If The Tea Party Was Actually Serious

[emacknight]

@Euphonious_Polemic

I’ve lived in Jamaica. I could see you from my front yard!

I think living in a country that is experiencing low taxes and a non-existent government should be a requirement for any one espousing a Libertarian philosophy.

Seconded.

Although, it wouldn’t hurt for liberals to experience the consequences of excessive taxation and unnecessary government involvement.

I grew up with UHC, a 15% sales tax, and a ban on Sunday shopping. Now I have a group based employer provided health plan, no tax on food or clothing, and *mostly *unregulated shopping.

Perspective is a good thing.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

A Sunday Shopping Ban! Whew, good thing you moved away from that socialist hell-hole, and you can now consume products 7 days/week.

Sort of puts my experience in perspective. I mean, all I had to deal with was a guy getting stabbed on the beach because they did not pay the right bribes to the local strongman. But I could definitely buy whatever the hell I wanted on a Sunday.

[foolsguinea]

My Christian missionary mother had to explain to one of the neighbors that she was not “Elizabeth.” Apparently the radio would seriously report sightings of some fair-skinned bogeywoman (a Lilith analogue? I don’t know) named “Elizabeth,” & my mother was a pale freckly thing. I don’t know whose brilliant idea that was: Baby Doc? some aspiring Creole Rupert Murdoch? Press disinformation & a superstitious populace, yay.

[jayjay]

@foolsguinea

My Christian missionary mother had to explain to one of the neighbors that she was not “Elizabeth.” Apparently the radio would seriously report sightings of some fair-skinned bogeywoman (a Lilith analogue? I don’t know) named “Elizabeth,” & my mother was a pale freckly thing. I don’t know whose brilliant idea that was: Baby Doc? some aspiring Creole Rupert Murdoch? Press disinformation & a superstitious populace, yay.

Good thing your mother’s name wasn’t actually “Elizabeth”!

[Kearsen]

@Whack-a-Mole

What you said was:

“Not everyone on this planet deserves the same monetary values because not everyone on this planet is willing to work to get there.”

So, you were making a claim on who is “deserving” and suggesting those who are not rich are those not willing to work for it.

Yep, those who work harder should make more. (That is what my quote says, however you want to try and twist it)

[Sandwich]

@Kearsen

Yep, those who work harder should make more. (That is what my quote says, however you want to try and twist it)

Sounds like socialism to me. Are you really serious that the idle rich should have their money taken away from them to give to people who work? Or that a hard working janitor should make more money than say, Warren Buffett, if he puts in a longer working week?

Or do these words not mean what they seem? Anxious minds need to know.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@emacknight

Looking again at federal revenue sources, cutting corporate taxes entirely really wouldn’t do much to the deficit. On the grand scheme of things, it’s almost small enough to be insignificant one way or another. As far as stimulus goes, if what employers claim is true, for $140billion would could completely eliminate corporate taxes, and then I assume unemployment goes to zero.

You see that corporate income taxes account for 7% of our revenues and you say “WTF get rid of it, it’ll be good for the economy” I see corporations contributing 7% of the tax revenue and say “WTF!!! Corporate taxes used to be a MUCH bigger part of the revenue and payrollt axes used to be a MUCH smaller part, WTF happened?”

What are the sources of revenue for the federal government?

As you can see we have been steadily increasing the social security and medicare taxes over the years and slowly decreasing all other taxes, especially corporate income taxes.

[foolsguinea]

Yep. Here’s the principle: Let the poor take care of the poor, until they can’t anymore, & then maybe they’ll just give up. It’s working, too.

[ElvisL1ves]

An explanation of the Tea Party platform