An honest question for all you leftists here: What exactly is so "extreme" about the Tea Party? (military, abortion)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the issue is not the 16th amendment, it is the matter of taxation with regard to provisions in the Constitution. Most people who believe in small government, Constitutionalists, would argue that federal taxation was intended to fund the following: defense, courts, and police. The main greivance, I believe, with regard to the Tea Party, is how large in scope the federal government has become incrementally, and departments that have been created for which the Constitution had never intended providing for. In 1789, we had the department of Defense, the department of the Interior. We've slowly added several departments that have nothing to do with Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, to "provide for the defense" to collect duties, imposts. We now have such departments as Health and Human Services, whose umbrella includes medicare, medicaid, Head Start, faith-based initiatives, etc. Or, HUD, (Department of Housing and Urban Development), which is nothing more than a "Great Society" program. Social Security, another transfer of power to the federal government. These are examples, (and there are so many others) of programs that the founding fathers never EVER intended our federal government have intended to possess. These are the base objections the TEA party has, when it comes to taxation. The funding of THESE programs. Most of them have been enacted through the auspices of the commerce clause. In my estimation, this amounts to a perversion of the Constitution. The founding fathers envisioned that these matters be left to the states and local governments. The power of Washington D.C. as of today, and the ability to collect taxes to fund departments that have no earthly business being legitimate are the objections the tea party has, if I were to speak for them, and to articulate more effectively their central argument.
OMG, get a sense of proportion, please.
In 1789, they did not have nuclear reactors. In 1789, they did not dig for petroleum to produce gasoline for automobiles. In 1789, if you got sick "doctors" would cut your veins to bleed you. Do you want that kind of medical treatment for yourself? They didn't have today's medical advancements or medications.
In 1789, they didn't have indoor plumbing and wastewater treatment plants. In 1789, they didn't have radios, televisions, computers, cell phones, microwaves, electric/coal power plants, airplanes, airports, etc. In 1789, they didn't inject cattle and poultry with hormones and antibiotics. In 1789, they didn't have ENRON trying to sell bandwidth. The list of what they didn't have in 1789 is VERY long.
The constitution needs to be a "living" document for it to remain relevant and usable to allow for progress and growth. Otherwise, we'd have more constitutions and "republics" than France. The founding fathers had that foresight.
If you don't like Social Security, please tell the Tea Party to put that in a formal platform and come out and SAY it.
In 1789, they did not have nuclear reactors. In 1789, they did not dig for petroleum to produce gasoline for automobiles. In 1789, if you got sick "doctors" would cut your veins to bleed you. Do you want that kind of medical treatment for yourself? They didn't have today's medical advancements or medications.
In 1789, they didn't have indoor plumbing and wastewater treatment plants. In 1789, they didn't have radios, televisions, computers, cell phones, microwaves, electric/coal power plants, airplanes, airports, etc. In 1789, they didn't inject cattle and poultry with hormones and antibiotics. In 1789, they didn't have ENRON trying to sell bandwidth. The list of what they didn't have in 1789 is VERY long.
The constitution needs to be a "living" document for it to remain relevant and usable to allow for progress and growth. Otherwise, we'd have more constitutions and "republics" than France. The founding fathers had that foresight.
If you don't like Social Security, please tell the Tea Party to put that in a formal platform and come out and SAY it.
I couldn't disagree more with the bolded statement. I am originalist. I think the Constitution should be interpreted in a manner consistent with those who drafted it. I guess that's where we need to agree to disagree, and declare an impasse. If you want to trace the antecedents of all these squabbles that you can read on these threads, they probably all flow to this simple basis of thought.
I couldn't disagree more with the bolded statement. I am originalist. I think the Constitution should be interpreted in a manner consistent with those who drafted it. I guess that's where we need to agree to disagree, and declare an impasse. If you want to trace the antecedents of all these squabbles that you can read on these threads, they probably all flow to this simple basis of thought.
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion.
But it's like interpreting any "holy" book literally. No room for the passage of time and technology.
It would be a royal mess and we'd make the French look coherent.
Of course it did! That was the issue. No one had to care for the poor, so guess what, no one did. Yes there is poverty today, however the degree of misery has been reduced greatly. By blindly doing away with all social net programs we invite a return to those living conditions. Look it up. It’s there is print.
no one cared for the poor. lmao I love it when people throw out ridiculous claims like this. There were alot more charities back then because people had the money to give. Why would the regular working man give to charities nowadays when the government has stolen their money to do it themselves?
Fact Anytime you subside something you get more of it. Why keep stealing my money especially since the government programs are costly and ineffective.
impossible to do without taxes, that is why the Tea Party is as phoney as a three dollar bill... Tea Party is really about no government (no representation) and corporate control (no taxes). It is extremely scary, reminiscent of 1930's Germany:
What a joke of a post.
I guess the lowering of taxes and reducing the spending of the federal government didnt happen during the mini-depression of the early 1920's? Mini because the government stayed out and the economy corrected itself quickly. Over 2 years time taxes and spending were cut by 40 percent and in that period we saw unemployment go from 11 to 7 to 4.
The Tea Party is about smaller government and reducing the debt. You can spew your lies about what YOU think the Tea Party is about but that doesn't make it so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aspiesmom
The original Boston Tea Party was for the exact opposite reasons> freedom/liberty FROM oligarchies/monarchies
They are the same basic reasons. You dont get it and you never will
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 09-22-2010 at 07:07 PM..
no one cared for the poor. lmao I love it when people throw out ridiculous claims like this. There were alot more charities back then because people had the money to give. Why would the regular working man give to charities nowadays when the government has stolen their money to do it themselves?
Fact Anytime you subside something you get more of it. Why keep stealing my money especially since the government programs are costly and ineffective.
The reason the government stepped in is because the private charities were NOT helping everyone in need.
no one cared for the poor. lmao I love it when people throw out ridiculous claims like this. There were alot more charities back then because people had the money to give. Why would the regular working man give to charities nowadays when the government has stolen their money to do it themselves?
Fact Anytime you subside something you get more of it. Why keep stealing my money especially since the government programs are costly and ineffective.
WOW!!! No one stated there were no charities, but again have you accepted my challenge of looking at the common person’s life during this period? If charities were doing such a bang up job back then, and wealthy persons had so much money to share with downtrodden individuals, then why did ghettos such as the Five Points of NY exist? The Five Points weren’t an anomaly either, as every major city of the US during this period had ghettos akin to the favelas of Rio today. The ghettos (locally) that scare us currently cannot hold a candle to the conditions of these neighborhoods. Charities alone could not (and cannot) handle the number of impoverished. Again do a bit of research and come back as history has demonstrated this fact. Depending on the kindness of individuals to remedy desperate situations does not work. You obviously have no issue with living in an environment where large class divisions occur. All that I can say is good luck. But remember that the amount of money you will have to outlay for security regarding your possessions will most certainly exceed the amount that you pay in taxes for these very social programs! Oh and food for thought, to make it easier for you, research the living conditions of Rio’s favelas. If you have no issue with dissolving all social net programs and depending on the existence of charities then you most assuredly will have no problem of living with shanty towns here in the US…
The reason the government stepped in is because the private charities were NOT helping everyone in need.
Exactly. Thanks for your rebut. I don't know why it’s so hard to check out a book and read. The history is there, black and white. Unless you were wealthy, life was pretty brutal. The middle class was fragile and weak, and if the provider of the house of a middle class family took ill, or died the family of that individual descended into grinding poverty pretty quickly. There are countless examples out there.
And the government is not helping everyone in need either. It is not their job.
Next, lol
Have you ever read a historic work on the living conditions of common people during this period?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
