Heh.

“The teabaggers themselves consider “socialism” paying for government. By definition.”

Some components of government are worthwhile, and I gladly pay for what I use. I think you’ll find many people, regardless of political affiliation, have that in common.

But I do note that none of the complainers will detail what they don’t want the government to spend money and none of them can detail the electoral strategy they’ll employ to get the kind of majorities that will shut off the spigots.

And this is just plain stupid:
I suppose it could be considered Socialism for those who consume, but don’t contribute.

The teabaggers themselves consider “socialism” paying for government. By definition. The Pledge written above reminds them of what their Summer of Spittle stands for.

I suppose it could be considered Socialism for those who consume, but don’t contribute. Otherwise, it’s simply services rendered for pay.

“I don’t have time to now, but I really could tear this apart.”

Prof. Newton very adequately ripped this contrived argument a new ass.

As rhubard says, if you don’t have the money, you don’t pay it.

With the point of the exercise being that the teabaggers with their highly emotional objection to “government spending” never get specific about what spending they want to go away. Or if they are specific, they are:
1) talking about a program that pays for itself (social security);
2) talking about a program whose elimination doesn’t go very far in reducing the deficits or the debt (Corporation for Public Broadcasting or even earmarks)
3) just generally getting their bitching on.

Because all of this spending has been a signature of all of our lives. And the minute there was light at the end of the tunnel — when Clinton left office leaving surpluses — there was BushCo destroying that surplus AND busily building in the largest structural deficits of our time. A thing that did not inspire the marches and the town halls and the various wingnut corporate and radio handlers to object. Until now, apparently.

The other thing that this points out is that you need to win elections to influence policy and spending. But as this list points out — there is plenty of stuff on the Fed budget that is always going to be a fixture. So where is the outrage over that? Where are the signs and the marches to make public zoos fully self-funding? Where is the outrage that parents are not paying the full freight for their kid’s education? And think about that for a second. What do you think would happen if state and local governments all over the US dropped school taxes and told parents they had to pay directly for their kids’s education?

There is alot of government spending that has massive or influential constituencies. If majorities of people were really upset about it, they would have been voting quite differently than they have been.

Uh…if you don’t have it, you wouldn’t pay it.

Meanwhile, not a peep of protest about the $75 billion the US spent on spying last year.

I’ll join you, Brian and David, the moment you show any signs of understanding where the real power lies. Hint: Not Washington.

I will say that instead of being sacastic about revoking all of these government services from the lives of such “teabaggers” maybe you should sit back and go “Damn. My government has it’s hands in the pocket of so many industries. Is this the peoper usage of the money they take from me and my family? Should I be subsidizing cotton growers and funding who knows what with the money I don’t have to put food on my table and improve the lives of my family?”

Look and see how involved your government is in every step of your life from A to Z.

I don’t have time to now, but I really could tear this apart. Instead, I am off to bed for a 14 hour shift tomorrow.

http://transparentchristina.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/us-constitution.pdf

It’s ok though, understanding the meaning of words is hard.