Tuesday, July 27, 2010

from The Godfather of the Movement

Exactly what I've been saying


Santelli: Tea Party More a 'Philosophy' Than a Party
By Jeff Poor Mon, 07/26/2010 - 18:09

Like a dog chasing its tail, the left has spent a great amount of time trying to determine who the leader of the Tea Party movement is. And often, there are accusations of prevalent racism among its members. But according to CNBC's Rick Santelli, the Tea Party is more of a philosophy than a group, which has nothing to do with racism.

In an appearance on NBC's July 25 "Meet the Press," Santelli, known as the father of the Tea Party movement, took on the argument that Tea Party protesters are racist.

"First of all, we should have zero tolerance for racial discrimination, period," Santelli said. "Beyond that, if the indirect question is, ‘Is the Tea Party racist?' I think the real question is, ‘Are there racists in the Tea Party?' And I would contend that statistically there's going to be racists in any group."


Black_Rain said...

a Philosophy is defined as...

phi·los·o·phy (f-ls-f)
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
>>>>>8. A system of values by which one lives

hey, 1 out of 8 isn't too bad.. ~12%
so i checked on PSYCHOLOGY..

psy·chol·o·gy (s-kl-j)

1. The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.
2. The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual, group, or activity: the psychology of war.
>>>>>>3. Subtle tactical action or argument used to manipulate or influence another: He used poor psychology on his employer when trying to make the point.
4. Philosophy The branch of metaphysics that studies the soul, the mind, and the relationship of life and mind to the functions of the body.


let's try,..Ideology

i·de·ol·o·gy (d-l-j, d-)

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

HOME RUN.!!! 100%

now where did this ideology come from.?? Tax cuts.. GOP. the Bu$h43 tax cuts only benefited the upper 2% ..

the richest 1% holds 42.7% of Americas Financial wealth
the next 19% holds 50.3% of Americas wealth..

the Poorest 80% holds a WHOPP'n 7%

the Bu$h43 Tax cuts are RESPONSIBLE for 1/2 ONE HALF THE DEFICET..!!


Pastorius said...

The Bush tax cuts were straight across the board. They did not focus only on the rich.

The rich can be said to have benefited more, because they make more money and a lower percentage of more money is more money saved.

Black_Rain said...

the poor don't get a tax cut..

we got about $130, the people designed to get it got a top line Lexis. Bill gates ended up only paying the taxes of someone making $80,000... Sweet for the rich. the tax cut was designed to eat up the SSI funds for the under classes.. we have a Deficit problem because 80% don't make enough to pay taxes and those that have 93% of the Money don't pat taxes either..

1/2 the deficit is due to the Bush43 tax cut. to people who can afford to pay them. stop subsidizing the richest people in the world.

did you even look at the link..??

the bottom 80% have only 7% of financial wealth.. they don't make enough to pay taxes, you don't get a tax cut if you dont have enough income to be taxed.... wake up..

SamenoKami said...

Br sez "the Bu$h43 tax cuts only benefited the upper 2%"

This is the 2nd time I've posted to you on this argument of yours. I am NOT in the upper 2%. I got a 5% decrease in Federal Income Tax. When you make a studied argument, it sounds better when you don't use leftist screaming-points. If the Booosh tax cuts expire 31Dec '10, your first paycheck of '11 will show up as you paying more Fed. Income Taxes just as mine will, cause if you work you are paying less Income taxes because of Boosh.

BR "the poor don't get a tax cut.."

Because the poor are on welfare and don't pay taxes. The 'working poor' got a tax cut. The tax cut was on INCOME not WEALTH. There is a difference. The tax code has 100's of ways to get money but not income. The capital gains tax is 15%, the income tax on the same amount is ~35%. My wife paid 0 income tax in '09 because she had enuf deductions to offset 100% of her self-employed income. I know a guy who rents all his equipment to his Corp. and pulls in $100k/yr from the rental (no SSI and thus a ~15% pay increase) but his income is only $200/wk. The upper 1% of INCOME earners make ~19% of the total income and pay ~43% of the income taxes. That seems right.
The SSI funds were put into general funds under LBJ and have been spent ever since. The post dated IOU's for SSI are in a filing cabinet in VA.
A deficit is a deficit because you spend more than you make. Congress is addicted to $ and tax revenue basically has nothing to do w/it. IF the FEDs took in $82Trillion in taxes the idiots would spend $83Trillion. It is a matter of discipline not income. Technically, Odama has not spent $1.4Trillion more than we took in. Congress has. But it occurred on his watch, so he gets the blame.
The US needs the "FAIR TAX" enacted so that every $ spent is taxed and everybody has a stake in the country instead of only some footing the bill for all. Bill Gates spends way more than $80K and under the FAIR TAX he would pay tax on that.
$130/wk or yr. If it's a year, you need to change majors.

SamenoKami said...

The capital gains tax is 15%, the income tax on the same amount is ~35%.

I hosed that.
Should read- "...could be as high as ~35%."

Pastorius said...

Black Rain,
Here's an answer to your comments:

nonsense. bs. wrong.

everyone got 15% lower rate.

those who paid the most got them most back.

the rich pay a higher share now than under clinton.

most of the deficit is tarp, and the stimulus. and the fact that millions have lost their jobs.

the ONLY way to decrease the deficit is to grow the GDP.

you can't do that by raising taxes because it decreases economic activity and decreases growth and kills prosperity/the recovery..

even christine romer - obama's chairwoman of he econb0mic council has written papers on this.

July 22, 2010
Romer & Romer: Tax Increases Significantly Contract the Economy
Christina D. Romer (Chair, Council of Economic Advisers) & David H. Romer (UC-Berkeley, Department of Economics) have published The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks, 100 Am. Econ. Rev. 763 (2010). Here is the abstract:

This paper investigates the impact of tax changes on economic activity. We use the narrative record, such as presidential speeches and Congressional reports, to identify the size, timing, and principal motivation for all major postwar tax policy actions. This analysis allows us to separate legislated changes into those taken for reasons related to prospective economic conditions and those taken for more exogenous reasons. The behavior of output following these more exogenous changes indicates that tax increases are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes.

Pastorius said...

and more:

and then this story illustrates why the bush tax cuts were fair and just:

Monday, July 12, 2010
A very liberal acquaintance of mine went to see a movie praising Fidel the other day. He dug it.

This lib is the kind of person who is still saying Bush "STOLE" the election, but somehow forgives Fidel and Raul for not even having one once in the last 60 years.

But deep down this lib has some decent American values - values which run counter to the leftist dogma he so doggedly follows. He forgives Fidel becasue his partisan comnrades do, not becasue he has fully thought it out.

So I figgered I'd use the chasm between his values and the party line to open his eyes.

Here's what I said to him:

I said.... what if me and him and his richy-rich buddy went to lunch one day at his favorite restaurant. Me - being poor - ordered pasta for $30; he ordered osso bucco for $50, and his rich pal ordered truffles and foie gras and veal chops for $100. TOTAL: $180.

It was delicious.

The bill comes; we each fork up what we owe on what we each ordered.

A few minutes later the maitre'd returns; he says that because we were their 1,000,000 table served we're gonna get 50% off our bill and he puts $90 bucks on the table.

So... I asked my lib friend, what's the FAIREST most JUST way to distribute the $90? Should we split it evenly and each get $30? Or should we each get 50% off of what we each put in?

My lib friend said - without hesitation: we should each get back half of what we each put in: me $15; him $25 and his rich pal $50.

I then told him he just endorsed the Bush tax cuts.

He turned pale and his jaw dropped.

On a deep level, he realized that all the crap he'd heard and repeated FOR YEARS about the Bush Tax Cuts was total bullshit. The Bush Tax Cuts were indeed fair; they were not a tax break for the rich; everyone got back the same percentage of what they put in.

I told him he was a neocon at heart!

I then rubbed it in a little: I told him if he voted his values and not his party them he'd vote GOP sometimes.

I told him he should use his own values to figger out where he stood on any given issue and not wait to see what the editors of the NYTIMES said or columnists at THE NATION.

Many people on the left are the same way: they're on the left now because that's where they've been for decades; it's the circle they travel in and the papers they read, the TV shows and movies they see.

What we need to do to OPEN THEIR EYES is show them that leftist policies do not reflect most of the values they hold dear, nor do they achieve the social goals they've long hoped for.