Is this a typical tea partier?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/04/15/tea_party_rally_generates_plenty_of_criticism_opposing_views/?page=2

The couple, who rely on Medicaid for their health care, were also upset about the nation’s new health reforms.

When asked why her family used state-subsidized health care when she criticized people who take handouts, Valerie Shirk said she did not want to stop having children [she has 10 kids], and that her husband’s income was not enough to cover the family with private insurance.

I wonder how many of these incredibly inconsistent people ARE on some sort of social assistance.

I would say that these people are about as reflective to many who support the Tea Party movement as some of some of the extreme left who support people like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are to liberals.

The problem I see is that instead of confronting the issues raised by the Tea Party movement head on, the left finds it easier to single out examples like you have here and brand those examples of the entire movement and that simply is not the case.

While I haven't been as involved as I would like, after writing the check I did to the sate of WV and paying the federal taxes I did last year, I do plan on getting involved. There is no way someone like me should have to pay 50% of my income while others do nothing and to support the waste of our government.

The problem I see is that instead of confronting the issues raised by the Tea Party movement head on, the left finds it easier to single out examples like you have here and brand those examples of the entire movement and that simply is not the case.

Says you. I actually went up to the Capitol on Tax Day on business. Of the few Tea Partiers I saw, most were almost certainly over sixty and likely collecting SS or Medicare.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps not. We shall see. How is it that they can afford to miss so much work?

I can't tell, I'm still blind from that article - my doctor told me to keep cognitive dissonance out of my eyes.

Agree with you about state taxes. My wife and mine's combined income is less than 50k and we paid the state almost $1,800 in state taxes alone. Far more than I owed to the fed.

TerryRC wrote:
Says you. I actually went up to the Capitol on Tax Day on business. Of the few Tea Partiers I saw, most were almost certainly over sixty and likely collecting SS or Medicare.

I don't know what happened this year but I do know that last year when I was in Cincinnati and they had 10K show up on tax day, the news media focused on a few fringe individuals. I also know the same thing happened on the national march on Washington.

As for the over sixty crowd collecting social security and Medicare, that is not social assistance, that is individuals that have worked hard and paid into those programs for years and all they're doing is getting back a return on their contributions.

As for the over sixty crowd collecting social security and Medicare, that is not social assistance, that is individuals that have worked hard and paid into those programs for years and all they're doing is getting back a return on their contributions.

Some are drawing out what they put into the system, some are drawing more.

Anyway, our founding fathers paid unfair taxes and they weren't afraid to cut themselves lose. They didn't wait until they were on the receiving end of the pyramid scheme.

What I hear is "I've got my government check. Screw the rest of you...".

I don't know what happened this year but I do know that last year when I was in Cincinnati and they had 10K show up on tax day, the news media focused on a few fringe individuals. I also know the same thing happened on the national march on Washington.

If you say so. The ones I have seen with my own eyes seem to move the "fringe" a little more towards the center of that group.

The partiers worship Palin, the queen of cognitive dissonance. It speaks volumes to me concerning the movement's nature.

I don't really care. The group gets a lot of attention, but they are really are not substantial. The only thing I am really scared of is that they weaken the GOP. We need a stronger GOP to try and keep the dems in some sort of check.

I guess what bothers me most about this movement is they are thoughtlessly reactionary. Why, all of the sudden is this a problem now?

When Bush was doubling the nation debt during a time of economic prosperity, where were the tea partiers? When Bush was dramatically increasing the size of government and adding 10's of thousands of federal workers, where were the tea partiers?

I just think that these folks don't really know what it would mean to have no government, or even much less government. They are basically angry people who desperately want a target at which to vent their rage.

Meh. I'm sick of how deeply divisive politics have become in this country. And the media and people that consider only themselves and those that think exactly like them to be "real Americans" are egging it on.

I think you should probably get your hearing checked Terry. If one pays into SS and Medicare all their life, why do they not deserve to recoup that money?

And comparing it to out nation 230 years ago isn't a valid reason. There is a huge difference between then and now and your statement isn't even apples to oranges, its apples to zinc.

As for politics, they've always been divisive. While it does seem to be more personal then it was 15 to 20 years ago, that’s nothing new. You do recall Burr and Hamilton, don’t you?

As for the Tea Partier, I think the one statement you mad sums up why you feel the way you do.

The partiers worship Palin, the queen of cognitive dissonance.

As for weakening the party, I don’t know that the Tea Party will weaken the GOP any more then union leaders pulling support from candidates that don’t toe their agenda and throwing it behind other Democrats will weaken that party.

The truth of the matter is that both partiers have an extreme fringe that candidates have to appease during the primary elections and that to me is where the harm is coming from.

Perhaps the answer is to do away with a primary election all together and just have one election and may the best person win. As far as the Presidency is concerned, either force candidates to pair up by a certain date or return to what our founding fathers did and make the VP the person with the second most votes.

This year there were "tea parties" in Huntington, Parkersburg, Point Pleasant, and a host of other places. Many of the people who attended the Charleston event last year went to more local events.

Also, last year there were a LOT more Ron Paul supporters who turned out. This year, an awful lot of us stayed home because we don't want to be associated with a group perceived as viewing Sarah Palin as the great hope for America.

You know the President took a jab at the tea partiers saying how he had cut taxes. My family receives ZERO assistance other than the Pell grants Katie & Richard are getting and we got some sort of new tax rebate for college expenses. NO DOUBT ABOUT it this is not money we earned this year. We took it and if we can get it next year you bet your butt we'll take it again.

We cannot continue down this path. This government borrows incredible sums of money to fund all this stuff. We must reduce the size of government, Terry. It isn't about I don't want to help the working poor, it's that I don't want my nation to collapse under the weight of her debt. Obama scolded tea partiers saying he "cut taxes", but it isn't just about taxes. It's about our DEBT and cutting taxes while increasing spending exacerbates our economic woes.

This is unsustainable. We need to reduce the size of government. I don't understand what part of that liberals don't get.

I asked my students yesterday about the wisdom of raising taxes on the highest earners, and they were about 2 out of 3 against it, which is noteworthy because that particular community college is in the poorest region of the state next to East St. Louis, and perhaps half of my students are on some sort of public assistance beyond college grants. Now should they be denied their opinions, or just 2/3rds of them, because of their present condition?

Having said that, someone with 10 kids exploiting government largesse is not the poster child for the tea party that I would choose, but of course, I'm not a journalist out to make a liberal score.

I think you should probably get your hearing checked Terry. If one pays into SS and Medicare all their life, why do they not deserve to recoup that money?

Because not everybody pays into the system what they draw out of it, particularly the people that draw federal disability. this shouldn't be a mystery to you.

And comparing it to out nation 230 years ago isn't a valid reason. There is a huge difference between then and now and your statement isn't even apples to oranges, its apples to zinc.

Why? Because YOU say it isn't valid, Aaron?

If these people were as principled as they say they are, they would sever themselves from the government teat, and pull themselves up by their bootstrappy things, you know, on principle.

Perhaps the answer is to do away with a primary election all together and just have one election and may the best person win. As far as the Presidency is concerned, either force candidates to pair up by a certain date or return to what our founding fathers did and make the VP the person with the second most votes.

I would be SO on board with that.

Having said that, someone with 10 kids exploiting government largesse is not the poster child for the tea party that I would choose, but of course, I'm not a journalist out to make a liberal score.

Mike, many of the people I know that favor the tea partiers receive some sort of public assistance. Met one last night that gets WIC for his newborn yet was pissed off about paying for people that were too lazy to work or pay for their own healthcare. Cognitive dissonance.

Yes not all of the tea partiers are of that mold. Many are.

TerryRC wrote:I think you should probably get your hearing checked Terry. If one pays into SS and Medicare all their life, why do they not deserve to recoup that money?

Because not everybody pays into the system what they draw out of it, particularly the people that draw federal disability. this shouldn't be a mystery to you.

Then eliminate federal disability or not allow one to pull out more then they’ve earned. Privatization would take care of that, don’t you agree!!! But to say that someone who disagrees with a large government or fraud and waste doesn’t deserve to recoup the money they’ve paid into the system is tripe. And you talk about cognitive dissonance.

As it is though, I’m sure that many would gladly accept the money they’ve paid into the system with interest and opt out. I know I’d jump at that chance and be responsible for my own retirement.

TerryRC wrote:And comparing it to out nation 230 years ago isn't a valid reason. There is a huge difference between then and now and your statement isn't even apples to oranges, its apples to zinc.

Why? Because YOU say it isn't valid, Aaron?

If these people were as principled as they say they are, they would sever themselves from the government teat, and pull themselves up by their bootstrappy things, you know, on principle.

First, its not valid because you’re comparing someone paying into system with promised returns that has since its inception has been prostituted beyond recognition by the government to a ruthless monarchy that controlled from abroad.

It makes no sense at all. It’s like saying I shouldn’t ride my motorcycle because our founding fathers had accidents on horses 220 years ago.

And if one pays for 45 years into a system that is not sucking on the government teat as they've already pulled themselves up by the boot straps. It’s their money and they have a right to it, whether it is in installments as promised or in a lump sum.

Then eliminate federal disability or not allow one to pull out more then they’ve earned. Privatization would take care of that, don’t you agree!!! But to say that someone who disagrees with a large government or fraud and waste doesn’t deserve to recoup the money they’ve paid into the system, talk about tripe. And you talk about cognitive dissonance.

I don't agree that privatization is the answer. I have said before that I don't believe in SS. I don't think it will be there for me and I'm not planning on it. Even so, pointing out that someone is screaming about socialism while holding out a hand for a socialist government check is NOT cognitive dissonance on my part.

As it is though, I’m sure that many would gladly accept the money they’ve paid into the system with interest and opt out. I know I’d jump at that chance and be responsible for my own retirement.

Me too. I'm not the one bitching about "socialism", though.

First, its not valid because you’re comparing someone paying into system with promised returns that has since its inception has been prostituted beyond recognition by the government to a ruthless monarchy that controlled from abroad.

It IS valid because a principled person would stand by their principles and not cooperate with what they perceive to be an unjust system.

It makes no sense at all. It’s like saying I shouldn’t ride my motorcycle because our founding fathers had accidents on horses 220 years ago.

No. It is saying that you shouldn't ride your motorcycle or your horse on those "socialist" US routes if you don't hold with "socialism".

And if one pays for 45 years into a system that is not sucking on the government teat as they've already pulled themselves up by the boot straps. It’s their money and they have a right to it, whether it is in installments as promised or in a lump sum.

It is sucking at the teat if you receive more than you put into it. Many do. I'll bet some of them are tea partiers.

And if one pays for 45 years into a system that is not sucking on the government teat as they've already pulled themselves up by the boot straps. It’s their money and they have a right to it, whether it is in installments as promised or in a lump sum.

I never said they DIDN'T have a right to it, BTW. I said that, if they were principled, they would eschew it.

TerryRC wrote:And if one pays for 45 years into a system that is not sucking on the government teat as they've already pulled themselves up by the boot straps. It’s their money and they have a right to it, whether it is in installments as promised or in a lump sum.

I never said they DIDN'T have a right to it, BTW. I said that, if they were principled, they would eschew it.

Were the money going to be returned to taxpayers, I might agree. But as it would be wasted by big government in one way or another, I think it requires more principal to make the state suffer for their actions, especially given that it's the individuals money and if they don't take it, someone who hasn't paid into the system likely will.

Now what would truly require principal is for those calling for increased taxes or increased entitlement spending to voluntarily forgo all but the bare essentials of their salaries and turn the rest over to the government to pay for what they desire.

Were the money going to be returned to taxpayers, I might agree. But as it would be wasted by big government in one way or another, I think it requires more principal to make the state suffer for their actions, especially given that it's the individuals money and if they don't take it, someone who hasn't paid into the system likely will.

Then take the money and give it to Trout Unlimited,or something.

Now what would truly require principal is for those calling for increased taxes or increased entitlement spending to voluntarily forgo all but the bare essentials of their salaries and turn the rest over to the government to pay for what they desire.

What would truly require principle is for these smaller government tea party types call for cuts to SS, Medicaid/Medicare and defense spending along with the other stuff they are mad about the fed spending money on.

I used to go to city council meetings when I lived in Dunbar. At any given meeting, you might hear something like the following:

"I have lived here for 30 years and as a tax payer I pay your salary. Since you work for me, I am telling you that we need to move the railroad tracks from the center of town to the outskirts of town, as they are an enormous safety hazard and a source of noise pollution. However, I will not support any tax increase to move these train tracks. I know you have enough money to fund this because I saw a public works crew driving around in a 2009 Ford F-250 last week. I'm sure staff will follow me with big numbers about the costs of moving these railroad tracks and the procedural hoops that moving railroad property entail. This is why we the people no longer trust government. We want to see results, not hear excuses. Please move these tracks. Thank you."

If you want cuts in taxes, you must have cuts in spending. Unless you are willing to have some of your entitlements cut (because someone's ox MUST be gored), you should back off of that stance lest you become a hypocrite.

I don't know where that rant came from considering nothing had been previously said about spending cuts, either for or against.

You made a general statement that tea partiers should give up their right to the money they paid into SS and Medicare simply because they oppose big government and wasteful spending and I've merely pointed out how foolish that viewpoint is.

If you want to talk cuts in spending, we can do that but to go from a foolish statement to that rant is a bit extreme. And for the record, most of those who identify with the Tea Party movement do favor cuts in spending as do I so your accusation of being a hypocrite is a bit premature to say the least.

You made a general statement that tea partiers should give up their right to the money they paid into SS and Medicare simply because they oppose big government and wasteful spending and I've merely pointed out how foolish that viewpoint is.

I didn't say that. I said that they are benefiting from a socialist program while they scream in outrage against socialism.

What is foolish about pointing out the dichotomy in that?

If you want to talk cuts in spending, we can do that but to go from a foolish statement to that rant is a bit extreme. And for the record, most of those who identify with the Tea Party movement do favor cuts in spending as do I so your accusation of being a hypocrite is a bit premature to say the least.

That "rant" was something that I heard, almost word for word, with my own ears from a middle aged gentleman about 8 years ago.

It is uncannily similar to the attitude of many so called fiscal conservatives, including tea partiers.

I stand by what I said, to wit: If you want cuts in taxes, you must have cuts in spending. Unless you are willing to have some of your entitlements cut (because someone's ox MUST be gored), you should back off of that stance lest you become a hypocrite.

Nothing in my post qualifies as a rant except for the actual rant I quoted.

You made a general statement that tea partiers should give up their right to the money they paid into SS and Medicare simply because they oppose big government and wasteful spending and I've merely pointed out how foolish that viewpoint is.

I suppose I did say that, if they really want to be principled, they wouldn't take government sponsored socialist money.

I see nothing foolish about that. It will never happen, however. They look on that money as an ENTITLEMENT - the very thing they rage about others feeling they have a right to, entitlements.

So ironic.

If you want to talk cuts in spending, we can do that but to go from a foolish statement to that rant is a bit extreme. And for the record, most of those who identify with the Tea Party movement do favor cuts in spending as do I so your accusation of being a hypocrite is a bit premature to say the least.

Sure they favor cuts - as long as it isn't to SS, or medicare, of VA benefits, or any other program that THEY benefit from.

Entitlements are something you get when you don't pay into it. For many now receiving SS retirement and Medicare, that's not the case. Those people have paid for the better part of half a century, which is an investment and you think they should just walk away simply because they don't favor your liberal brand of government.

You're generalizing everyone associated with the Tea Party and there is no doubt in my mind that the reason is Sarah Palin. But on the off chance it isn't, for you to claim anyone should just walk away from years of investment, not entitlement but investiment is nothing more then tripe.

Entitlements are something you get when you don't pay into it. For many now receiving SS retirement and Medicare, that's not the case. Those people have paid for the better part of half a century, which is an investment and you think they should just walk away simply because they don't favor your liberal brand of government.

It is if they receive more out than they put in, as some of them do.

You're generalizing everyone associated with the Tea Party and there is no doubt in my mind that the reason is Sarah Palin. But on the off chance it isn't, for you to claim anyone should just walk away from years of investment, not entitlement but investiment is nothing more then tripe.

I am not. My initial post even asked if that was a typical tea partier. I even said I applaud the attempt to try and break up the two party system (even if I don't appreciate the timing). I know that not all of the tea partiers are like the woman in my initial post. I also know that many are.

Anyway, if they were principled, they would not cooperate with those socialist programs to whatever extent the law allowed. If they were principled, they would accept and even ASK for cuts to medicare and SS, even if it means they get a little less.

But no. They want cuts to everything BUT the programs that redistribute wealth to themselves. Until they do, I just see a person with their hand out for a check.

That is not tripe, Aaron, no matter how many times you say it is.

As for Palin, she screams about socialism but presided over a state that is one of the leaders in receiving "redistributed" socialist federal funds, as Alaska gets $1.82 in federal funds for every dollar paid in federal taxes.

Cognitive dissonance.

I'm not saying that Alaska shouldn't have taken the money. I'm not saying that tea partiers shouldn't take SS or medicare or medicaid, in the case of the breeder first mentioned.

If they do take the money, however, they should tone down the rhetoric lest they look hypocritical.

Also, these problems didn't just crop up when Obama took up the Presidency. Where were these people while Bush was running up very substantial deficits? Makes me think there may be underlying motives...

But no. They want cuts to everything BUT the programs that redistribute wealth to themselves. Until they do, I just see a person with their hand out for a check.

Let's do a Terry here. Citation please.

Let's do a Terry here. Citation please.

What government programs are they demanding be downsized? "Health care and "bailouts" (which Bush gave us also - where were they then?). Is SS or medicare included? Not by ANY tea party group that I have researched.

Do you know of one?