Reply With Quote
Sad but true...
Sad but true...
Matt Taibbi
More Tea Party Hilarity
Quelle surprise! So it turns out that one after another of the Tea Party candidates is in one way or another mooching off the government. The latest series of hilarious disclosures center around Alaska’s GI-Joe-bearded windbag Senatorial candidate, Joe Miller, who appears to have run virtually the entire gamut of government aid en route to becoming a staunch, fist-shaking opponent of the welfare state.
Miller’s pomposity and piety with regard to government aid programs has all along been in line with the usual screechingly hysterical self-righteousness Tea Party candidates bring to such matters, railing against Obamacare and other “en lement” programs and promising to end the “welfare state.” That makes it all the more delicious now that he and his family have been exposed for taking state medical aid, unemployment insurance, farm subsidies, , even for using state equipment to run a private political campaign.
Back in June, Miller was saying this about his Republican primary opponent Lisa Murkowski, blasting her for supporting a state health care program:
As you are aware, just last week the Anchorage Daily News reported that the Denali KidCare Program funded 662 abortions last year. Senator Murkowski has been a champion of this program, voting against the majority of her Republican colleagues for CHIPRA (HR 2) in January of 2009.
Of course it now turns out that back in the Nineties, Miller himself and his three children (with one on the way; he now has eight) were at one point receiving assistance via a program almost exactly like the Denali KidCare program, which is only for low-income earners. Various reports note that Miller received this assistance after he’d bought a house and been hired by a prestigious law firm; he also got low-income hunting and fishing licenses during that time. It’s also come out that he received some $7,000 in farm subsidies and that his wife received unemployment insurance benefits.
...
• An overwhelming 84% of voters polled, including 80% of Republicans and 81% of Independents, believe voters have a right to know who is paying for ads for a particular candidate.
• Fifty-six percent of voters overall (including 53% of Independents) are less likely to vote for a candidate if they know the ads supporting that candidate are paid for by anonymous corporations and wealthy donors.
• Forty-seven percent of all voters are more likely to support a candidate who insists that voters have a right to know who is paying for ads, with only 9% of total voters saying they are less likely to support a candidate who holds that position.
• Almost two out of three voters (63%) do not believe that the anonymous groups running ads hold the voters' best interest in mind. This belief is held by 65% of Independent and 70% of Democratic voters.
• A straight majority of total voters (53%) are less likely to trust a candidate to improve economic conditions if that candidate is supported by anonymous groups.
http://readersupportednews.org/off-s...party-hilarity
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-18-2010 at 02:10 AM.
(Stale cheese)
I only read the first three paragraphs, but why not take it? Why not get back some tax dollars, even though you don't agree with the bill?
If the government said it's going to give away $400 per person, and conservatives disagree, when it happens, should I not take my share when it is coming out of my tax dollars paid to begin with?
The "making work pays" comes to mind.
"Why not get back some tax dollars"
Why have your actions (not take the money) align with your words (the stimulus and deficit are the worst things in the universe)?
red-states always get more money from the Feds than they send, compared to the blue states that pay more than they get. hypocrites being played by the VRWC and their Repug trick dogs.
Let's see the data behind this proclamation of yours...or will it be another chapter of "The Great Boutons has spoken! I dont need data!".
btw...get an adult to help you source this data. If you're using the Tax Foundation's "analysis", then you're gonna run into some problems.
It's funny that captain myopia couldn't find this in the article.
"Rep. Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana Democrat now running for U.S. Senate, originally voted against the stimulus plan but later came around to cautiously supporting it. He collected $6,500 in donations from Duke Energy’s political action committee in the months just before and after he wrote an August 2009 letter supporting the utility giant’s ultimately successful request for an Energy Department grant, the Center found. Ellsworth’s office declined comment."
But, really, it's only Republicans that are hypocrites! Democrats are just responding to their voter base.
How is that hypocritical? Because he collected from a PAC? if that makes a Rep hypocritical, then they are all hypocritical.."Rep. Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana Democrat now running for U.S. Senate, originally voted against the stimulus plan but later came around to cautiously supporting it.
Also, given the number of immigrants in red states, it's not hard to believe that they use many more federal resources than traditional blue states...
Exactly. If you say publicly " no!", but later mumble under your breath "Oh, okay.", then that's text book hypocrisy.
Notable exceptions are California, Texas and New York...all blue and all in the top 10 immigrant population.
Which illustrates the point I was entertaining. First, for boutons and the bouton-bots to predicate the red state/blue state tax receipts rant upon the implied argument the money received provides little or no benefit beyond the immediate area in which it is spent, is almost fatally asinine.
Retiree's moving south while receiving pensions further skew the picture a little bit. Factor in aid for the victims of the ongoing Gulf Coast storm-a-thon. Then consider that many of the red states (Western especially) have large amounts of federally owned lands...tax expenditures follow accordingly.
Military bases, federal ins utes ala' CDC...these things suck up resources, but the benefits are far from exclusively local.
Examine the concept of "fair" tax benefits.
A dude taking in 75k in NYC will be living in a shoe box. The same dude in West Texas would be living on acres which highlights an inherent flaw in our current progressive tax system. NYC dude is being taxed (Federally) at the same rate as the W.Texas dude, inspite of NYC's cost of living being exponentially higher.
In short, bouton's entire rant is a sham, short on critical thinking but long on bumper sticker jingolism..the very thing he claims to detest of the Tea Party memebers.
TX is BLUE? Are you color blind?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...te_ripoff.html
Texas is blue within the context of your bizarre conclusion. Get an adult to help you with this.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
