Dean Cain Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 What has the Tea Party accomplished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 What has the Tea Party accomplished? They helped Democrats keep the Senate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 They helped Democrats keep the Senate RINO establishment republicans lost the senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 24, 2014 Author Share Posted January 24, 2014 What has the Tea Party accomplished? The House in 2010 and 2012. It's a process to bring the Republican Party back towards conservatism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) I'm only gonna say this once! How do you explain illegal side-payments that regularly occur wherever we find socialized anything, never mind health care? You've tried hard to pretend that markets don't work in health care, but, as the side-payments clearly illustrate: it's not a matter of "work". It's merely a matter of the market reacting to however the government Fs things up next. Markets "exist". Period. Even in totalitarian states, markets still exist. Similarly, illegal side payoffs to doctors exist in countries with socialized medicine because? EVERYTHING is worth what it's purchaser will pay for it. http://quotationsbook.com/quote/40426/ Thus, there's a market for the best pediatrician in Japan, and he won't see your kid unless you pay him off. Illegal, but, common and condoned. A guy from 2000 years ago said the bolded above...how many years is it going to take for you to know what he does? You are truly deluding yourself if you think there aren't any/won't be any side payments in Mass. and Vermont. No matter how you try to deny their existence, or delude yourself into believing that you control them, markets will always confound you. In fact, you don't seem to realize that the market is likely to punish Ds and health care administrators brutally, for putting this awful system on us. Ds are going to lose the Senate, perhaps 2016, and, you're going to have 30% of your business be Medicaid, and a whole slew of them in your emergency room. Don't think so? Well, Oregon is closer to you than me: http://www.latimes.c...0,2102014.story How's a 40% increase in people who pay you Medicaid sound? All this so you could stop giving away 10% of your business for free? All this, so your ER can see 40% more people, rather than less? Don't blame me/call me names for telling you this. I'm not the one punishing you. The market reaction, you "wanted", is punishing you. So called "side-payments" have existed since the beginning of time, I am not sure the point you're trying to make- I have said time and time again to people who are worried about lines or rationing- make a large donation to a hospital, you walk to the front of the line to see providers other wait 6 months to see. the ACA hasn't changed that one bit. Most people don't know how to game the system or simple don't have the resources to do so, too bad for them. I don't think anyone said there would not be unintended conequences of the expansion of Medicaid. People with new coverage go to the ED when they get sick because it takes weeks and not months to get in with a PCP in many cases. the belief is once someone with Medicaid has established care with a Doctor, they will go back to that office/ call that office when they get sick. Time will tell if the predicted behavior comes to pass. You will also see more hospital operate urgent care clinics as they become more in demand. Edited January 24, 2014 by B-Large Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) One would logically think that if the TEA party was really "hurting" the GOP, the democrat Party would be happy, but as with all things you hear about the Tea party from the Left..................the opposite is true. Schumer's Plan to Abolish the Tea Party The Democrats' new much-vaunted master plan for annihilating the Tea Party movement calls for aggressive class warfare, demagoguery, and lying about the beliefs, motives, and goals of Tea Party supporters, Sen. Chuck Schumer revealed yesterday. Echoing President Obama's infamous "bitter clingers" remarks, the New York Democrat argued that Tea Party supporters are cartoonish figures who are easily ridiculed. Invoking all the usual liberal cliches about conservatives, Schumer said the Tea Party is successor to "the Know-Nothings, Prohibitionists, Father Coughlin, and Huey Long." In other words, he believes the movement is a collection of hicks, yahoos, neo-Luddites, fascists, male chauvinists, and racists fearful of what leftist academics might call The Other. Schumer said his fellow Democrats in the U.S. Senate plan to subject the public to a massive, presumably very boring post-constitutional civics lesson from now until the congressional elections in November. Democrats "must stop playing defense and go on offense when it comes to the need for government," Schumer said as public support for ObamaCare hit a new record low. "We must state loudly and repeatedly we believe government is often a necessary force for good." As unemployment persists and the economy continues sputtering along, Democrats will focus on highlighting examples of popular government programs and show how "government can help the average family." This will help, in his view, to drive a wedge between rank-and-file Tea Party supporters and "elites" because while "Tea Party leaders have convinced Tea Party grassroots and many other Americans that government in the abstract is bad or even evil, they have not been able to dissuade them from liking specific government programs." {snip} He called for the overthrow of the First Amendment by overturning the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that he claimed the chronically underfunded Tea Party movement has used to secretly "funnel millions of undisclosed dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government." The IRS and other government agencies should join in the fight by doing things "administratively," he said. After making the laughable claim that the electoral system "has been rigged to favor Tea Party candidates in Republican primaries," Schumer called for the system to be changed so Tea Party-backed candidates can't win elections. "A way to lessen the grip of the Tea Party on the electoral process would be to do what a handful of states have done and have a primary where all voters, members of every party, can vote and the top two vote-getters" enter a runoff, he said. On the positive side, Schumer implicitly admitted he is terrified of the Tea Party and the perhaps existential threat it presents to the hardcore Left that now maintains a death grip over an increasingly imperial White House and the do-nothing U.S. Senate. He wondered aloud Why does the Tea Party, a group that seems to represent a small but extreme part of America, have such an undue power which all too often results in a stranglehold over our politics and policies? Ever since its rise in 2009, the Tea Party's influence has been undeniable. They've won elections, stymied Democratic priorities and taken a sledgehammer to programs that are important to tens of millions of Americans. The sledgehammer approach has had a devastating effect on domestic investments like scientific research, education, infrastructure. And even with the cuts that were restored by the Murray-Ryan budget agreement, we're still spending less on these crucial programs than we were before the Tea Party's advent. {snip} The Tea Party will continue to thrive as long as Americans believe that they, not unaccountable bureaucrats and leftist meddlers like Schumer, control their own destiny. Second, the Tea Party is not anti-government, as Schumer suggests. This is a tedious rhetorical straw man that left-wingers routinely use to smear those who don't believe in unlimited government power. The implication is that wanting to scale back the food stamp program, for example, is somehow equivalent to placing a politician's head on a pikestaff. Madness. Tea Party enthusiasts aren't anarchists. Like those who participated in the Boston Tea Party of 1773, they are complaining about the excesses of government. They believe that government needs to be restrained in order for America to flourish. They think that the Constitution is the best means of restraining it. Third, no one in the Tea Party outside of LewRockwell.com perhaps, a fringe libertarian website whose writers would overthrow the Constitution in order to return to the Articles of Confederation, believes that all problems in the nation would disappear if government were rolled back. This is another dishonest left-wing use of a rhetorical device. Only in Schumer's dreams do Tea Party backers make such an absurd claim. It's not the all-or-nothing proposition that he contends. Perhaps this alleged "core weakness of the Tea Party" has not been "effectively challenged" because it's not an actual "premise" that anyone accepts. Read much more at: http://www.americant...l#ixzz2rKUJeHkN Edited January 24, 2014 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 What about reducing the size of government will make the Tea Partiers lives better?? How will they benefit from smaller government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 What about reducing the size of government will make the Tea Partiers lives better?? How will they benefit from smaller government? Not just the size, also the scope. Individuals will benefit by having their choices increased, with fewer decisions being made for them by the government, and having a larger amount of their earned income available to them to spend, save, or invest. Society in general will benefit, in the long term, by having fewer bad choices and poor behaviors incentivized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Not just the size, also the scope. Individuals will benefit by having their choices increased, with fewer decisions being made for them by the government, and having a larger amount of their earned income available to them to spend, save, or invest. Society in general will benefit, in the long term, by having fewer bad choices and poor behaviors incentivized. Won't there be a lot less money being redistributed to the poor and lower middle classes? Fewer jobs, fewer services and a lot more stratification of wealth? The tea party will make the rich richer, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 What about reducing the size of government will make the Tea Partiers lives better?? How will they benefit from smaller government? I think for weak minded or lazy people its easy to say that you want big government and want a nanny state to be there to take care of and manage everything from cradle to grave. By living your life that way its easy but you lose personal choice and freedom. I want to live my life with greater freedom more personal choice and less government intrusion. Is it scary for some people to have to think for themselves or make their own decisions sure but by not being dependent upon the government you will be better off being independent. Dont get me wrong there is a place for government. But the monstrosity we have today is a bloated system ever designed to increase its power and foot print snd to reduce individual freedoms. Holy crap we fought a revolutionary war against England to be free but have forgotten governments place. Its easy for a politician to who're out tax money to fancy programs that weak minded people think they want or need but 75% of it is crap and just furthers government consolidating power and further making more and more people dependent upon government for survival. Give me freedom, smaller government, more personal choice. I assume and expect greater personal risk and uncertainties but I do not want to live my life dependent upon what the government gives me or allows me to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 I want to live my life with greater freedom more personal choice and less government intrusion. What freedom do you want that you do not now have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Won't there be a lot less money being redistributed to the poor and lower middle classes? Fewer jobs, fewer services and a lot more stratification of wealth? The tea party will make the rich richer, right? Incorrect. The natural redistribution of wealth via market forces will a) continue to raise all ships, and b) naturally discourage poor decision making which will lead to a much smaller number of poor. Those poor will be treated much more humanely by churches and charities than by a monolithic government structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Incorrect. The natural redistribution of wealth via market forces will a) continue to raise all ships, and b) naturally discourage poor decision making which will lead to a much smaller number of poor. Those poor will be treated much more humanely by churches and charities than by a monolithic government structure. I think that's all pure wishful thinking and counter to reality. If you destroy all those jobs created by federal and state spending there is not guarantee at all the free market will suddenly rise up to replacve them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 What freedom do you want that you do not now have? Not be forced to have a government approved health insurance plan. Numerous stupid government regulations. Ability to easily get a pistol permit or rifle of my choice. Lower taxes. Not being spied on. Stop wasting my hard earned taxes on bull ****. Balance the budget. Make our country more self reliant and independent. Stop forcing me to pay into social security that i will never get back. Let me invest on my own and be responsible for my own retirement. Etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 I think that's all pure wishful thinking and counter to reality. If you destroy all those jobs created by federal and state spending there is not guarantee at all the free market will suddenly rise up to replacve them Markets will always arise to meet consumer demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Not be forced to have a government approved health insurance plan. Numerous stupid government regulations. Ability to easily get a pistol permit or rifle of my choice. Lower taxes. Not being spied on. Stop wasting my hard earned taxes on bull ****. Balance the budget. Make our country more self reliant and independent. Stop forcing me to pay into social security that i will never get back. Let me invest on my own and be responsible for my own retirement. Etc I don't see anything here that will fundamentally make you more free at all, and might in fact make you less free, not to mention the fact that balancing the budget is one of the single stupidest ideas ever. Imagine a person being denied credit? That's a lack of freedom you want to inflict on our government yet you say you want us to be more independent? You just sound angry but you are not sure exactly what to be angry about so you scream you have no freedom. Markets will always arise to meet consumer demand. Not if consumer have no or little money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Not if consumer have no or little money. Incorrect. Entire industries have evolved which cater to those individuals with fewer resources. The money the do have is still green. Additionally, you've ignored the fact that a culture which incentivizes self reliance, and centralizes it to it's lifestyle will generate a much smaller number of poor; and those fewer poor will be much better serviced by charities and churches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) What about reducing the size of government will make the Tea Partiers lives better?? How will they benefit from smaller government? Private property rights. Economic freedom. When I work 10 hours a day, I have to give nearly half of it over to a entity that I don't know personally. Then they distribute my money which I acquired with my time to people I don't know. This is subjugation. A close cousin of slavery. A smaller, leaner government coupled with integrity would mean less time/money I have to give up to someone else. Morally I will always be in the right because taxing someone at existing rates is immoral. Edited January 24, 2014 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Incorrect. Entire industries have evolved which cater to those individuals with fewer resources. The money the do have is still green. Additionally, you've ignored the fact that a culture which incentivizes self reliance, and centralizes it to it's lifestyle will generate a much smaller number of poor; and those fewer poor will be much better serviced by charities and churches. So it doesn't matter if people have less? It improves their culture. That's really your point of view. It will actually make them have more money later...ok See, that's why I see this anti-government, libertarainism or whatever you call it as pie in the sky dreamy Private property rights. Economic freedom. When I work 10 hours a day, I have to give nearly half of it over to a entity that I don't know personally. Then they distribute my money which I acquired with my time to people I don't know. This is subjugation. A close cousin of slavery. A smaller, leaner government coupled with integrity would mean less time/money I have to give up to someone else. Morally I will always be in the right because taxing someone at existing rates is immoral. Oh, you are a slave, ok, sure. Tom Baurerly, is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 So it doesn't matter if people have less? It improves their culture. That's really your point of view. It will actually make them have more money later...ok See, that's why I see this anti-government, libertarainism or whatever you call it as pie in the sky dreamy Oh, you are a slave, ok, sure. Tom Baurerly, is that you? When 50% of my time is working for the government it's not slavery but it certainly trending that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts