Anonymous wrote:People who take more than they get taxed should not be allowed to vote.

Anonymous wrote:Tea Bagger = Low Information Voter

Anonymous wrote:People who take more than they get taxed should not be allowed to vote.

Anonymous wrote:

^^^ wtf are you talking about? If you take more than you give you can't vote. What does that have to do with race? Are you admitting Romney was right? The slippery slope is takers voting to take money and freedom from makers that is civil war or busted nation time.

OMG, my eyes are about to roll right out of my head.

Is there drool on your keyboard?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am. It makes sense to me that handouts should not be permanent because they become a way of life - too easy, people feel entitled and forget how to work. They are too divorced from the struggle. It also reflects badly on government, because it shows a lack of trust in people to help shape their own lives. Hand ups, not hand outs, are best.

I see that the larger government becomes, the less efficient it is. Also, running a country as large as the USA, there needs to proper delegation, which is what the Constitution iis designed to do. Anything not in there falls to the state and local governments. This is by design. Look at any well-run company and you will see this type of delegation in action.

Spread the wealth sounds good, but you can't do that through legislation without stepping on someone else's rights. Why is person A more important than person B? Doesn't make sense. No one's entitled to someone else's free labor.

People in power always want to stay in power. The people on power will always live better than the people not in power because that's human nature. You can see that is true all over the world. The rules they create never seem to apply to them. Limiting government keeps this in check.

That's a short synopsis.

I'm not a Tea Party member, but I agree with everything you posted. I'm tired of the handouts. I'm tired of entitlement. I'm tired of paying for other peoples' mistakes. I do think we have an obligation to help those less fortunate, but I don't think we are really "helping" by giving perpetual handouts. If anything, we are giving people just enough to survive and that's not really helping.

I think many (not all) Democrats love keeping poor people poor. After all, as long as they are poor, they will need welfare, food stamps, etc... And as long as they need those things, they will continue to vote for those who want to keep providing it. Keeping poor people poor is the best way to ensure poor people keep voting democrat.

^^^ wtf are you talking about? If you take more than you give you can't vote. What does that have to do with race? Are you admitting Romney was right? The slippery slope is takers voting to take money and freedom from makers that is civil war or busted nation time.

Anonymous wrote:People who take more than they get taxed should not be allowed to vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because a lot of people don't believe in punishing children in order to punish their parents.

You can require welfare queen to work for the subsidies. That would also help the children

Who watches the children while the mother is working her $7/hr cashier job?

Oh, I suppose now you're going to be lavishing the welfare queen with free childcare! Just think of the corrosive effects this will have on her children. With food, health care, and adult supervision in their daily lives, what possible incentive would they have to make something of their lives!

You libs are sooo naive!

And yet you aren't answering the question. Who is going to watch the damn kids while she is working?

Listen, on some level I get where you are coming from. But your "bootstraps" bullshit is not one size fits all. So I ask you again, who watches the fucking kids?

Anonymous wrote:Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann also has received farm subsidies - $250K in total so far.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/bachmann-has-income-from-subsidized-farm.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because a lot of people don't believe in punishing children in order to punish their parents.

You can require welfare queen to work for the subsidies. That would also help the children

Who watches the children while the mother is working her $7/hr cashier job?

Oh, I suppose now you're going to be lavishing the welfare queen with free childcare! Just think of the corrosive effects this will have on her children. With food, health care, and adult supervision in their daily lives, what possible incentive would they have to make something of their lives!

You libs are sooo naive!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because a lot of people don't believe in punishing children in order to punish their parents.

You can require welfare queen to work for the subsidies. That would also help the children

Who watches the children while the mother is working her $7/hr cashier job?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you explain children who die due to social services inefficiencies ? Why veteran care is so poor? Why doctors can't pay their overhead if they took only Medicare patients? How the IRS makes errors and destroys people's lives through Leon's, garnishings, etc? If private corporations made these mistakes, heads would roll. And do. Government? Not so much.

I can say that FEWER children die, for any reason, now than at any other time in history. A lot of it is improved nutrition (WIC, food stamps), a lot of it is improved medical care (medicaid). Tax collection has ALWAYS been a source of potential corruption, and a source of great loss when abused. It is better regulated now than it ever has been.

Am I saying that everything is great and we should just leave it all alone and our work here is done? Hell no.

Are you saying that an institution that doesn't function at 100% effectiveness and perfection should be abolished, whether or not there is something better to replace it? Yeah, it kinda sounds like you are.

I'm saying adding to it while acknowledging gross inefficiencies is completely irresponsible. A private corporation would soon go out of business with that model

Really? We didn't see many heads roll after the banking crisis, and when health insurers screw their insured, usually the result is that they lawyer up.

Actually, they were bailed out, something 'tea baggers' did not support because there is no accountability.