMBINED adds up to a grand total of $260 Million.

Now, that's not "lawyers", that's ALL OTHERS, which includes all the lawyers as well as everyone else that isn't those 3 listed above, and it still doesn't even come close to Big Business alone at $1.5 Billion

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/commie_bastard_logo.jpg?t=1269910028

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 09:05 PM
You're a total fucktard. Poverty rates have not soared. Poverty rates have been edited UPWARDS so that someone who was middle class one day was poor the next.

Ok I posted this about the poverty line in another thread so I copy pasted this.


Our official poverty rate was set at 3 times "the minimum amount required to sustain a nutritionally adequate diet" back in 1964 (the other 2 thirds to cover all other expenses including housing and clothes)and despite the radical change in our economy and technology, the only changes to the poverty line was inflation adjustments. That means that our current poverty line is the equal to 3 times the amount it took to sustain yourself nutritionally in 1964 adjusted for inflation or $19,971 for a family of four in today's dollars. Now, we should keep in mind that changes in economic conditions and consumer goods means that families no longer spend a third of their income on food, but a seventh. This means there are more costs today than before, which our povery line doesn't account for.


FURTHERMORE - the percentage of our population who are poor has come down pretty consistently despite the constant upward revision of what constitutes poor.

Not really, there are clear trends. Check the link you provided: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

Between 1959 and 1973 there was an incredible decrease in poverty, about half of the poor moved out of poverty. (keep in mind this was a period of time with a very progressive tax policy )

1973 was the oil embargo, the same year the poverty rate begins to rise, but only slightly.

1980 the poverty rate spikes up, and begins to rise through the 80's (a period characterized by economic deregulation and regressive supply-side tax cuts on the rich)

The rising poverty rate stabalized in the 90's and in 1999 it hit a 20 year low. It dropped again for 1 year and then started rising again until now. HMMMM


Or are you going to argue with the census?? NOW - if the number of people in poverty is consistent and middle class is shrinking - where are those missing middle class people going?? COME ON FUCKTARD - WHERE ARE THEY GOING???:rolleyes:

The number of people in poverty isn't consistent, it changes and the poverty line is an awful standard because it underestimates a realistic minimum income by using 1950's standards. The number of lower-paying service sector jobs (the bottom of the spectrum in wage) has been increasing for decades, and you're right the highest paid jobs are also increasing. People in the upper-middle class are moving upward while people in the lower-middle and working class are moving downward. This is part of why America has by far the highest gap between those at the top and those at the bottom compared to all other advanced western nations.

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 09:08 PM
And who gets the most from the Lobbyists? Who consistently raises the most money from special interest groups, unions, and in general? Who out spent their opponent in the last election nearly 2 to 1 and still barely won despite all of the historical indicators saying he should have won by a landslide?

Well, Big Corporations gave about 160 million dollars more to Republicans than Democrats.

Labor Unions gave 46 Million more to Democrats than Republicans.

Ideological Special Interest Groups gave 2 Million more to Republicans than Democrats

However, compared to their totals, the discrepancies aren't very big (they both get tons of money)

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 09:10 PM
Well, Big Corporations gave about 160 million dollars more to Republicans than Democrats.

Labor Unions gave 46 Million more to Democrats than Republicans.

Ideological Special Interest Groups gave 2 Million more to Republicans than Democrats

However, compared to their totals, the discrepancies aren't very big (they both get tons of money)

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/wei-wu-wei-commie-demotivational-1.jpg?t=1269910684

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 09:13 PM
Source?

hmm the link isn't working. my chart was in a book perhaps I can scan it later it's got citations in it.


AND if the labor unions don't but politicians - explain Craig Becker.

They do have political influence, and there are plenty of people like myself who support the interests of working class and middle class people.

I was just saying that they aren't nearly as powerful as they used to be, not even close, and that Big Business trumps them in political spending by nearly 25 to 1.

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 09:29 PM
hmm the link isn't working. my chart was in a book perhaps I can scan it later it's got citations in it.



They do have political influence, and there are plenty of people like myself who support the interests of working class and middle class people.

I was just saying that they aren't nearly as powerful as they used to be, not even close, and that Big Business trumps them in political spending by nearly 25 to 1.
I am so sorry, I am really low on commie pictures. Could I give you a rain check?

Megaguns91
03-29-2010, 10:39 PM
I am so sorry, I am really low on commie pictures. Could I give you a rain check?

Commies don't know what rain checks are. :p

PoliCon
03-29-2010, 10:44 PM
hmm the link isn't working. my chart was in a book perhaps I can scan it later it's got citations in it. You could try to not be such a fucktard and just name the book and author. :rolleyes:




They do have political influence, and there are plenty of people like myself who support the interests of working class and middle class people.Bullshit. You support class warfare and class envy not the middle class.


I was just saying that they aren't nearly as powerful as they used to be, not even close, and that Big Business trumps them in political spending by nearly 25 to 1.BULLSHIT. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
03-29-2010, 10:45 PM
I had heard that lawyers consistently rank at the top of campaign contributions. You convienently left them off your list, why was that?

Why because that fact does not fit the narrative he is trying to sell us: Capitalism bad. Socialism good. :rolleyes: Stupid fucktard.

PoliCon
03-29-2010, 10:46 PM
Where drugs are cheap and available, the freaks will follow.BINGO!

PoliCon
03-29-2010, 10:48 PM
ok if you take away business, labor, and ideological interest groups, every other traceable contribution in 2004 COMBINED adds up to a grand total of $260 Million.

Now, that's not "lawyers", that's ALL OTHERS, which includes all the lawyers as well as everyone else that isn't those 3 listed above, and it still doesn't even come close to Big Business alone at $1.5 Billion

provide a source for your numbers fucktard.

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 10:52 PM
provide a source for your numbers fucktard.

You forget. We are here for his entertainment.

PoliCon
03-29-2010, 10:55 PM
Our official poverty rate was set at 3 times "the minimum amount required to sustain a nutritionally adequate diet" back in 1964 blah blah blah blah blah blah YOU STUPID FUCKTARD. http://www.aei.org/issue/28926


The Income-Consumption Mystery

The rate calculation implicitly assumes that consumption by low-income Americans is accurately tracked by their reported incomes. In fact, there is good evidence that, for the lowest fifth of Americans on the income ladder, reported expenditures are almost twice their incomes.

Correcting for changes in household size, real expenditures per person for all Americans were 110 percent higher in 2005 than in 1960–61 for the country as a whole. We do not have precisely comparable figures for poor households, but we do know that the real expenditures of the poorest fifth of households were 112 percent higher in 2005 than the expenditures of the poorest fourth in 1960–61.

null

Put simply, consumption in low-income households has grown even faster than that of average American households. Moreover, other statistical evidence confirms that lower-income Americans are doing far better than the stagnation in the OPR suggests.

Food and Nutrition. In the early 1960s, inadequate caloric intake was hardly unusual among the officially defined poor. By the end of the century, however, the proportion of the adult population between twenty and seventy-four who were underweight (defined as a body mass index below 18.5) dropped from 4 percent to 1.9 percent.

By the same token, nutritional deprivation among children has been declining. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the percentage of low-income children younger than five who were underweight dropped from 8 percent in 1973 to under 5 percent in 2005. (In the same period, the OPR for children rose from 14.4 percent to 17.6 percent.)

Housing and Home Appliances. In 1970, about 14 percent of poverty-level households were officially deemed "overcrowded," with more people than rooms to live in. By 2001, just 6 percent of poor households were overcrowded--a proportion lower than for nonpoor households as recently as 1970. Moreover, between 1980 and 2001, heated floor space per person in the homes of the officially poor increased by 27 percent. And in 2001, just 2.5 percent of poverty-level households lacked plumbing facilities--a lower share than for nonpoor households in 1970.

Trends in furnishings and appurtenances tell the same story: poor households' possession of modern conveniences has been growing rapidly. For many of these items--telephones, television sets, central air conditioning, and microwave ovens--prevalence in poverty-level households in 2001 exceeded that of median-income households in 1980.

Personal Transportation. In 1973, almost three-fifths of the households in the lowest income quintile lacked a car. In 2003, by contrast, over three-fifths of poverty-level households owned one or more cars. In that same year, moreover, 14 percent of households below the poverty line owned two or more cars, and 7 percent had two or more trucks.

Health Care. Between 1970 and 2004, the infant mortality rate fell by a remarkable two-thirds. And it continued its almost uninterrupted decline after 1973, even as the OPR for children began to rise. The disconnect is particularly striking for white infants. Between 1974 and 2004, their mortality rate fell by three-fifths, from 14.8 deaths per thousand to 5.7 deaths per thousand. Yet the OPR for white children rose from 11.2 percent to 14.3 percent.

The gains in access to medical care for infants extend to older children. The proportion of children who did not report a visit to a physician was significantly lower for the poor population in 2004 (12 percent) than it had been for the nonpoor population twenty-two years earlier (17.6 percent).

http://www.aei.org/issue/28926




And a fluctuation of a percent or two is hardly a huge swing. You fucktards always try to make your cases by twisting the numbers to make them seem worse. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
03-29-2010, 10:56 PM
Well, Big Corporations gave about 160 million dollars more to Republicans than Democrats.

Labor Unions gave 46 Million more to Democrats than Republicans.

Ideological Special Interest Groups gave 2 Million more to Republicans than Democrats

However, compared to their totals, the discrepancies aren't very big (they both get tons of money)

WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE YOU STUPID ASS MUNCHING FUCKTARD???

Apocalypse
03-29-2010, 11:04 PM
Poli do you need a hug?

Its one thing to not like liberal trolls, but if we drive them all off, we wont have any to laugh and torment here.

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 11:08 PM
Poli do you need a hug?

Its one thing to not like liberal trolls, but if we drive them all off, we wont have any to laugh and torment here.
The Wei one is a bit of a chigger!

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 11:11 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/CuteKittyHug.jpg?t=1269918658

lacarnut
03-29-2010, 11:28 PM
Poli do you need a hug?

Its one thing to not like liberal trolls, but if we drive them all off, we wont have any to laugh and torment here.

Laugh at yes....they are too stupid to torment.