• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pew: Tea Party support at record low

clownboy said:
:
lamo believing anything The Hill has to say about their enemies is the height of humor. Don't get out of the echo chamber much do ya?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




The comment pertained to a study done by the Pew Research center, which The Hill reported on.

Try reading that study before you post a disparaging comment.
 
APACHERAT said:
I seem to remember just a few years ago hearing that the Tea Party approval numbers were at an all time low. That the Tea party is no more. That the Tea Party has no power in Congress. That the Tea Party was just a short fad. That the Tea Party is history. That the Tea Party is extinct.

That was a few years ago.
Click to expand...

You left out lame.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
You left out lame.
Click to expand...

You're right, I did.

The left was so lame they planted 20 year old SEIU rent a protestors holding racist and misspelled signs among a bunch of 40, 50 and 60 year old Tea Party members, that only stupid people wouldn't notice.
 
APACHERAT said:
You're right, I did.

The left was so lame they planted 20 year old SEIU rent a protestors holding racist and misspelled signs among a bunch of 40, 50 and 60 year old Tea Party members, that only stupid people wouldn't notice.
Click to expand...

Well the left is indeed lame which is why I am not on the left. But then the right and the tea party are lame so its a party.
 
iguanaman said:
It depends. If my old insurance was one of those bogus $25,000 max payout joke policies, I might realize that that was not really insurance at all and at least I am getting security with the AHC act.
Click to expand...

Well ... was it?
If not, you can answer the question because there are an awful lot of people who it appears will be confronted with that situation as the Government assumes control of their healthcare.
 
shrubnose said:
Maybe you find it funny, but it happens to be mostly true.
Click to expand...

not at all. Romney's agenda catered to us net tax payers. Obama-those who want more stuff from government
 
TurtleDude said:
not at all.
Romney's agenda catered to us net tax payers. Obama-those who want more stuff from government
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Isn't Romney that guy with the car elevator who got his backside handed to him by President Obama last November?




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

 
shrubnose said:
Isn't Romney that guy with the car elevator who got his backside handed to him by President Obama last November?




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
Click to expand...



that is a pretty lame response. It is neither responsive nor relevant and your feigned ignorance of the election result doesn't do much for your credibility
 
Those of us who oppose the incremental creep of the federal government don't particularly care if the shallow self involved democrat base like us or not. The republican party has been letting the democrats pick their candidates for far too long, it's no wonder they can't get enough votes from conservatives to win elections when they keep running moderates. Democrats pointng, laughing and ridiculing the Tea Party is a sure sign wenare under their skin. Those of you who shamefully gnore the long term consequences of your short term selfish wants will be left out of the solutions because your opinions are demonstratively wrong. Now go find some funny videos of cats or something, the grown ups have work to do and can't be bothered with your nonsense anymore.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more: Pew: Tea Party support at record low - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Its sad it took people so long to have a unfavorable view of these people. Hopefully they will never again play a roll in our politics. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Even more are going to hate what the Tea Party stands for, when they are faced with the facts of life. Either they personally are going to have reduce their own spending (higher taxes) or they will get less government goodies (spending reduction).
 
tech30528 said:
Those of us who oppose the incremental creep of the federal government don't particularly care if the shallow self involved democrat base like us or not. The republican party has been letting the democrats pick their candidates for far too long, it's no wonder they can't get enough votes from conservatives to win elections when they keep running moderates. Democrats pointng, laughing and ridiculing the Tea Party is a sure sign wenare under their skin. Those of you who shamefully gnore the long term consequences of your short term selfish wants will be left out of the solutions because your opinions are demonstratively wrong. Now go find some funny videos of cats or something, the grown ups have work to do and can't be bothered with your nonsense anymore.
Click to expand...

...just as the Democrats let the Republicans pick their candidates. Its the way conventional wisdom politics work. The Democratic party has been moving "right" for decades now. Its most liberal candidates of the past 40 years (Mondale and Dukakis) were soundly rejected by voters.

To win an election you have to 1) capture the independents 2) turn out your base and 3) keep the other guy from turning out his base. The middle of the road candidates tend to help with all of these. Picking an extreme candidate tends to help only win election #2.... Tea party people do fine in congressional districts because they "constructed". They can not win in statewide elections unless the state is pretty solidly red and can not win a national election, as while they may turn out the base, they do not attract independents and encourage the other side to turn its base.

Substantially all of the electorate are middle of the road. Extremists (be tea party players or the Dennis Kuicinch types) are not attractive candidates in an open election. At some point, the Republicans will learn that too much tea partying is not the way to get ahead.
 
Last edited:
DVSentinel said:
They still are much higher than those who openly admit their socialist. When they get down to the level of socialist, then maybe you can brag.
Click to expand...

Oooo ahhh good one!
 
TurtleDude said:
not at all. Romney's agenda catered to us net tax payers. Obama-those who want more stuff from government
Click to expand...

Net taxpayer? what is that? Am I a net taxpayer? How do I figure that out?
 
haymarket said:
Net taxpayer? what is that? Am I a net taxpayer? How do I figure that out?
Click to expand...

its easy for those who actually have open minds. It is someone whose tax payments are higher than the average. It also can refer to someone who pays more taxes than those in his socioeconomic cohort uses in federal services. someone in the top 2% of tax payers is almost certainly a net tax payer. Someone in the bottom 60% of tax payers is almost assuredly a net tax consumer.
 
TurtleDude said:
its easy for those who actually have open minds. It is someone whose tax payments are higher than the average. It also can refer to someone who pays more taxes than those in his socioeconomic cohort uses in federal services. someone in the top 2% of tax payers is almost certainly a net tax payer. Someone in the bottom 60% of tax payers is almost assuredly a net tax consumer.
Click to expand...

So what figure is the average so we can start there?
 
haymarket said:
So what figure is the average so we can start there?
Click to expand...

doesn't matter. what is important is that some politicians pander to net tax consumers and figure those who consider themselves as such will vote for them. Other politicians try to win elections by being supported by those who figure they pay far more in taxes than they get in benefits (like me). It matters not if someone actually pays less in taxes than they get if they believe otherwise and vote for someone who will work to decrease the taxes on those who pay lots of taxes and government spending.
 
TurtleDude said:
doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

You just said it did in your own post when I directly asked you what a NET TAXPAYER was:

It is someone whose tax payments are higher than the average.
Click to expand...

Your words.
Your answer.
Your claim.
Your allegation.
Your standard.

You stated that a net taxpayer is someone whose tax payments are higher than the average.

So what is the average figure that we all need to know to find out if we are net taxpayers?

Its your standard - defend it.
 
haymarket said:
You just said it did in your own post when I directly asked you what a NET TAXPAYER was:



Your words.
Your answer.
Your claim.
Your allegation.
Your standard.

You stated that a net taxpayer is someone whose tax payments are higher than the average.

So what is the average figure that we all need to know to find out if we are net taxpayers?

Its your standard - defend it.
Click to expand...

someone can easily find out what the average income tax payment is in the USA. someone can also divide all the income tax paid by the number of tax payers and come up with an average as well

if someone pays a materially greater amount than both numbers he is most likely a NET TAX Payer.

You attempt to denigrate the concept by pretending that if I cannot name the actual dollar amount, no such net tax payer exists. That is not a valid attack. I will not accept your parameters that are created so that you can claim no such tax payers exist. It is obvious that some people pay far more in federal taxes than they derive in benefits just as it is obvious that many people do not come close to paying for what they use-or what they COST society and the taxpayers.
 
TurtleDude said:
someone can easily find out what the average income tax payment is in the USA. .
Click to expand...

Since it is YOUR STANDARD and was made in YOUR CLAIM, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide that information so we all can apply YOUR STANDARD to find out if we are net taxpayers.

Why are you unable to do this?
 
haymarket said:
Since it is YOUR STANDARD and was made in YOUR CLAIM, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide that information so we all can apply YOUR STANDARD to find out if we are net taxpayers.

Why are you unable to do this?
Click to expand...

why do you demand that I provide proof for issues I don't raise

do you deny that some people pay more taxes to the federal government than they use in terms of cost federal services? If you disagree than you are arguing against reality. If you agree then you don't need any proof
 
TurtleDude said:
that is a pretty lame response. It is neither responsive nor relevant and your feigned ignorance of the election result doesn't do much for your credibility
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




But you did get my point, eh?



Who is in the White House, Who was supported by most of the voters in last year's election?



If the GOP doesn't get its act together in about thirty years or so when the demographic change that is coming at it like a tidal wave hits it full force it will likely be reduced to a small regional party with no national power and eventually join the Whigs.

I'm not saying that I'm wishing for this, but it does look like that's the direction that the GOP is headed in.

And the only people who can change that are the old White men who rule the GOP.

If you don't know where all old people will end up a lot sooner than the young people who have different ideas I advise you to go to any cemetery and take a look, sooner than anyone wishes they will be looking at the grass from the brown side, that's just a simple fact of life-the old pass away and the young take their place. That's been going on since the human race first appeared on this planet and it's not likely to change anytime soon no matter what some people on the right might wish for.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
why do you demand that I provide proof for issues I don't raise
Click to expand...

But you did.

It was YOU who raised the specter of the NET TAXPAYER.
your post 208
Romney's agenda catered to us net tax payers.
Click to expand...


It was YOU who declared that the standard was they they pay more tax than average when asked how to identify what one was.

your 217

It is someone whose tax payments are higher than the average.
Click to expand...

Why do you now fail to defend your own standard?

You have been beating this drum for a long time now and each and every time you are asked about it you NEVER have been able to provide any applicable standard so others can determine if they are a NET TAXPAYER or not. It has been that way for your posts for years now.

Really Turtle, if you cannot come up with an applicable standard that people can use - your term has no validity whatsoever and is merely a label used for partisan or political purposes which fails to stand up to any scrutiny, criticism or examination.

You should either work this out with an applicable formula so it actually means something or drop it now that we see what the real purpose of it is.

you now raise this question to me

do you deny that some people pay more taxes to the federal government than they use in terms of cost federal services?
Click to expand...

I will be happy to examine the data... the statistics ... the facts ... the evidence ... should you ever present it. But your question raises other questions about the honesty of the way you frame your own inquiry:

- why are you limiting this to only federal taxes when "taxpayers" (your own term) pay taxes at various levels of government?
- why are you limiting this to only federal services when people use citizens from various levels of government - and sometimes those services dip into to several funding pots? Education is but one such example, road funding is another.
- how would a person determine how much value in services they are using?
- does this computation - should you ever provide one - to determine a NET TAXPAYER stay with you for life or does it change annually or perhaps monthly or perhaps weekly or even daily as ones situation in life changes?
- in the past you expressed eagerness to attach certain rights to the determination (should you even be able to make one) of the NET TAXPAYER such as voting rights. Are you still advocating that now?

You se Turtle, your question cannot be answered with any accuracy if these questions are not answered.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom