100% agreed

 

One hundred years ago the Republican party was mostly rich corporate types and the Democrat party was mostly farmers, the middle class, union workers. The rich corporate Republicans, fifty years before that, fought the southern farmers over slavery, and won. Southerners despised the rich Northern Republicans for over one hundred years, and they voted exclusively Democrat.

But a lot changes in a hundred years. Most of the farmers are gone, and so too are most of the factory workers and union workers. Over fifty percent of all union members are now government employees! Hardly the brawling longshoremen teamsters of the 50s.

The Democrat party is now composed of the rich, and the poor. The middle class is overwhelmingly Republican. This can be easily seen by looking at an election results by county map. Rich counties like Marin CA, Arlington VA, Montgomery MD, are overwhelmingly Democratic, middle class and rural counties are overwhelmingly Republican.

The idea that rich corporations support Republicans is one hundred years out of date, going back to Steinbeck and The Grapes of Wrath. The political landscape has changed dramatically since that book was written. Republicans are now representative of and composed of the middle class in America. Democrats are largely representative of and composed of the rich and elite.

But the Democrats still pander to the poor and uneducated for a chunk of their support, thus the propoganda campaign that Republicans are the rich. Ironically, the Democrats' policies of higher taxes and more regulation disproportionately hurt the poor, for whom an extra dollar for a gallon of gas or another thousand for health insurance can be overwhelming.

 

It is one thing to be thought a fool, it's another to open your mouth and remove all doubt. So, that being said. Do you have some evidence or proven fact to back up this A$$inine statement ?

 

They're ALL fake? Hmmm.
They're for big corporations? Hmmm.

Well, I believe that I am qualified to say that "they" are in fact very real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_LsAKiT9r4

I believe that I'm qualified because in addition to attending many "Tea Party" type functions, I'm also present as one of the approximately one million very real people in the video above.

For corporations? Well, I can't speak for everyone who considers themselves a part of this "Tea Party" movement, no one can. I can say that I am "for" some corporations, like Ford, who builds products that I choose to buy. If Ford, or any of the thousands of other corporations that provide us consumers with products and services that we want to buy weren't corporations, would they be able to provide us with what we need and want?

I'm not "for" corporations exclusively, as I'm a big proponant of buying locally from small, independant businesses. Corporations are part of our society. I'm not sure what you are getting at saying that Tea Party types are "for" corporations but a person using reason might not see the negitive connotation that you add to that statement.

You can't wait for this movement to fade away? I'm awfully sorry, but you'll have to. Maybe for a long, long time. People like me aren't going anywhere. We aren't going anywhere, even when we manage to elect the "right people", because our government can't continue to run unchecked any longer. It's not only the right of the American people, it is our duty.

So, if you really want to laugh, maybe you ought watch some funny man on TV talking to you like he's reporting "news". You are obviously painfully unaware of what the "Tea Party" movement actually is. Like they say "ignorance is bliss". Laugh they days away if you'd like, we'll continue to unite to restore our republic.

 

The people I beg all of the Teabaggers to look up are the Koch brothers. They are the biggest money supporters of the Teabag movement.

They want taxes and environmental laws to be stripped down to nothing in their own greedy interest.

I love when I hear how lower taxes breed growth. Up until the late 1970s we had a top tax rate north of 70% and had the longest sustained growth in our history. Since we cut the tax rates, we have had a series of bubbles.

Now I understand that such a notion may seem counter intuitive but higher taxes encourage reinvestment in business instead of profit taking.
There is nothing wrong with making money. Wealthy people produce more jobs than poor people. I don't argue either point, but when the divide between the rich and poor gets too great, economic strife happens. The rich can only buy so much. The poor cannot stimulate much as their purchase power is minimal. The middle class is disappearing because the rich are growing their wealth.

Just because the middle class is supporting the Teabaggers doesn't mean they are truly operating in their best interest. Lower taxes sounds great to the middle class but they aren't seeing the big picture. They see jobs going and are being fed a line that lower taxes creates jobs when historically it is a myth. Think about it...does reinvestment in a business create more jobs or do corporate dividends?

 

Not true. Growth died before the "late 70's". Want to know what killed it? LBJ's "Great Society" spending and taxes.

 

When investors get paid dividends, they get to choose if they want to reinvest or if the want to buy other products with their proceeds. Spending the profits elsewhere arguably stimulates jobs more than forced reinvestment.

Basically, there is nothing wrong with profit taking.

And there's this little thing called freedom, too. If my investment makes me a profit, why should the government force my profits into reinvestment against my will by onerous taxation?

KMac, your entire arguement revolves around the concept that people are better off with a big government, high taxes and wealth redistribution. And that we are too stupid to realize it.

The fact is the people who generate the prosperity and advancements for the rest are being hindered by bigger government, higher taxes and more wealth redistribution.

 

Wit: Here's a good article about our failed banking regulations and the current state of the banks (with a juicy nugget about Obama and his big bank connections buried about half-way through) http://mises.org/daily/4787

The von Mises institute is not Republican or Democrat leaning.

 

The taxation rate during early 1900's at the top end was over 70%.

The Republicans came in and lowered the tax rate several times during the 1920's. People were taking profits and speculating rapidly in the stock market. All of a sudden we have the stock market crash in 1929 and the Great Depression.

Low tax rates create bubbles that lead to massive speculation and when the floor falls in, crisis sets in.

From the 1930's to the 1970's, the top rate was often as high as 90% and we maintained a growth in GDP of over 3%. Reagan cut that and we have had bubble after bubble with spurts of growth and recession after recession.

The richest 2% of Americans went from owning half of the nation's wealth to over 90% of it since then. The middle class has evaporated. The poor has grown exponentially and the super rich have grown some.

If you want to see totally unadulterated capitalism at its best, you don't have to look too far. Mexico has about 2 dozen families with almost all of the wealth. The rest are peasants.

If you want very limited government, places like Haiti or Somalia would be havens for you. They have little other government but a military.

Again, if you are a multi-millionaire, I don't expect you to support such notions. It is against your best interest.

However, if you are so lucky to run a thriving business, what is wrong with forced reinvestment. The business grows, more people have greater opportunity and you will likely be still wealthy beyond most people's imagination.

When you are given stewardship of a company, you have a lot more than your own self interest at hand. That is part of the problem today. People used to be employed with a company for 30 years, had loyalty to their employer and did a good job. Today, most employers consider someone that's been there a year or two as a veteran employee.

Can you take profits and run at higher tax brackets, yes, but it is wiser to reinvest the earnings. No one is forcing you to reinvest. That is the same logic as Dr. Laura saying her freedom of speech was taken away from her. No it wasn't. She can say whatever she wants to say. Sure sponsors may run away but still her fundamental right isn't restricted.

 

The Fed was purchasing securities with tax dollars and dumped them in 1929. Your, or I should say, your great great grandaddy's tax dollars at work. Without gov't collecting taxes and their malinvestments, there would never be cheap/easy money for speculative bubbles. This is a great non-political book that explains everything if you are willing to cast aside your politics for a few hours and read it. http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Great.../dp/0945466056

I dare ya.

 

Teabag movement? What is that some kind of homoerotic liberal movement?

You, like bluescab05, are obviously painfully unaware of what the "Tea Party" movement actually is. If there is a person or people who are providing funding, it's not for an entire movement. It may fund specific groups who take part in it. This movement was given a name. You can call it whatever you want but it's not about big money or big corporations. It's people becoming involved and informed. The Koch brothers aren't providing for the actions of the people like thoes in my area to become informed and involved. If funding is needed for anything that we do, we provide it ourselves.

Your historical revisions soliloquized might be amusing to some. Don't let facts and statistical data get in the way. If I can come up with some time to do so, I will attempt to provide some counter statistical data, though I suspect that people would be less than amused if I were to construct a soliloquy.

 

I'm putting my name on the ballot. Please vote for me.

Just don't complain after I'm elect when I align this country to Christian principles.

 

Well, the billionaire Koch brothers are not on the ballot.

Neither is George Soros on the other side.

The election is not referendum on the Kochs or Soros.

If it were, the results would probably be the same: Soros and the libs are going to get creamed by the Tea Party and the Kochs.

 

I don't understand any of this.

All I know is (it seems) things are broken and need to be fixed. I don't vote, and I don't care.


Things are broken, and I don;t have a clue how to fix them.

 

Herein lies the biggest problem with our system. I can assure you there are another 150 million just like you, including the OP. Case in point - O'blame-o is in the White House. He bamboozled enough voters to put him in the driver's seat with a promise of hope and change with no underlying plan of how he was going to get us there. But he's a crafty old . His agenda of socializing the U.S., killing babies, catering to homos and depriving us of our second amendment rights (by pushing the UN Gun Control Treaty down our throats) is right on schedule.