| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri, Oct 15 2010, 2:43 pm EDT Post subject: Re: VIDEO: Asbury Park Press editorial board Sipprelle vs Holt |
 |
|
| If you had even read the first sentence of the post you repllied to all the way through you would have seen it noted "current" and indicated that's not the same as anyone who ever was interested in the party. Why are you completely obsessed with re-posting this 18-month old link? You have zero credibility with your repeated one note... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Oct 15 2010, 10:03 pm EDT Post subject: Re: VIDEO: Asbury Park Press editorial board Sipprelle vs Holt |
|
|
| Jack Frohbieter wrote: | | My original point is that sending Rush Holt back to Congress is to give your approval to the spending that he has voted for and to encourage more of the same. I for one believe this is against the best interest of this country and its citizens. If you agree with the spending that is occurring vote for Rush. If not, vote for Scott. |
OK, so you believe that Rush Holt's voting record that shows he voted to prevent health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, to protect social security, to close the Medicare prescription "donut-hole", to make higher education more affordable, and to protect the environment, "is against the best interest of this country and its citizens" ?? Are you completely out of your mind? You my friend are the enemy and not Congressman Rush Holt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Oct 15 2010, 11:18 pm EDT Post subject: Re: VIDEO: Asbury Park Press editorial board Sipprelle vs Holt |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Jack Frohbieter wrote: | | My original point is that sending Rush Holt back to Congress is to give your approval to the spending that he has voted for and to encourage more of the same. I for one believe this is against the best interest of this country and its citizens. If you agree with the spending that is occurring vote for Rush. If not, vote for Scott. |
OK, so you believe that Rush Holt's voting record that shows he voted to prevent health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, to protect social security, to close the Medicare prescription "donut-hole", to make higher education more affordable, and to protect the environment, "is against the best interest of this country and its citizens" ?? Are you completely out of your mind? You my friend are the enemy and not Congressman Rush Holt. |
Your both enemies of rational policy. You come across like as much of a zealot as the other side, accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you as being the "enemy" or out of their minds.
Personally I'll vote for Holt, but not reflexively because he is a Democrat as some people do. But I also understand the root of the discontent with the health care reform, even if I don't completely agree with it. The problem is despite years of history and now multiple periods with each party in power practicing its philosophy on governing, there is no unequivocal proof that either side's policies work. Reagan governed with trickle down economics and we eventually saw prosperity, but it was also the historic period of uplift that typically followed a conventional recession like the one he had early in his tenure, and it was accomplished partially by quadrupling our national debt – the first time it was ever measured in trillions. Clinton governed by all the typical Democrat principles and policies and we saw the greatest economic uplift in our history, yet it also arguably set us up for some of what killed us a couple years ago that we’re still recovering from. Each side can find plenty to support their cases and plenty to use to condemn the other side. Anyone who states one side absolutely is right and the other side are idiots, etc. doesn’t have a lot of historical perspective or a full grasp of the facts.
So when you look at health care reform, for example, you can see a positive step in the right direction to close loopholes and cover another 40 million Americans without insurance. Or you can see a boondoggle that does not help most of the 85% of Americans that already had insurance whose primary problem is the soaring cost, which arguably will and already is only getting worse as a result. Looked at from this point of view some people see something that will make their lives worse, not better, and believe it will ultimately fail as a result of costs but not before doing a lot of damage. Of course there are counter arguments to all of this too. The point is it is not black & white. The real word is full of gray. People who think it’s absolutely clear are usually the dumb ones.
Of course the simpleton’s who see things in absolutes also tend to frame everything in political party jingoism. Everything wrong is the Democrats fault. They are all socialists. Or Republicans are all evil, extremists or conspiring to make us all slaves to the rich elite. Blah, blah, blah. As soon as you read that kind of preamble you know right away that everything that comes after it will be nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Oct 16 2010, 12:10 pm EDT Post subject: Re: VIDEO: Asbury Park Press editorial board Sipprelle vs Holt |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Here' is what I would like to see from a “current” (many people were interested in the movement before it was so clearly taken over by extremists) Tea Party supporter who claims not to be about religious extremism and to truly be against big government and for truly smaller spending...
|
Despite the prior accusations by Guest, I am not associated with the Tea Party in any way, so I cannot fulfill your Tea Party confession fantasy (sorry). I think you make some fine points and I hope current Tea Party members give your post consideration.
As long as we're asking for fantasy confessions, I am waiting for the day when Cranbury's "Progressives" admit the policies they have supported are out of control and are the root cause of the biggest challenges facing Cranbury today.
No, I'm not talking about parking, but rather the property tax burden that results from the school funding formula and the affordable housing obligations threatening to bankrupt our town. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 18 2010, 8:41 am EDT Post subject: Re: VIDEO: Asbury Park Press editorial board Sipprelle vs Holt |
|
|
Sorry folks, but, the Teaparty DOES come across as a group of kookydoodles!
Whatever their platform is, it is overshadowed by their less than sane "leadership".
I am politically neutral and enjoy the fisticuffs between the extremes, but, the Tea-people are just laughable. Even more so than the 2 parties which already dominate our nation.
Keep it up, it's GREAT entertainment!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 18 2010, 8:50 am EDT Post subject: Re: VIDEO: Asbury Park Press editorial board Sipprelle vs Holt |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Sorry folks, but, the Teaparty DOES come across as a group of kookydoodles!
Whatever their platform is, it is overshadowed by their less than sane "leadership".
I am politically neutral and enjoy the fisticuffs between the extremes, but, the Tea-people are just laughable. Even more so than the 2 parties which already dominate our nation.
Keep it up, it's GREAT entertainment!!!!!!!!! |
What about those those left wing progressive nut jobs. The Tea Party is balanced by all those groups like Move On on the far left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 18 2010, 9:51 am EDT Post subject: Re: VIDEO: Asbury Park Press editorial board Sipprelle vs Holt |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Sorry folks, but, the Teaparty DOES come across as a group of kookydoodles!
Whatever their platform is, it is overshadowed by their less than sane "leadership".
I am politically neutral and enjoy the fisticuffs between the extremes, but, the Tea-people are just laughable. Even more so than the 2 parties which already dominate our nation.
Keep it up, it's GREAT entertainment!!!!!!!!! |
What about those those left wing progressive nut jobs. The Tea Party is balanced by all those groups like Move On on the far left. |
Probably so. But those people aren't winning primaries and being talked about for the Presidency. There are very few Democrats in office who are truly radical progressives, and almost none in a position of power in the party. Despite whatever some may think, the current president is far from a left extremist, as any liberal progressive will tell you. And the lefty extremists aren't on video saying crazy things like dinosaurs walked the Earth with man 7,000 years ago. Their ideology may be radical and wrong but they usually aren't saying earth-is-flat kind of crazy talk, so they don't get as many sound bites.
The problem with extreme right people is they see ANYONE left of them as extremist left which is all out of proportion with reality. That’s why they think Fox is “fair and balanced” and see ALL other media as radical, instead of just MSNBC. Like the previous poster I am an independent with no love for the extreme views of either far end of the major parties. But I have to agree the previous poster. The progressives don't "balance out" the Tea Party right now. That's not an excuse to tolerate the severe ignorance of the Tea Party. Two people can have the same facts and come to radically different conclusions and political views. That's fine. But when one of them doesn't even deal with real facts, when they trade in completely made up stuff and form their politics from it, that is scary. And that's what we have in some Tea Partiers. The roots of the party started soundly with less taxes, smaller government. But it is unrecognizable from those humble beginnings now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 18 2010, 3:09 pm EDT Post subject: Re: VIDEO: Asbury Park Press editorial board Sipprelle vs Holt |
|
|
Yeah, God help those whacky Progressives.
Who would've thought that public education, clean air, clean water, an 8 hour working day, voting rights, child labor laws, Social Security, the EPA, consumer protections, the FDA, the G.I. Bill and a whole list of other nasty things could've ever caught on?
How dare they infringe upon the rights of the powerful and/or wealthy who REALLY control this country anyway! HARUMPH!
(sarsasm to loonies intended) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 18 2010, 3:37 pm EDT Post subject: Re: VIDEO: Asbury Park Press editorial board Sipprelle vs Holt |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Yeah, God help those whacky Progressives.
Who would've thought that public education, clean air, clean water, an 8 hour working day, voting rights, child labor laws, Social Security, the EPA, consumer protections, the FDA, the G.I. Bill and a whole list of other nasty things could've ever caught on?
How dare they infringe upon the rights of the powerful and/or wealthy who REALLY control this country anyway! HARUMPH!
(sarsasm to loonies intended) |
You are things done by Democrats (and in a couple cases, ironically even Republicans) to "Progressives" and that's not the same thing. That's like saying every Republican is a Wing-Nut, which isn't true either. For that matter, even the term "Progressive" has been unfortunately co-opted to refer to ultra-liberals where it once wasn't so extreme. There are plenty of Democrats and independents who are supportive of many of the things on your list but don't have to be supportive of everything associated with the present "Progressive" agenda. You come across just as rigidly and polarized as the cliché Tea Party member. And therefor just as lacking in credibility. The world is not defined in absolutes or extremes.
BTW, what "rights" of the rich or powerful are you talking about? That doesn't even make sense.
You certainly aren't referring to taxes, I assume, where half of Americans net pays no taxes and are completely supported by others, and more than half of all taxes are paid by the top 10% of taxpayers. So you couldn't possibly be suggesting that those well off don't currently "pay their fair share" because on what basis could you twist the definition of "fair" to apply to those facts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 18 2010, 5:12 pm EDT Post subject: Re: VIDEO: Asbury Park Press editorial board Sipprelle vs Holt |
|
|
The top earners pay more money because they make more money.
It's not rocket science, Zippy!
Progressive tax is the only thing that makes sense.
Whadda ya gonna do, tax the poor?
Hey, thats a winning strategy!
I know, lets tax the middle-class out of existence, then use the money to prop up our most profitable corporations like Exxon-Mobil!
How's that for the "free-market"?
The free market is not so free after all ,is it?
It's just redistribution of wealth by another means.
Complain about public welfare, but, praise private welfare instead!
I'm onto your game, Zip.
You may have most 'Mericans fooled into submission, but not me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 18 2010, 5:25 pm EDT Post subject: Re: VIDEO: Asbury Park Press editorial board Sipprelle vs Holt |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | The top earners pay more money because they make more money.
It's not rocket science, Zippy!
Progressive tax is the only thing that makes sense.
Whadda ya gonna do, tax the poor?
Hey, thats a winning strategy!
I know, lets tax the middle-class out of existence, then use the money to prop up our most profitable corporations like Exxon-Mobil!
How's that for the "free-market"?
The free market is not so free after all ,is it?
It's just redistribution of wealth by another means.
Complain about public welfare, but, praise private welfare instead!
I'm onto your game, Zip.
You may have most 'Mericans fooled into submission, but not me. |
Just a question, based on your most mature posting. Do you actually know what a progressive tax is? And no fair posting a googled response, now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 18 2010, 5:43 pm EDT Post subject: Re: VIDEO: Asbury Park Press editorial board Sipprelle vs Holt |
|
|
DUH!
I tink its wen dat a poison makes mor munee, den day pays mor munee in tacks-es.
Id dat write perfesser?
I don't care about your high school debate club rhetoric tactics.
A lot of people in this country don't know their ass from their elbow and rely on pundits and demagogues to make up their minds for them. They are totally clueless, so they just digest and regurgitate whatever they hear on the radio, read online or see on TV.
Most Americans are too dumb to chew gum and walk!!!
Look at how popular Jersey Shore and Dane Cook are?
Their viewership consists of the same people who vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 18 2010, 5:53 pm EDT Post subject: Re: VIDEO: Asbury Park Press editorial board Sipprelle vs Holt |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | The top earners pay more money because they make more money.
It's not rocket science, Zippy!
Progressive tax is the only thing that makes sense.
Whadda ya gonna do, tax the poor?
Hey, thats a winning strategy!
I know, lets tax the middle-class out of existence, then use the money to prop up our most profitable corporations like Exxon-Mobil!
How's that for the "free-market"?
The free market is not so free after all ,is it?
It's just redistribution of wealth by another means.
Complain about public welfare, but, praise private welfare instead!
I'm onto your game, Zip.
You may have most 'Mericans fooled into submission, but not me. |
Higher income is taxed disproportionately. I assume you at least understand that, right? That's why its called a progressive tax. So if someone with more income is already paying proportionately more taxes, on what basis can you define whether they are "not paying their fair share" or "getting special tax breaks" etc.? Who defines how much more they are supposed to pay and what is fair?
Half of the people in this country pay no net taxes. Oh they call themselves taxpayers, but they fail to account for the fact that they get refunds (i.e. subsidies from other taxpayers) that are equal or greater than what they contributed. So by your definition are all those half "poor"? What is your definition of poor? Many of these non-taxpayers seem to be able to afford to eat out, to go to the movies, to buy disposable junk at stores, to take vacations, etc. Yet they don't pay a dime in taxes.
And speaking of your big business tax breaks, I actually agree with you. I find it sickening that we continue to expect upper-middle class people, like those who live around here, to pay vastly disproportionate taxes but allow corporations and the truly rich a lesser tax status than the upper-middle-class. Someone grossing half-a-million before taxes in this state has an effective tax rate of 33%, more than double the national average. Yet the average member of the Fortune 500 has an effective tax rate of 18%. Corporations average 20%. Yet the higher tax rate that the Obama administration would like to kick in next year (which is not a “tax increase” but the restoration of the default rate previously in effect) would affect those people earning hundreds-of-thousands but exempt the billionaires and major companies from increases.
So what happened to the “progressive tax”? Why do the ultra-rich get a pass on the backs of those trying to save for their kids college educations and cover their own retirements while contributing to everyone elses? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 18 2010, 6:26 pm EDT Post subject: Re: VIDEO: Asbury Park Press editorial board Sipprelle vs Holt |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | The top earners pay more money because they make more money.
It's not rocket science, Zippy!
Progressive tax is the only thing that makes sense.
Whadda ya gonna do, tax the poor?
|
What's so wrong with taxing the "poor" their fair share? Of course, they'll get most of their taxes back in services. However, if anyone should have the government managing the lion's share of their money, shouldn't it be the people who rely on the government to pick up the tab? How many times have you seen a welfare recipient with a new leather jacket, $100 pair of shoes, a satellite dish or a new blackberry? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 18 2010, 8:45 pm EDT Post subject: Re: VIDEO: Asbury Park Press editorial board Sipprelle vs Holt |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | The top earners pay more money because they make more money.
It's not rocket science, Zippy!
Progressive tax is the only thing that makes sense.
Whadda ya gonna do, tax the poor?
Hey, thats a winning strategy!
I know, lets tax the middle-class out of existence, then use the money to prop up our most profitable corporations like Exxon-Mobil!
How's that for the "free-market"?
The free market is not so free after all ,is it?
It's just redistribution of wealth by another means.
Complain about public welfare, but, praise private welfare instead!
I'm onto your game, Zip.
You may have most 'Mericans fooled into submission, but not me. |
Higher income is taxed disproportionately. I assume you at least understand that, right? That's why its called a progressive tax. So if someone with more income is already paying proportionately more taxes, on what basis can you define whether they are "not paying their fair share" or "getting special tax breaks" etc.? Who defines how much more they are supposed to pay and what is fair?
Half of the people in this country pay no net taxes. Oh they call themselves taxpayers, but they fail to account for the fact that they get refunds (i.e. subsidies from other taxpayers) that are equal or greater than what they contributed. So by your definition are all those half "poor"? What is your definition of poor? Many of these non-taxpayers seem to be able to afford to eat out, to go to the movies, to buy disposable junk at stores, to take vacations, etc. Yet they don't pay a dime in taxes.
And speaking of your big business tax breaks, I actually agree with you. I find it sickening that we continue to expect upper-middle class people, like those who live around here, to pay vastly disproportionate taxes but allow corporations and the truly rich a lesser tax status than the upper-middle-class. Someone grossing half-a-million before taxes in this state has an effective tax rate of 33%, more than double the national average. Yet the average member of the Fortune 500 has an effective tax rate of 18%. Corporations average 20%. Yet the higher tax rate that the Obama administration would like to kick in next year (which is not a “tax increase” but the restoration of the default rate previously in effect) would affect those people earning hundreds-of-thousands but exempt the billionaires and major companies from increases.
So what happened to the “progressive tax”? Why do the ultra-rich get a pass on the backs of those trying to save for their kids college educations and cover their own retirements while contributing to everyone elses? |
The middle-class are the go-to saps whenever our nation needs to scare up money for it's ill conceived ventures regardless of which party or parties are involved.
We pay most of the taxes, we scrimp and save to send our kids to college, we keep the economy going by buying stuff. You know the routine. We buy into the American "dream", even though it sometimes seems more like a nightmare.
The poor exist to scare the crap out of the middle-class!!!!!
-George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Oct 18 2010, 8:47 pm EDT Post subject: Re: VIDEO: Asbury Park Press editorial board Sipprelle vs Holt |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | The top earners pay more money because they make more money.
It's not rocket science, Zippy!
Progressive tax is the only thing that makes sense.
Whadda ya gonna do, tax the poor?
|
What's so wrong with taxing the "poor" their fair share? Of course, they'll get most of their taxes back in services. However, if anyone should have the government managing the lion's share of their money, shouldn't it be the people who rely on the government to pick up the tab? How many times have you seen a welfare recipient with a new leather jacket, $100 pair of shoes, a satellite dish or a new blackberry? |
Traditionally, the poor have no money!
It's tough to get money from people who don't really have any.
I don't know what poor people you're talking about.
Maybe, the poor are better off in your neighborhood? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
