Rise of the Tea Party

[mikeytm]

The tea party seem to want no progress for everyone. I dont get it. Their tactics only hurt quality of life & remove options.

The options, you mention, Coolyfett, are expensive, and we can't afford them.   Do you know what happens when a country goes into so much debt that it can pay it back?   Among other things,  the services you want are cut back and eliminated.  It's those who urge fiscal prudence who are actually trying to save those programs.

Right now Social Security and Medicare take up more than half the budget.  That number is going to swell even higher as the Baby Boomers - the largest generation in history - retire and draw benefits.   We've got to find a way to preserve those programs -  and more spending is NOT the answer.

[buckethead]

The tea party seem to want no progress for everyone. I dont get it. Their tactics only hurt quality of life & remove options.

The options, you mention, Coolyfett, are expensive, and we can't afford them.   Do you know what happens when a country goes into so much debt that it can pay it back?   Among other things,  the services you want are cut back and eliminated.  It's those who urge fiscal prudence who are actually trying to save those programs.

Right now Social Security and Medicare take up more than half the budget.  That number is going to swell even higher as the Baby Boomers - the largest generation in history - retire and draw benefits.   We've got to find a way to preserve those programs -  and more spending is NOT the answer.

Both claims are far to vague to be considered valid points.

[JeffreyS]

Social Security is not on the budget.  Social Security also owns about 2.5 tril in U.S. bonds from when Regan decided to use those funds and make Social Security a debt holder not a debtor.  Social security is just fine reports of it's problems are not exaggerated they are fictitious.

[JeffreyS]

The other fiction is that it is an entitlement program. The beneficiaries pay into the system like an insurance program.

[copperfiend]

The Tea Party has held over 1,000 demonstrations and attracted millions of participants.  And most Americans agree with them on its two principal planks:   1.  Spending is out of control.   2.  The Healthcare bill is a monstrosity.

You're second statement is completely untrue. I would like to see where "most Americans agree that the healthcare bill is a monstrosity". Alot of the tea party opposition to health care legislation is funded by the insurance companies.

So basically the tea party "grassroots" is funded by the the insurance industry, the oil and gas industry, other corporations and their lobbyists. It's the companies that stand to lose money if things like alternative energy and nationalized health care become a reality.

[mikeytm]

The Tea Party has held over 1,000 demonstrations and attracted millions of participants.  And most Americans agree with them on its two principal planks:   1.  Spending is out of control.   2.  The Healthcare bill is a monstrosity.

You're second statement is completely untrue. I would like to see where "most Americans agree that the healthcare bill is a monstrosity". Alot of the tea party opposition to health care legislation is funded by the insurance companies.

So basically the tea party "grassroots" is funded by the the insurance industry, the oil and gas industry, other corporations and their lobbyists. It's the companies that stand to lose money if things like alternative energy and nationalized health care become a reality.

Really?   Not according to the latest CNN poll

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday, on the one year anniversary of the signing of the law, 37 percent of Americans support the measure, with 59 percent opposed. That's basically unchanged from last March, when 39 percent supported the law and 59 percent opposed the measure.

And not according to the last election in November, either.

And I guess the pro-healthcare folks don't have lobbyists, right?   You do know that many key sectors that signed on to healthcare - like unions - got exemptions.

[NotNow]

The Tea Party has held over 1,000 demonstrations and attracted millions of participants.  And most Americans agree with them on its two principal planks:   1.  Spending is out of control.   2.  The Healthcare bill is a monstrosity.

You're second statement is completely untrue. I would like to see where "most Americans agree that the healthcare bill is a monstrosity". Alot of the tea party opposition to health care legislation is funded by the insurance companies.

So basically the tea party "grassroots" is funded by the the insurance industry, the oil and gas industry, other corporations and their lobbyists. It's the companies that stand to lose money if things like alternative energy and nationalized health care become a reality.

[/b]
Your source for these claims?

[mikeytm]

lol.  apparently 'mikey' isnt used to having to defend his more nonsensical claims unless he can anticipate the questions being asked.

It certainly does seem that you are using two names on the thread, Just trying to verify that this is indeed you.

Because, Stephen, when you're presented with facts, your modus operandi seems to be to ignore the argument and belittle the poster.

There are thoughtful, considerate, liberals who stick to the issues.  I may not agree with them, but I enjoy a good debate.  You are not one of those liberals.

[copperfiend]

So basically the tea party "grassroots" is funded by the the insurance industry, the oil and gas industry, other corporations and their lobbyists. It's the companies that stand to lose money if things like alternative energy and nationalized health care become a reality.

[/b]
Your source for these claims?

The New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

Insurance companies urging employees to attend tea party rallies

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/major-health-insurance-company-urges-employees-to-attend-tea-parties.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/united-health-group-astroturf-letter.php?page=1

[NotNow]

So basically the tea party "grassroots" is funded by the the insurance industry, the oil and gas industry, other corporations and their lobbyists. It's the companies that stand to lose money if things like alternative energy and nationalized health care become a reality.

[/b]
Your source for these claims?

The New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

Insurance companies urging employees to attend tea party rallies

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/major-health-insurance-company-urges-employees-to-attend-tea-parties.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/united-health-group-astroturf-letter.php?page=1

Thanks.  I did not see where the Tea Party is being funded by oil, gas, and insurance companies.  I saw a New Yorker piece on the Koch brothers and their political beliefs.  There was some speculation there that they had funded "tea party training" whatever that means.  The TPM article was just a rant against United Health Care putting advice in their newsletter to attend town hall meetings during congressional recess in 2009.  Hardly evil and really just something that all organizations do.  I didn't see any reference to the Tea Party.  Am I missing something?

[JeffreyS]

I think the characterization of "monstrosity" is false.  There are many with much lesser misgivings about the plan including that it does not go far enough.  

Now here is me me being a little condescending. I believe because we finally started down the path People will see the light. I agree with the conservatives that this plan will grow but since I am in favor of big government health care great.  

Now here is me trying to be respectful of my fellow citizens.  I think this should do this with a constitutional amendment.  I am not saying I know the plan to be unconstitutional. I think the founding fathers really meant it when they said promote the general welfare.  i just feel like this is such a big deal it probably deserved that kind of consideration.

Again talking out of both sides of my mouth I am still glad we are moving forward.  I provide much lesser coverage for much more cost to my employees than I did 5 years ago.

[NotNow]

And I LOVE the "Tea Party Patriots" banner at the bottom of my screen.  You will take their money no matter what they stand for, won't you StephenDare!?

[mikeytm]

lol.  apparently 'mikey' isnt used to having to defend his more nonsensical claims unless he can anticipate the questions being asked.

It certainly does seem that you are using two names on the thread, Just trying to verify that this is indeed you.

Because, Stephen, when you're presented with facts, your modus operandi seems to be to ignore the argument and belittle the poster.

There are thoughtful, considerate, liberals who stick to the issues.  I may not agree with them, but I enjoy a good debate.  You are not one of those liberals.

Thats because Im not a liberal.

However, lets talk basic hypocrisy here.  You make these silly, baseless claims in order to prove very disingenuous points.  for example, the post that you started with under your other screen name:

Of course, when Soros funds Moveon, who ran ads like "General Betrayus," that's okay with the Left.  When the unions bussed thousands to Madison - when they actually had to pay people to show up to protest - the Left doesn't dare criticize.

You made this post to make it sound like anyone who is on the 'left' is treasonous, hypocritical, and cowardly to boot----and therefore not to be paid any attention to.  Not to mention corrupt, since you claimed that they were paying people to show up to protest.  You didnt provide anything that remotely looked or sounded like a 'fact'.  You additionally posted it in order to provide cover for someone you perceive as being on 'your' side---namely, the Koch Brothers.  

Which kind of makes your 'belittling' complaint seem somewhat ironic.  Last time I checked, 'dumb' was way less belittling than 'corrupt, hypocritical, and potentially treasonous', but hey, why back the projector up when you are on a roll?

Then when you got called on this nonsense, you simply couldnt answer any of the underlying questions directly and honestly.

When that got less convenient, you simple switched screen names.

Now, if you didnt want to know why I thought your post was generally dumb (no reflection on the poster, incidentally, just the lazy nature of unbacked assertions and thoughtless meme repetition) then you certainly shouldnt have asked my exact reasons.

Really?  What's so dumb about it?

So far, your debate method is to post unsourced claims, get backed into a corner on them, accuse the questioner of 'not getting it', and then switching to a different subject by redirecting the question.

It is the kind of debate tactic that most 14 year olds on a middle school debate team can see right through.

But to have you explain such tomfoolery as an outward indication of your debate dignity, well that's laughable.

If you would like to debate the issues, then by all means, please do.

But if you are going to try and conflate intentional lying on the self interested part of the Koch Brothers with the general principle of 'rich people who back causes they believe in', then you are going to have to back that kind of nonsense up.

Im sorry if this makes you uncomfortable, but this is after all the same rule that you want everyone else to play by.

Sigh.  I'm doing this against my better judgement.

You've spent three quarters of your post writing about something I did not state.  That's because you have this uncanny knack of straying off topic.  For the record,  I did not state that liberals were treasonous because they were silent on the Patraeus ad. That's something you made up in your own mind. My point, which I've made, I believe, three times, and you've missed all three times, is that the Left seems to treat the Koch Brothers as some sort of conspirator because they contributed to conservative causes.   Yet - and read this closely Stephen - the same Left said nothing when Moveon - funded by Soros - tried to influence U.S. policy in Iraq.

In other words, if the Left has a problem with rich benefactors, i.e. the Koch Brothers funding conservative causes, wouldn't it make sense that would banish wealthy benefactors like Soros from their causes?  It doesn't make them treasonous.  It makes them hypocrites.  Got that?  Clear enough for you?

As to the accusations the Koch Brother's motives are in their own self-interest, so what?   Are you telling me that the rich Lefties who fund liberal causes are purely altruistic?   Now who's naive, Stephen?

As to the charge that unions pay for protesters, they've certainly done it before.  Source?  Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2010

“The carpenters union has been hiring people -- many of whom have no ideology on an issue -- to to walk picket lines, chant and generally sound off each day at around 150 picket lines in the District of Columbia and Baltimore.”

I'm not sure why I have two names - I did register on this board years ago under another name, but I was also under another internet carrier, which I no longer have.   There's no conspiracy involved.

What I've seen from you in the past twenty-four hours are personal attacks, not just against me, but against another poster who argued with you.   The opening sentence in your editorial about election was condescending against people who don't agree with you.

"Jacksonville is not a conservative, anti tax, anti vision town."

Nothing insulting there.  

[NotNow]

I think the characterization of "monstrosity" is false.  There are many with much lesser misgivings about the plan including that it does not go far enough. 

Now here is me me being a little condescending. I believe because we finally started down the path People will see the light. I agree with the conservatives that this plan will grow but since I am in favor of big government health care great. 

Now here is me trying to be respectful of my fellow citizens.  I think this should do this with a constitutional amendment.  I am not saying I know the plan to be unconstitutional. I think the founding fathers really meant it when they said promote the general welfare.  i just feel like this is such a big deal it probably deserved that kind of consideration.

Again talking out of both sides of my mouth I am still glad we are moving forward.  I provide much lesser coverage for much more cost to my employees than I did 5 years ago.

Jeffrey,

I am interested in how the law will affect your business financially.  Why are so many companies "opting out"?

[JeffreyS]

I am meeting with the accountants this week for filing our 2010 corp taxes(Yes we had to file an extension from last week). I have this question on the agenda. I believe that if the money is similar (or less obviously) than our current premiums we will make out well because some of my competition have not been providing health care. I will be happy to spill the beans on what I find out. I was convinced at one time this would save me a ton but now so few of my employees use the plan it may well go the other way.