Dear Angry American, Joining Tea Party NOT Your Only Option

neptunechimney wrote:

SS109 wrote: It will be interesting to see what talk radio has to say about Jon Stewart's event. .

I think it will be interesting to see how much trash they will leave littering the street, but then i am easily amused.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/trash-and-other-debris-scattered-across-the-national-mall-after-obama-inauguration-ceremony.jpg?w=410&h=268

Am I to understand that Wayne Harrison is pineguy?

Yep. I decided to join everyone else on here who has a non-real name nick.

It comes from Pinecamguy, which I was for years. Since I'm no longer on Pinecam, I shortened it to the same name that was on my license plate for years.

You may have noticed. I am no longer posting in the political section of this forum (except for this one post). I've voluntarily removed myself because I found the repartee wasn't constructive.

Feel free to carry on and enjoy yourselves.

Welcome back. As to the repartee, just put in the statement that you found this article interesting and what are your thoughts? I can't promise we won't jump on you, but then it doesn't appear to be your views unless it does reflect them.

Sorry, it got too hot in the kitchen for you.

Pineguy wrote: Thanks for the link. I love reading the actual words of our founding fathers.

I think Jefferson was on the right track politically, being an anti-Federalist and laying the groundwork for what would eventually become the Democratic Party. His new Democratic-Republican Party invented some of the campaign and organizational techniques that were later adopted by the Federalists and became standard American practice. It was especially effective in building a network of newspapers in major cities to broadcast its statements and editorialize its policies. That was back when the press took a stand on issues.

What was interesting to note is that Jefferson referred to himself, as did his opponents, as a republican. Jefferson would not be welcome in the modern day party of Democrats. His overriding devotion to individual liberty and a relatively weak and small general government would find him at odds with the platform of the modern day Democrats. Jefferson campaigned for president on a platform of lowering taxes and shrinking government in the pursuit of expanding individual liberty and freedoms.

Also interesting to note is the belief that the modern day press is any less partisan than it was in during the days of Jefferson. The likes of MSNBC, FoxNews, ABC, Newsweek and the NY Times of today are every bit the partisan outlets that the newspapers of the late 1700's and early 1800's were. To suggest otherwise would be foolish and naive.

I bet ya Jefferson and quite a few others would be advocating overthrow and rebellion right about now if they could see how big our Federal & Local governments have become. Jefferson along with most of the others never envisioned federal government to consume more than 2 or 3% of our earnings - and they specifically forbid the Federal government from taxing the any of the labor of its citizens. Claiming that Jefferson would be a democrat today is laughable.

So I was watching Communism now (aka Democracy now) last night and they were all goo-goo gaga over the gathering in DC last weekend. They showed a few speeches in their entirety, one was a children's education advocate and the other was the president of the AFLCIO union- oh, and harry Bellefonte.

The main focus for the "save the children" speech was education. Of course she failed to mention that the system of education is totally controlled by the left - and all the out of control costs are a result of a system created by liberal educators. She offered no solution to the problem except that government should find an answer. The system now requires a few hundred thousand dollars to get a college student 4 years of education and a bachelor’s degree.

But the left likes it that way - college professors like it that way, and the only people who suffer are those who cannot afford the costs. Do we really need government to figure out why it costs so much? Should it really cost 200K for a college degree? We all know that it's the system that's screwed up - and education need not cost anywhere near that.

The union boss had a different speech - that we all need to join and support a union, or the dream of raising our children and having a steady job would disappear. But wasn't it the unions who contributed to our Auto industries downfall? By demanding more and more from an employer who was experiencing a loss of market share - the unions sealed their own fate. As the jobs disappeared, did the unions back off in order to help? Unions helped drive the jobs away, with demands that could not be met by a declining industry.
Unions have caused (or contributed to) the loss of jobs - not the creation of jobs as they claim.
And Harry - all he had to say was that the tea party was bad, but not one single solution - only that we should keep supporting Obama.
There seemed to be a total dis-connect between the speakers and the people in the crowd. Some were carrying signs that said “hire us America”. Others were signs about the bad economy.

The Tea Party wants to slash government spending/programs, forgetting the money spent actually goes into the economy.

Just wait till our infrastructure is crumbling from lack of government spending and people are out of work with nowhere to turn.

When will people start to realize that government does not create wealth, or jobs? The quote above shows a total lack of understanding – here the poster is suggesting that money spent “actually goes into the economy”.

The poster ignores basic economic rules with this statement- a few other posters have correctly pointed out that any money that the government gets- it has to take from someone else. The government therefore – has to take the money OUT of the economy - before it can put money into the economy. It needs to confiscate the wealth from those who produce it, before it can spend anything on “the economy”. I’d like to add that it does this in the most in-efficient possible way – by way of beauracy and massive overhead.

The first rule of economics is – one can not consume what has not first been produced. The left conveniently forgets this fact. Businesses create jobs – not government.

Some at the gathering were holding signs against wall street – put aside the corrupt criminals and those who mismanaged for a second – wall street has created millions of jobs by providing a system where those with money to invest could connect with the companies that have new ideas and opportunity. It connects producers with investors – and creates jobs that move our economy.

Government takes money out of the economy and creates what I call “false economy”. By removing it from those who would save, spend or invest in the economy- government claims it and concentrates it where it “deems necessary”.

What is necessary?
The left leaning taxpayer would claim that his/her money spent fighting wars is not necessary. The right leaning taxpayer might claim that spending his/her money on social programs is not necessary – and that money left in the economy without government meddling would raise all boats in the water – and the overall standard of living would be higher for all of us, if government would just leave us alone.

Whatever it is we should all agree that government wastes money big time. Less money going into government means more money in the economy – where those who earned it can invest or spend it. This is a natural economy – not a false economy . Jobs will be created where the market shows true demand – not where the government dictates a false demand.

The tea party has this part right- the problems arise on how much government is enough, how much is too much? We need roads and bridges- but government can’t even use the gas tax money it collects to get this right! How much government do we need?

The answer I see is that we don’t need all that much at all. I need roads to drive to work and very little else. Maybe I needed school as a youngster– when I went to school the cost was only 20% of what it is today. The main mission has been abandoned- and the school system today wastes money in typical government fashion.

What do we really need government for – and how much of it do we need?

The answer is we need a hell of a lot less of it than we think.
We need a hell of a lot less than we have now!

Bearmtnhib---
That is the most logical,well thought post I've seen on a thread in a LONG time...
Great work!
Please post it on "Park Bull" AND "Pine Cam"---Everyone needs to read this!!!
Thanks!!!

Wow... I guess the rest of America can go home now. Since we have people like you to tell all the rest of us what we need (and don't need), there's not much else to do. How grateful we all should be!

:bs:

(But just to keep it on the up and up...I'm still going to vote against every conservative, neo-con, tea-party, right-winger that shows up on the ballot... It just makes me feel good.)

Whatever it is we should all agree that government wastes money big time. Less money going into government means more money in the economy – where those who earned it can invest or spend it. This is a natural economy – not a false economy . Jobs will be created where the market shows true demand – not where the government dictates a false demand.

This message is spot on, and until the people of this country step up to the plate and put a stop to it, it will continue the downward spiral that it is currently in...with no light at the end of the tunnel.

:Thanks: