• 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!

Is the Tea Party Funded by "Crony Capitalism"?

Is the Tea Party Funded by "Crony Capitalism"?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 62.1%

  • No

    Votes: 11 37.9%
  • Total voters
    29
Smeagol said:
From what I understand, the Tea Party is funded primarily by big bucks multi-millionaires who want the lowest possible taxes. However membership is made up primarily of people who in 2008 highly trusted talk-radio pundits, etc. frightened into thinking Obama was black-nationalist radical, closet Muslim, terrorist friend and supporter in the midst of the War of Terror, communist, socialist, racist who has a deep seeded hatred for America, the US Military and white people.
Click to expand...

Obama is a black liberation theorist. Anybody who doesn't see that hasn't done much studying about the man's past. Yes, I have read his biography. Various leftist groups have done the same thing for Obama that the Koch brothers did with the Tea Party. If you get a bunch of groups to support your causes by saying good things that they agree with and they give you money. How is that any different from Koch Brothers giving money to groups they agree with? If I was a billionaire or a black man I may be doing the same things. Please, don't act like there aren't Billionaires in black groups. Because there are! How do you think the Trayvon Martin thing got sooo much national attention? Or OJ Simpson for that matter?
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Watched an interview with a Tea Party "leader" earlier tonight. He kept up bringing up the point that the Tea Party is "against crony capitalism". That got me thinking, isnt the tea party itself a astro turf movement that is funded by crony capitalists such as the Koch Bros. So, Is the Tea Party Funded by "Crony Capitalism"?
Click to expand...

Which "Tea Party"?
 
Paschendale said:
Anyone who supports the principles this country was founded on, especially that abolition of aristocracy, and each person earning their place rather than inheriting it, should be strongly in favor of them. Being from a wealthy family yourself, I can see how you prefer aristocracy to American ideals.
Click to expand...
Which country are you referring to?
 
mpg said:
Which country are you referring to?
Click to expand...

is sure as **** isn't the US.

far lefties always forget that our founders had a disdain for internal taxation.

even if aristocracy was on their ****list, the founders remedies were quite different than far lefties.
rather than the usual " weaken the strong in order to strengthen the weak" we see from lefties, the founders were more about empowering the "weak" (in terms of political power) as to mitigate the power of the "strong".

simply put...wealth confiscation was not in their plans.. far lefties are lying when they say such a scheme was intended by the founders.
 
Thrilla said:
kill that strawman! ... kill it dead!
Click to expand...

Not a strawman. It's comparable to what you said. You clearly stated you had trouble understanding how one situation would require a solution while a different situation required the opposite action as a solution.
 
Thrilla said:
simply put...wealth confiscation was not in their plans.. far lefties are lying when they say such a scheme was intended by the founders.
Click to expand...

Yes, the idea of progressive taxes was foreign to the Founders

Equality: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.
Click to expand...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Watched an interview with a Tea Party "leader" earlier tonight. He kept up bringing up the point that the Tea Party is "against crony capitalism". That got me thinking, isnt the tea party itself a astro turf movement that is funded by crony capitalists such as the Koch Bros. So, Is the Tea Party Funded by "Crony Capitalism"?
Click to expand...

I would say 'yes', as the question was asked, but it is incomplete. The glaring omission is not including all our major political parties. The answer would be 'yes' for that, as well.
 
sangha said:
Not a strawman. It's comparable to what you said. You clearly stated you had trouble understanding how one situation would require a solution while a different situation required the opposite action as a solution.
Click to expand...

it was a textbook strawman.

you concocted an argument that was not mine, but superficially similar to mine, and decided to "defeat" it.
 
sangha said:
The part of the constitution which grants them the power to tax has already been pointed out to you
Click to expand...


and unlike the other party, I suspect you understand that that is very different then claiming that the founders supported a death tax
 
TurtleDude said:
so you think the purpose of taxation is to prevent some from having "far more wealth" than others?
Click to expand...

There are many purposes of taxation, that being one. Why do you find it immoral to tax someone after they have passed away? The inheritance tax is one of the most moral taxes there is, because taxing the dead is most certainly preferable to taxing the living.

and I love the parasitic argument of "they are dead they don't need it"
Click to expand...

Please explain to me why someone who is dead needs money more than someone who is living.

why don't you pay 40%
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you rephrase it?
 
SocialDemocrat said:
There are many purposes of taxation, that being one. Why do you find it immoral to tax someone after they have passed away? The inheritance tax is one of the most moral taxes there is, because taxing the dead is most certainly preferable to taxing the living.



Please explain to me why someone who is dead needs money more than someone who is living.



I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you rephrase it?
Click to expand...

why is it immoral

1) they no longer are using government services so why should they pay any more taxes

2) they have already paid far far more taxes than other citizens

3) the government isn't entitled to it

4) it is the right of the property owner to determine what happens with his wealth after he dies

why don't you pay 40% and then tell me how its not a problem

everyone should pay the same rate so people like you won't be bought by promises from pimps that they will merely jack up the rates on the "wealthy" to buy your vote
 
Paschendale said:
That was pretty obvious when they got all bent out of shape over inheritance taxes that only apply to multi-millionaires. They are pretty constantly in favor of oligarchy and aristocracy. It's un-American.
Click to expand...

this is not true, a person can own a farm, of hundreds of acres, have farm equipment, and live stock, plus the house on the farm, but the farmer cannot be rich in the sense of ready cash.

so when the owner dies the federal government confiscates 55% of that wealth, and that's American?
 
TurtleDude said:
and unlike the other party, I suspect you understand that that is very different then claiming that the founders supported a death tax
Click to expand...

There are no death taxes, and several Founders explicitly supported inheritance taxes.
 
sangha said:
There are no death taxes, and several Founders explicitly supported inheritance taxes.
Click to expand...

its silly to pretend that the term "inheritance tax" is more accurate than death tax and none of the founders supported the welfare socialism perpetrated by the federal government today


if there were no income tax, there might be an argument for the death or estate tax. since there is, there is no sound argument for something that is merely a surcharge on the top payers. its a sop to the envious that pimps in office use to pander
 
TurtleDude said:
its silly to pretend that the term "inheritance tax" is more accurate than death tax and none of the founders supported the welfare socialism perpetrated by the federal government today


if there were no income tax, there might be an argument for the death or estate tax. since there is, there is no sound argument for something that is merely a surcharge on the top payers. its a sop to the envious that pimps in office use to pander
Click to expand...

Since death isn't taxed, and the inheritances are taxed, inheritance taxes are both the official and the appropriate term for them

And several Founders supported inheritance taxes and welfare for the poor. In fact, welfare was the exact purpose they proposed for the funds generated by inheritance taxes.
 
sangha said:
Since death isn't taxed, and the inheritances are taxed, inheritance taxes are both the official and the appropriate term for them

And several Founders supported inheritance taxes and welfare for the poor. In fact, welfare was the exact purpose they proposed for the funds generated by inheritance taxes.
Click to expand...

death is what triggers the tax. Several founders might have-they just didn't put it in the framework of government

and people who pay the most income taxes shouldn't be the only group hit with this abomination.

some have argued maybe only the lower classes should pay a death tax since during their lifetime they are consuming more than they pay for. there is no sound reason-other than the fact that those who don't pay death taxes have more votes than the top 1%-for this surcharge. Its vastly wasteful of resources. given the rich pay far far more than their fair share, its time to end this idiocy
 
TurtleDude said:
why is it immoral

1) they no longer are using government services so why should they pay any more taxes
Click to expand...

So? This shouldn't be the basis for how we tax. The poor are obviously going to need to use more government services than the rich. Does that mean the poor should pay a higher tax rate than the rich?

2) they have already paid far far more taxes than other citizens
Click to expand...

So? They still have much more money than most Americans, rendering the point moot.

3) the government isn't entitled to it
Click to expand...

As opposed to the trust fund babies who are going to receive the money otherwise?

4) it is the right of the property owner to determine what happens with his wealth after he dies
Click to expand...

People also have a right to control their own income. That doesn't mean they have a right to control all of their income, hence the income tax.

why don't you pay 40% and then tell me how its not a problem
Click to expand...

If I was rich enough to pay 40% in taxes, I'd be far better off than I am now after taxes, so I'm pretty sure I'd be fine.

everyone should pay the same rate so people like you won't be bought by promises from pimps that they will merely jack up the rates on the "wealthy" to buy your vote
Click to expand...

I fail to see why you think that will solve the problem you perceive here. If there was a flat rate, even more politicians will be campaigning on raising taxes on the rich than they are now.
 
TurtleDude said:
death is what triggers the tax.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Inheritances are what triggers the tax. When people die without leaving an inheritance, there is no tax.

Several founders might have-they just didn't put it in the framework of government
Click to expand...

Again, that part of the constitution has already been pointed out to you
 
SocialDemocrat said:
So? This shouldn't be the basis for how we tax. The poor are obviously going to need to use more government services than the rich. Does that mean the poor should pay a higher tax rate than the rich?



So? They still have much more money than most Americans, rendering the point moot.



As opposed to the trust fund babies who are going to receive the money otherwise?



People also have a right to control their own income. That doesn't mean they have a right to control all of their income, hence the income tax.



If I was rich enough to pay 40% in taxes, I'd be far better off than I am now after taxes, so I'm pretty sure I'd be fine.



I fail to see why you think that will solve the problem you perceive here. If there was a flat rate, even more politicians will be campaigning on raising taxes on the rich than they are now.
Click to expand...

1) if the poor were taxed more, than perhaps they might stop voting for big spenders

2) ideally you should what you pay for what you use and not demand others be tasked with supporting your "needs"

I don't agree with "From those according to how much they have" we don't do it with other services

3) the person entitled to make a decision is the person who owns the wealth. There is no requirement they give it to the children but if they do, its because it is their right-rather than the decision of parasitic envious losers

4) there is no sound argument that the rich should be subjected to more and more taxes just because the envious have more votes

5) easy to say until you start paying that amount

6) if someone campaigned on raising everyone's rates-chances they would be thrown out of office

that is the point-the system right now encourages the many to vote for pimps who are going to spend the public founds on the many in trade for votes and make a minority pay the bill

the only way to shrink government-other than appointing judges who take the 10A seriously, is to make everyone suffer higher taxes when the government grows
 
sangha said:
Wrong. Inheritances are what triggers the tax. When people die without leaving an inheritance, there is no tax.
Click to expand...

the tax applies when you die*.........it used to be [before it was changed by congress a few years back] to be 1.2 million was the limit, and the tax was 55%

*because the property that person owns has to go somewhere....and it will be taxed.

I believe the cut-off is about 5.3 million today


sangha said:
Again, that part of the constitution has already been pointed out to you
Click to expand...

there are no taxes on the people in the constitution of the founders.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
Wrong. Inheritances are what triggers the tax. When people die without leaving an inheritance, there is no tax.



Again, that part of the constitution has already been pointed out to you
Click to expand...

semantics based on a desire to make the death tax sound better. An inheritance tax is paid by the heirs so you are wrong

again a stupid argument-you are confusing the power to do something with the desire that the power be used that way
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom