Work From Home

 

The rules of politics and military battle are very similar.   In both, you pick your battlefield and do not let the enemy pick his.   You fight the battle on your terms, not the enemy’s.

 

Unfortunately the Republicans in Washington have decided they are going to let the enemy pick the battlefield and they are going to fight on the Democrats’ terms, not theirs.

 

What is this fight?  How are the Republicans managing to lose the war again?  Is there anything we can do?

 

The fight is the so-called “fiscal cliff” fight. 

 

Barack Obama immediately set the fight in terms of a fight over revenue.  Instead of trying to set the fight on his terms, John Boehner immediately agreed and started from the premise that the government needs more money.

 

The problem is not that the government needs more money.  The problem is the government has too much money.  Every year, Republicans come out and complain about government waste.   Tom Coburn has made a career of doing this.  The Government Accountability Office has identified hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, fraud and duplication of services that could be eliminated.

 

Every year, Republicans highlight these reports.  They are good for press conferences and a couple of days of good press.  The Republicans announce their outrage over this type of spending.

 

What happens next?

 

Not a thing.

 

Nothing. 

 

Zero.

 

The wasteful spending is never cut.   The outrage is completely forgotten until it is needed for a reelection campaign. 

 

Is John Boehner even talking about reducing spending?  No, he is talking about more revenue.  This is the problem.

 

Boehner is willing to go along with more revenue if it comes from eliminating tax loopholes in exchange for reduced rates.

 

Do you know what the problem with that is?

 

The loopholes go away and while the rates may be lowered for a while, eventually they are raised again. 

 

The real problem here is that we have a Republican Party controlling the House of Representatives that is not committed to small government. 

 

Instead of discussing how we can eliminate loopholes, we should be talking about how we can create more tax loopholes.    We need to borrow a tactic from the left.  The left loves to take a system or a program they do not like, make modifications to that program until it becomes unworkable and fails, then insists their idea is the only one that can save the program they broke.

 

We should do the same with the Federal Income Tax.   We should be encouraging our Representatives to keep adding loopholes to the tax code until it becomes unworkable.  Then it should be replaced a national consumption tax (after the 16th Amendment is repealed).

 

The Hill ran a fascinating article on how John Boehner has consolidated power in the House of Representatives.  Boehner, like other RINOs loves to use a scorched earth policy against conservatives who dare to disagree with him but cannot do anything other than raise his freshly laundered white flag of surrender against the Democrats.

 

In the Hill article, Kevin Smith, a Boehner spokesman says the House Republicans are “the last line of defense against a government that spends, taxes and borrows too much.” 

 

That would be amusing, if we did not know better.

 

In the next few weeks, there will be fiscal cliff negotiations.  Barack Obama will not only win, he will clean the Republicans’ clock.  He will get his tax increases and there will be no reduction in spending.  The deficit will continue to grow.

 

Despite the all claims to the contrary, Boehner will surrender.  How do we know this?

 

Because this is what he has done every time.  He did it in the 2011 debt ceiling negotiations.  He did it when they had the budget fight.  He did it when sequestration was created and shoved down America’s throat.

 

If it were not for the Tea Party, John Boehner would only be the Minority Leader of the House.   For those of us who are in the Tea Party, who put so much into this fight for America, we need to remember.  We did not fight for John Boehner nor did we fight for the Republican Party.  We fought for America.  We fought for our children and our grandchildren.

 

If John Boehner and the Republican Party want to abandon their commitment to America, then perhaps it is time for the Tea Party to abandon its commitment to the Republicans.  

Tags: RINO, boehner, higher, john, republicans, taxes

Views: 3499

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ok, let's build a platform. I'll start.These are not in order of importance. We can add/subtract/build upon these as we go until they are finalized.

1) All bills signed into law by the President are binding on all citizens; there are no exceptions for congressmen, senators, presidents, or federal judges. This is retroactive to include all laws passed by congress and signed by the president. (this should be a constitutional amendment)

2) U.S. military personnel pay/leave is governed by federal civil service rules, as are pay increases. (there is no way a military person should be paid less than an office worker of compatible service time)

3) Federal spending may not outpace revenues by more than 20%. (iow, spending is capped at 120% of revenues - I don't know what figure is adequate here, but it should be capped somewhere)

4) The power and scope of the federal gov't cannot be greater than that granted by the constitution. Anything else is delegated to the people of the individual states.

The platform of this country is called the Constitution.

Your president would be a dictator.

Federal workers are not superior to private civilians, and should not be morally entitled to receive anything extra that is based only on their civil status when compared to a private citizen's status.  We are supposed to emulate a classless society, so let's stop defining people by classifying them into different groups.

Other than that, we agree.

Jimmy here is an important one:

The Federal Reserve Charter is due to expire December 23, 2012.
The USA does not need the Federal Reserve System regulating our money, however, Timothy Geithner is not capable of handling the US currency. Therefore, a New Secretary of the US Treasurery is needed, ASAP.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power “To coin Money,” but nowhere is the word “money” defined in the Constitution.

The Coinage Act of 1792 provided for the coining of copper, in addition to gold and silver, and made those coins lawful tender, showing that something other than gold and silver were coined as money by Congress during the era of the Founding Fathers.

We The People do need to control our own money. We do not need the Federal Reserve System. Also, with the Federal Reserve System gone there will be no National debt. Research it for yourselves.

I have no argument with abolishing the Fed (and several more departments for that matter). As for a strictly gold standard, I am not educated enough in economics to know if such a thing is even possible today. There are a lot of variables to consider, not the least of which concerns our debt.

But I like the way you think - someone more educated than I needs to look into this, though.

Thomas Angle: "So what religious beliefs are being pushed? Can you give us a list?"
I admire your passion, but you're harming yourself and obstructing the conversation. It's in your -- and all of our -- best interests to keep abreast of the facts and do some elementary research!
So, to get started, google Akin and Mourdock, watch all of the Republican primary debates, and especially read Judson's articles. Ignorance will never help us.
Semper Fi.

Your insult of Thomas' intelligence or lack of doing enough research to agree with you is not warranted.  You have no title of superiority to claim that your opinion is based on fact but his is not, without providing the evidence.

Akin and Murdoch said stupid things.  So does Joe Biden, owebummer, and every other liberal I can think of.  But guess what, somebody has to win each election.  You cannot claim that either of the above men lost their election because of their religious beliefs instead of their poorly-phrased statements.  If they had lost due to their beliefs, then why have other religious people won elections even though their pro-life stances are well-known?  Answer that question after doing some more research.

Social platforms cannot be separated from fiscal platforms completely.  For example, one basic social platform might be that one citizen has no right to the property of another, based on the principle of "thou shalt not steal."  And yet, by far the greatest fiscal threat to our country, the national debt, is primarily the result of government philanthropy programs that are based on another social principle of "helping our neighbor," even if the mechanism being used (government) actually prevents it from working.

When you get right down to it, every issue can be dissected down to the point where each person has to decide their position on something.  We can all read anything we want, but in the end we have to decide what to believe from what we read.  If one person concludes something different from you, it cannot be written off haphazardly as a "religious" or "social" issue.  You do not have the authority to decide what is "social" for somebody else.

Hey if anyone support this, then that is a sin they will answer for. But murder is murder and I'll stand on that. Because at the end of the day, I'll sleep well knowing that non of that blood is because I did not speak out or vote for it.

That's a pretty graphic link, and I'm sure anyone on here that continues to argue that a fetus is not human because they are not "viable" cannot look at those photos of reality and feel completely at ease in their hearts and minds.  They are living in a world of denial.

I am not even religious, and such images make my guts hurt.  How could any one of these proponents of abortion imagine themselves in the room actually doing this to a fetus?  "Oh, it's just a cluster of cells," or "Oh, it's just not human yet."  Yeah, right, smoke another one.

JCPatriot,

"..taking food out of poor people's mouth..."

Maybe Frank just thinks that a more local government can handle the poor more effeciently than Washington, DC.  I'm for getting these decisions close to home as possible.

O Please, these religious arguments are getting us nowhere. Admitedly, we enjoyed a  Judeo-Christian consensus in America, a consensus that allowed a calm and peace which allowed us to accomplice great things.  but, there were always undercurrents.  The left was sewing seeds of discord and disbelief in every possible sphere.  Let's face it; they have succeeded so well they finally have elected their version of government.

They have ushered in the long predicted post-Christian era, like it or not.  Some one offered the brilliant thought that "Politics is religion running loose in the streets."  Today, one would have to say that there's a lot "running loose in the streets" not religious in any way.  Instead, the arguments are mostly about self interest (nothing more than making a God of self).  I know a couple faithful church goers, one who listens to nothing else but his union; and one lady whose only inteerst is making sure her sexual desires aren't curtailed.   My observation is that some churches have capitulated in this lurch to the left, so painfully aware in the last election.

In this present tug-of-war, we are still called to be "salt of the earth."  The time has come for us  to stand up for God with his tough love for the world from the heart,  but not from our lips.  We no longer enjoy any privileged position in this secular mix the left has delivered us.  We must fight on the ground of what is helpful for humanity.  That stance does  not deny faith, but puts it to practical use in a sinful world.  "Preaching" is still desperately needed from the pulpit. God knows, but "street preachers" are just objects of scorn. 

My friends, the Bible is so misunderstood, that it cannot be carried as a unifying banner.  That's exactly why we must agree to stand on our founding documents.  Few sane people can disagree with "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" as a goal.  I must admit I much preferrred the "life, liberty, and the right to private property"....private property was challenged by a founder who knew that to have much more clout than "pursuit of happiness," which can be interpreted too many ways.  "Private property" on the other hand, is a stand against all the tyrannical "isms."

RSS

Tea Party Nation is a social network



The Instant Survivalist

Young Living Essential Oils

 






© 2014   Created by Judson Phillips.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service