• Welcome!
    Logout|My Dashboard

It’s time to get rid of the tea party Republicans - The Galveston County Daily News: Letters To Editor

October 27, 2016

It’s time to get rid of the tea party Republicans

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • CJWiley posted at 2:08 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    CJWiley Posts: 54

    Pipe dreams. Bad laws should be overturned or changed. It's Obama and Reed acting like spoiled children by refusing to sit down and compromise.

  • SteveL posted at 5:32 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    SteveL Posts: 45

    How can you say that any group has no place in a democracy, and still maintain the legitimacy of the democracy? It is hardly a democracy if only one point of view is allowed to voice opinion, now is it?

  • bvresident posted at 7:20 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Typical left-wing liberal who believes democrats should be the only party. The Tea Party scares the left because they represent so many in this country who believe in less taxes, better run government, less intrusion on our daily lives, and personal accountability. Everything that democrats are against.

  • Island Runner posted at 7:34 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    Island Runner Posts: 401

    Tea Baggers and the regular GOP need to be voted out they have all but ruined our country. Nothing good can come from either .

  • CJWiley posted at 7:41 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    CJWiley Posts: 54

    Well put BV!

  • bvresident posted at 8:15 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    It's kind of amusing to hear that the Tea Party and the GOP have ruined this country when your president and the democrats held complete control over both houses of Congress for almost the first three years of his presidency. You people still have the Senate and the White House and you can't seem to stand on your own two legs. Can you give us a date when your president and your party will finally take responsibility and stop blaming the GOP and Bush and Reagan?

  • bvresident posted at 8:16 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Yep servitude1, keep believing that. The Tea Party is going to rule in 2016 because the country is dying a slow death under the oppressive regime of obama and pelosi and reid.

  • Bigjim posted at 8:18 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    Bigjim Posts: 1322

    CJ what do You what compromised? The ACA that has already passed and going forward. Stalling is not going to change it. GOP are going down wrong path if they want to retake back White House.
    It's not good for USA to have both sides to be acting like children! If we keep revisiting and not going forward we will be always stuck in sand. When we get unstuck in one place we get stuck all the way up to are necks In another, going nowhere fast.

  • carlosrponce posted at 8:37 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6344

    Sylvia, what do you want, a dictatorship? I wish that President Obama and his minions would stop the name calling and have civil, candid discussions about disagreements with the loyal opposition. Your statements are nothing new. King George tried to get rid of the Tea Partiers back in 1776. Look what happened! And to "Island Runner" please do not use the pejorative "tea bagger". It refers to a sex act and is highly offensive. All we want is government corralled to its constitutional limits. President Reagan was right. May God Bless America!

  • CJWiley posted at 9:02 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    CJWiley Posts: 54

    Don't you think the people deserve a year long delay like the big corporations got?
    Don't you think Obama and congress should be under Obamacare instead of their special medical benefits?
    Don't you think Obama should not have passed out so many exemptions to his special interest groups?

  • sverige1 posted at 9:11 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Just curious. Why are sex acts highly offensive? They are natural human "drives".

  • carlosrponce posted at 9:14 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6344

    The ACA that was passed by a Democratic Congress (not one Republican vote) has been altered more than a dozen times by President Obama with no Congressional approval of the changes. I urge that it be re-submitted to the Supreme Court since it has little semblance to the original legislation with all the changes.

  • carlosrponce posted at 9:28 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6344

    sverige, I will say a prayer for you.

  • sverige1 posted at 9:34 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    One thing wrong with this letter is the seemingly approving reference to Ronald Reagan. This president ignored the AIDs crisis, had his own dysfunctional family which exacerbated negative public perception of him. He kept hush-hush on the Iran/Contra scandal, called African Americans "welfare queens", held deep seated hostility toward environmental regulations - this is a non exhaustive list.

    Ronald Reagan was a governmental problem.

  • IHOG posted at 9:47 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486


    Gays join the Tea Party because they, like Straights, want a government that serves we the people instead of they the government.
    Gays are "we the people" too.

  • kevjlang posted at 9:57 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Until this past week, the only "compromise" that the Republicans and Tea Party have offered on Obamacare is "Repeal". Now, their idea of compromise is "kick the can down the road". If the shoe were on the other foot, I'm sure that the Republicans would also be slamming the door in Democrats' faces until they came up with an option actually worth discussing, and they'd probably be right in acting that way.

    During the Reagan and GHWB standoffs, the president stood his ground until the Democrats came back with something intelligent and productive.

    With ACA, I fully understand the objections to the individual mandate. I also fully understand the reluctance of insurers to participate if the only people coming in are people who are sick or are prone to get sick. They need the healthy people in order to be able to manage their costs at rates that average people might be able to afford.

    I also fully understand that making healthcare options available--even without actually paying for all or part of them--puts burdens on mid-sized businesses, and small businesses that are trying to grow into mid-sized businesses. However, without their participation, that puts a lot more people into the exchanges, and, therefore likely to be eligible for government subsidies.

    Is the ACA an ideal piece of legislation? I guess, depending on your perspective, it just might be. Republicans certainly seem to be marveling at its perfection ;-) Republicans see it as a perfect dung heap. However, Republicans don't see themsleves as Perfect Dung shovelers.

  • IHOG posted at 10:07 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Democrats in Colorado don't think the Tea Party is slowly fading away.
    Two top Democrat leaders of the Colorado legislature faced recall elections. The Tea Party joined the NRA to remove them. Democrats trying to save them spent eight times as much as the NRA-Tea Party partnership.
    Liberal votes are cheap but Tea Party votes aren't for sale.
    The recall succeded so easily it was suggested they should have recalled all Democrats.

  • IHOG posted at 10:22 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Not enough was shut down.
    Top level bureaucrats were not laid off. Low level workers were laid off.

    Why does our government borrow money to pay for NON ESSENTIAL services?

    The media blames the GOP for the shutdown. The shut down is because there was no budget passed by the Senate again this year.
    If the Senate had done it's job of passing a budget there would have been no shutdown.
    Harry Reid shut the government down.
    When the Senate passes a budget the shutdown is over.

  • gecroix posted at 10:25 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    Demand tolerance, but give none.
    Very 'progressive'.

  • sverige1 posted at 10:26 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to IHOG posted at 9:47 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013:

    I beg to differ. Gays and minorities are not welcomed at Tea party events because Tea partiers possess a Eurocentric view in that only straight, white people are deserving of the pursuit of happiness. They are against gay marriage, by the way. One speaker specifically said, "Gays/lesbians have too much power." They basically have no interest in social issues.

    They have guest speakers who habitually insult the non-WASPs, in general.

  • kevjlang posted at 10:30 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    What budget was the Senate supposed to pass? Do you really think that the House Republicans actually want that budget to pass? They sent it as a joke, knowing full well that it wouldn't be picked up by the Senate. If the Senate were to pass it, the joke would certainly be on all of us, and I'd bet we wouldn't be laughing much.

  • IHOG posted at 10:39 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Republicans should tell Obama there will be no continuing resolution.
    If he wants government reopened He must ask Harry Reid to let the Senate pass this years budget.
    The house sent this years budgets to the Senate last spring.

  • saraishelafs posted at 11:16 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    saraishelafs Posts: 59

    I've noticed how many times it has been suggested that Obama and the Democrats would not sit down and talk to come up with compromises. I think you are forgetting what went on during the negotiations about this bill. Republicans were asked time and again to submit alternate ideas and one of the reasons this bill is so long is because of all the additions based on compromises. But this letter was about the tea party. I don't agree with the writer that they should be gotten rid of. This is after all a democracy and includes everyone except felons and people without picture ID. The tea party is welcome to their opinions but there are limits and the Republican house has overstepped them. The ACA is a law, passed according to the rules, found constitutional by the Supreme Court and as a law can be repealed. The house, knowing there was no chance of the Senate passing it, wasted our taxes by voting over 40 times (at about $2 million a shot). Where was the tea party (who allegedly don't want taxes wasted) during all this?

  • carlosrponce posted at 11:43 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    carlosrponce Posts: 6344

    I have seen African-Americans and Hispanics at Tea Party Events. You must be talking about other minorities but I never saw any one unwelcome or turned away. As far as not welcoming people because of sexual orientation, you can't tell by just looking but again, I never saw anyone turned away. Even tax and spend liberals are welcome at such events as long as they don't turn the event into a circus. As to your quote, I never heard it. It must have been made by planted tax and spend liberal trying to hide the true message of the Tea Party that is Taxed Enough Already. I have seen Tax and Spend liberals show up at such events spouting bigoted sayings so that the average person thinks all Tea Party members think that way. Those few get the media's attention.

  • gecroix posted at 12:20 pm on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    They were waiting on the Senate and the Executive office to follow the law as required to enact a budget, which hasn't been done since 2009, and thus negate any need for continuing resolutions.

    It will be noted that the budget process requires the participation of ALL three co-equal governing partners, the Executive, the Senate, and the House. There is no leeway given for any excuses to 'refuse to negotiate'.
    Only a King and his Court get to refuse to negotiate and just do as they will toward their subjects or their elected representatives.
    The Tea Party, warts and all, is a convenioent scape goat for anyone desiring to absolve their absentee President and Senate Majority leader of any requirement to do what they were sent to DC to do.

  • sverige1 posted at 12:25 pm on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to gecroix posted at 10:25 am on Wed, Oct 2, 2013:

    As the saying goes, "It is what it is." No type of gussying up a hate group like Tea Party is going to change what they've espoused. We all remember the speaker who told the Anglos at the outdoor event to "be proud of YOUR heritage".

    To the matter at hand: we see the last remaining vestiges through Cruz with his histrionics a couple of days ago (insulting Europeans as they wrestled with Naziism, insulting Filipino war veterans in regard to Bataan). And, we can't forget one of the Pauls making an arse out of himself at various airports - thus compromising security.

    Tea party movement = on its last leg

    WENDY DAVIS 2014 "Putting the Blue Back in Texas"

  • gecroix posted at 12:32 pm on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    You're dismissed.

  • truthserum posted at 1:06 pm on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    truthserum Posts: 584

    TEA Parties are for little girls and their imaginary friends. Best bumper sticker out there - sums up the ninnys in that movement.

  • sverige1 posted at 1:10 pm on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Typical Tea partier - dismiss social issues, call Obama's plan "white slavery", discriminatory practices:


  • sverige1 posted at 1:20 pm on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to truthserum posted at 1:06 pm on Wed, Oct 2, 2013:

    Well, the term "tea party" (and their spread of hate and intolerance) has debased the centuries' old images of little girls sweetly pouring imaginary tea while playing "house".

    Then again, the tenets that the modern "tea party" have tried to promote have been "imaginary" and "ninny". I still can't shake the image of the Paul dude carrying on at that airport. I'm sure none of those agents wanted to pat that ninny down.

  • Jbgood posted at 1:27 pm on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    Jbgood Posts: 2471

    Democratic process at it's fullest,....I love it!!!

  • jandermn posted at 2:41 pm on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    jandermn Posts: 8

    "I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."

    Liberty is America's strength. Taxed Enough Already is an expression of our Liberty as American citizens.

  • mickphalen posted at 4:43 pm on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    mickphalen Posts: 754

    The Tea Party movement is a direct response to the dysfunction and overreach of our federal government. We currently have a majority of our federal representatives, who spend all their time arguing about the speed at which we grow the DC government. We need more there who fight to decrease the role, size, and influence of the federal government.

    Cruz, Paul, Lee, Rubio (sometimes), and a few others, seem to be the guys interested in doing that. (I think I can include Weber in that group).

    "Tea Party" is an idea, not a political party. Don't confuse the principle with the conduct of some of our local "leaders".

  • truthserum posted at 10:32 pm on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    truthserum Posts: 584

    Mick Phalen - you might not realize this but Cruz never voted until 2012. I bet you did not know that.... This TEA movement coming from him is all a show - he has much greater ambitions .... Be the center of attention. I voted for him and sorry that I even did it.

    He had every chance of getting up during his 21 spotlight talk and read the entire ObamaCare legislation to "expose" the evils of it but he didn't - he got up and spewed BS just like very other dirtbag in D.C.

  • mickphalen posted at 10:56 pm on Wed, Oct 2, 2013.

    mickphalen Posts: 754


    I don't care that Cruz did not vote until 2012, I don't care that he was born in Canada, I don't care that he read Dr. Seuss to his daughters during the 21 hours.

    I do care that he attempted to stop another wave of federal government control of our lives.

    I do not care about personalities - only principles and actions.

  • bvresident posted at 8:00 am on Thu, Oct 3, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    You are saying things that are patently untrue. The dems locked the Republicans out of any negotiations because they didn't need them. This abomination of a law is nothing more than another attempt by a president to control a low-information voting bloc.

  • bvresident posted at 10:20 am on Thu, Oct 3, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    The huff-in-puff post is nothing more than a dog-whistle rag for left-wing fanatics. Using them for your every reference point shows you can't support your comments with real facts.

  • saraishelafs posted at 11:06 am on Thu, Oct 3, 2013.

    saraishelafs Posts: 59

    Obamacare cannot control anyone unless they let it. You are free to participate in a variety of ways or pay the tax (fine) Ted Cruz is an embarrassment to Texas. He's in the Senate for crying out loud. It's the house that is holding the US hostage. I did not vote for him because he had already outed himself as a well educated fool during the primaries.

  • sverige1 posted at 11:28 am on Thu, Oct 3, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 10:20 am on Thu, Oct 3, 2013:

    No magazine or internet news service (HuffPost or otherwise) can invent picket signs/placards that compare Affordable Care to "white slavery" - signs made by Tea party ralliers.

    If the Tea Party was reputable, some good-sense members would have asked those individuals to cease and desist with their hate-filled picket signs.

  • bvresident posted at 4:53 pm on Thu, Oct 3, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    You didn't vote for him sweetheart because you're a democrat. Who are you trying to kid?

  • bvresident posted at 4:56 pm on Thu, Oct 3, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Yep, the dems are nothing but nice guys. Here you go.


    The Tea Party scares the pants off you people because they represent the values that made this country great while the left is hell-bent on turning us into a bunch of zombies dependent on the federal government for our every want and need.

  • sverige1 posted at 7:18 am on Fri, Oct 4, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 4:56 pm on Thu, Oct 3, 2013:

    OMG, you're referencing and link that only talks about politicians (dems and repubs) being politicans - who utilize words like "reckless and irresponsible", "legislative arsonists".

    I think words that are exchanged in a cloistered congressional setting among colleagues is a heck of a lot different that public citizens outside carrying placards of hate, bigotry, and racism.

    Nice, try BvOresident. You get one piece of hard candy for trying, but the other kid won the cake walk music and chair game, and he wins the cake.

  • sverige1 posted at 2:02 pm on Fri, Oct 4, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Don't you realize that it is "sexist" and of bad general etiquette to refer to someone as "sweetheart" on an internet thread?

    Thought you'd like to know. They made laws in the 80s so that kind of thing doesn't happen anymore in the workplace. Welcome to the 21st century, new gender rules, new affordable care, and all!

  • bvresident posted at 8:27 am on Sat, Oct 5, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    You're the perfect liberal. Refuse to acknowledge the truth and lie at will.

  • saraishelafs posted at 12:10 pm on Sat, Oct 5, 2013.

    saraishelafs Posts: 59

    I have never voted a straight ticket in my life, hon.

  • bvresident posted at 7:30 pm on Sat, Oct 5, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    So sue me.

  • bvresident posted at 7:30 pm on Sat, Oct 5, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    As long as they were all democrats right?

  • sverige1 posted at 7:22 am on Mon, Oct 7, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 8:27 am on Sat, Oct 5, 2013:

    Well, you can say that liberals "refuse to acknowledge the truth", but that in itself won't make what you believe true. Here's some "truths" regarding the short 4 year history of the teaparty that might hurt, but must be said:

    The Tea party tried to make its emergence in force in 2009 (when they began to endorse candidates). Since then, tea party chapters have declined - from 1,000 to 600. Most importantly, we could see the inneffectiveness of the Tea Party when Romney tried to revive his FAILED campaign by taking on Paul Ryan (a teapartier) as running-mate. The results were dismal, and most teaparty candidates across the nation lost their local races as well.

    Their extreme tactics are well-known. Example: In 2010, North Iowa Tea party made billboards that said "Hitler - National Socialism", "Obama - Democrat Socialism", and Lenin "Marxist Socialism". They were forced to remove the billboard.

  • bvresident posted at 8:36 am on Wed, Oct 16, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Only the left can say with a straight face that those elected officials who represent millions of constituents and varying viewpoints should be eliminated. That's what the left wants-absolutely no dissension from any so they can continue running this country into the ground.

    The Tea Party is here to stay and is getting stronger as people get fed up with the piece-by-piece dismantling of the core values and fiscal standing of this country. A true opposition party that represents the values that made this country great is the only thing that terrifies obama and the democrats. Good.

  • kevjlang posted at 9:30 am on Wed, Oct 16, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Government works best when laws and decisions are made with consideration of varying viewpoints. With a population like ours, some of the viewpoints may be a bit more controversial than others, and some may be more workable than others. However, even the most ridiculous still have value and merit in the discussion. Each of our political factions has a collection of viewpoints that run the gamut from great ideas to complete fantasy to fine but impossible to achieve.

    Right now, there isn't a single faction in our government that can debate without being pretentious and contentious. Corporate boardrooms seem to be able to function with varying ideas without an abundance of pretense and dismissiveness. Perhaps our government officials could start acting like leaders, regardless of party affiliates or where they sit in the idealogical spectrum.

    I would definitely like to see the Tea Party try working with others more than acting like everyone else is the enemy, but, they aren't unlike the Democrats and Republicans in that regard. I think we're all looking for one of the factions to take on the role of the "Adult in the Room".

  • sverige1 posted at 6:49 pm on Wed, Oct 16, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to kevjlang posted at 9:30 am on Wed, Oct 16, 2013 and
    Response to bvresident posted at 8:36 am on Wed, Oct 16, 2013:

    Political movements and all organizations (not just political) must gain a following and either establish or try to "upkeep" a reputation of good standing. Simply put, the Tea Party failed to gain a cross-section of a following. When you go out of the realm of championing fair taxation and prudent spending practices - and identify/applaud with bitter and angry sectors - well, your reputation goes to a point of no return.

    As the saying goes, "It is what it is." To have placards that promote treason and racism (comparing Obama to Marxists) and when you have a platform that wants to exclude gays/lesbians from getting married or collecting duly-earned beneficiary items....well, that gets rid of quite a bit of fan base. Couple that with, for example, the strident Tea party sector that came up with catch phrases such as "Obama phones" - again, you're alienating folks who want to support the struggling working class. THOSE were the myriads of missteps and errors of the Tea Party.

  • bvresident posted at 11:02 am on Thu, Oct 17, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Absolutely! That's what was so disgusting about your president saying the GOP was "holding a gun to the head of the American public" (he with a 37% approval rating) or with Reid and Pelosi calling the other side "terrorists and arsonists". You probably missed all that didn't you?

  • bvresident posted at 11:20 am on Thu, Oct 17, 2013.

    bvresident Posts: 1763

    Here's what the Tea Party is sounding the alarm about but no one wants to listen. We have a president and administration who believe the headlong race into oppressive debt is a "long-term problem". I wonder how a problem becomes a long-term problem if it isn't a short-term problem first?


  • sverige1 posted at 12:17 pm on Thu, Oct 17, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to bvresident posted at 11:02 am on Thu, Oct 17, 2013:

    I think you missed the point. A few strong statements from leaders of centuries-established major political party (democratic) is different than fringe upstarts who must seek a broad base initially (Tea Party).

    I doubt if words about "arsonists and treasonists" by a Minority Leader or Whip of the major Democratic party is worth comparing with the Tea Party chapter members making noise.

    Our President already has his position, he's the leader of a major party. If he wants to say "holding a gun against our heads", he has nothing at stake. However, if a little one-horse chapter delegate says hateful things (being against gay marriage, lambasting hard-working immigrants) during a membership rally at a small-operated Tea Party chapter - - then, that alienates possible new members of an already small group. They get frightened, go away, they tell their friends - and groups don't rally again due to unpopularity. Kind of like when Jan Brady got full of herself while she ran for class president. She LOST.

    Tea Party - membership FAIL

  • kevjlang posted at 2:23 pm on Thu, Oct 17, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Getting rid of the debt is a long-term issue. Even if he'd added nothing over the past 5 years, clearing 10 Trillion isn't something we can do quickly. We'd probably have to look towards a 30-50 year trajectory to get it down to 0. However, there are a lot of much shorter term issues we should address. Primary among them is to get our budgeting in order so that we're not adding to the debt. Hopefully, our current Congress will see fit to laying out a 1-5 year plan for getting the budget balanced and then allocating line items toward retiring principle. More than likely, the financial markets won't take too kindly to us retiring huge chunks at a time, but I think they'd welcome it if for every note we retired, we didn't need to issue two new ones....

    Of course, it all did start as a short term problem. If we hadn't become addicted to deficit spending back when our debt was only in M's and B's, resolving the debt would just be a short term problem, too. I hope they act fairly soon. I certainly don't want to see the day when our debt is measured in Q's.

  • gecroix posted at 10:28 am on Fri, Oct 18, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    Shouldn't we get rid of the type of 'stewards' of our tax monies who think THIS is a good idea, and such like it, too, rather than dump the people who want us to hang onto as much of our own money as possible, after attending to the needs of the TRULY needy, and have a return to the now moribund practices of self-reliance and personal responsibility?

    "A NEW FEDERAL PROGRAM (emphasis mine) is giving Florida’s public schools a way out of verifying whether students qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.
    The solution: expand subsidized meals to include all students whether they can afford to pay or not.
    Known as the Community Eligibility Option, schools and even entire districts can now receive free breakfast and lunch if 40 percent or more of students’ families are identified as low-income."

    Is it really better to be kept when not necessary?
    That's the choice.
    The establishment Democrats and Republicans are too busy buying votes and awarding favors with OPM.
    There is a need, a BIG need, for less of that
    That requires someone who thinks doing less of it is a good thing.
    There's also a need for fewer dishonest and morally bereft 'parents' that pass their ways along to their kiddies...and a lot fewer 'leaders' who encourage such dishonesty...

  • kevjlang posted at 10:38 am on Fri, Oct 18, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    It would be nice to see what the cost/benefit analysis was on that, and how honest it was. There may be a point where, if the population that's eligible is high enough, where the cost of feeding a few more is less than the cost of administering the ineligibility of those few. I think that whether eligible or not eligible, the families do have to opt in, or at least I'd hope they would. To efficiently manage any kind of meal program--household or institutional--you need to have a pretty good idea how many you're feeding each day, lest you cook for a couple hundred no-shows, or run out of food with a couple hundred still in line. It's even more important to not have much leftovers in a cafeteria, because the laws regarding re-use of them are far stricter than the ones we abide by at home.

  • gecroix posted at 11:17 am on Fri, Oct 18, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    Since when did 60% more become a 'few more'? That sounds pretrty 'progressive'. Are you backsliding...again...[wink]
    What is the cost of deceipt?
    What is the benefit of honesty.
    Does good 'stewardship' now mean just the least cost, versus the best use?
    With that attitude, why have a means test for anything. Just give whatever it is to everybody.
    We are hopelessly screwed if we can spend 60% more for something and claim it costs less to do so than paying for the bureaucracy charged with adminstering that something properly.
    That IS very 'progressive' , though.
    Dependency on government at any cost is a bargain to them...

  • kevjlang posted at 12:49 pm on Fri, Oct 18, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I'm just trying to build a strawman that might make sense. Without the numbers, it's quite difficult to know whether there's enough meat to fill out the argument.

    I mentioned "a few more" on the assumption that many, if not most, of the 60% would opt out of the free meals and feed the kids at home, or send the food with them.

    I don't know how much it costs to process the paperwork for that 40%, but government bureaucrats aren't cheap. So, maybe it is cheaper to feed 100% than it costs to qualify 40%.

    Of course, the downside for the President is that if they can then fire the bureaucrats that were processing those applications, that would add to the unemployment rate.

  • gecroix posted at 2:59 pm on Fri, Oct 18, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    I suppose when the national debt is increased nearly 60% in just over 4 years, and the Increaser in Chief considers that a positive thing, then a 60% increase in the bill for taxpayer funded largesse, at one location (so far), is small potatoes.
    Of course, that's how we got in the financial mess we are in.
    EVERYONE'S own potato is sacred, and all others are subject to being mashed.

  • kevjlang posted at 4:18 pm on Fri, Oct 18, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Well, I look at it this way: Say it costs 2 million to feed the first 40% and it costs 2 million to process their paperwork each year to verify eligibility, the program is costing 4 million per year, with 2 million of it going to DC and/or State Capital bureaucrats that may not even be doing an efficient or effective job in processing that paperwork.

    Now, what if, for that 2 million bucks, we can make meals available to 100% with virtually all of the 4 million going towards wages and services to the local community.

    Now, overall, I think I'd prefer that we didn't have communities where 40% of the population meets the requirements of the program. If I were in charge, I'd try to figure out if we could process the applications more cost-effectively so that that 40% threshold goes up to 60, 75, or even 100% before offering free meals to everyone. However, there are problably plenty of great reasons why I'm not in charge :-)

  • gecroix posted at 4:58 pm on Fri, Oct 18, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    So, dependency on government is a GOOD thing then, as long as we spend no extra money?
    That's very 'progressive'. But, let's analyze it.
    Using your scenario, applied to where I grew up, Earth, the United States, pre-'fundamental change', a 2 million dollar cost to deliver 2 million dollars in services sounds like a really bad business to be in for the taxpayers who have to foot a 4 million dollar bill for 2 miilion dollars worth of benefit.
    Then, it doesn't sound much better to the taxpayers, at least not me, to be expected to still fork over 4 million bucks, and use that money to pay for something that the recipients could pay for themselves, just so we can pretend we're getting more for our money.
    Hint: You don't get more for your money unless you wanted or needed to buy something in the first place. You just spent more. The money is still gone from YOUR pocket, into somebody else's pocket. 60% of whom have pockets of their own they could use. There's no such thing as losing money on each transaction, but making up the profit lost with higher volume of losses.
    Kind of like when your in-laws, half of whom make as much or more than you, all have to go to the bathroom when the waiter brings the check... [sad]

  • sverige1 posted at 5:38 pm on Fri, Oct 18, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to gecroix at 4:58 pm on Fri, Oct 18, 2013:

    "something that the recipients could pay for themselves" -

    You touched on the fundamental concept right there. Millions of "recipients" cannot pay for it themselves. Just like millions of recipients can't pay for a car or a house for themselves. Most of us writing on this forum still owe a mortgage, yet the Romney-fied 1% can. So, with the anti-health care sentiment that our haters of working class are clinging onto, I suppose 75 percent or so of us in the U.S. should not have the American dream of home ownership. Just as the 24 percent of Texans should give up and wishfully will their health to the good Lord.

    I'm so glad that my world is surrounded basically by friends and relatives who believe in helping fellow mankind. Must be a real bummer to be a chintzy conservative.

  • kevjlang posted at 6:16 am on Sat, Oct 19, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Well, for one, no one in that 100% has to partake in the service, but those that do now have a few more bucks per week that they can spend on other things--probably things more productive than bureaucrats. Of course, those of us without kids in school are still stuck footing our share of the bill.

    I'm not saying that I like the idea or agree with it. As I indicated, the problem that I have is that the program costs as much as it does and that so many need the service. Beyond that, it's a cost-benefit decision, and overall, I probably would rather see local middle-class taxpaying families derive benefits over govt bureaucrats. But, my real preference would be that the program wasn't needed at all.

  • gecroix posted at 8:53 am on Sat, Oct 19, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    Why do you feel that it's a good thing to try to rationalize a reason for the State or Feds to take money out of your pocket and put it into the pocket of someone else who may well have as much or more of it than you?
    Why is it a good thing for those people to take your money, knowing they don't meet the criteria established to get it, pre-'fundamental change' dependency expansion?
    That's pretty 'progressive' thinking.
    Your cost-benefit in this case is that it costs people money to give to some people who do NOT need that money, but take that benfit anyway, and does so for no good reason.
    WHY would you rather see ANYBODY take another person's money when they are not in need of it? THAT is just more 'government money' waste and fraud.
    What is at work here is dishonesty on the part of people taking what they are not supposed to take, absent a government doing it's best to marginalize and prevent personal responsibility.
    Just because you can, does not mean you should.
    That is a lesson utterly lost on an ever growing number of opportunists who excuse their dishonesty and fraud as something better for them to do, than for someone else to do.
    Another legacy of leading by example of failure, and another example of fundamental change.
    You just can't fix it.

  • kevjlang posted at 2:22 pm on Sat, Oct 19, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Like I said, no one forces anyone to take the free food. If no one other than the 40% that are truly eligible, then the 4 million in my example becomes 2 million. Either way, we lose the cost of the bureaucrats. The food vendors and the cafeteria staff are all local jobs, and if we wind up getting a couple more of those, that's not terrible news, either.

    Also, as stated, my preference would be that the program weren't needed. Since that preference isn't met currently, it's a matter of figuring out the best balance between rules enforcement and cost management. I really don't know the best way to manage it, but I can, at least, understand some logic into doing it this way. Best way? I don't know. I don't think that the Washington bureaucrats add much value, though.

  • gecroix posted at 2:48 pm on Sat, Oct 19, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    This one's been kicked around a while.
    How about a fair and balanced new direction.
    Something along the order of "It's time to get rid of the 'progressive' Democrats".
    That way, participants can try, try, to explain how the Tea Party agenda, which pretty well matches the one the country used to become 'the greatest country the world has ever known', as opined by BHO, is 'extreme', while the 'progressive' agenda of 'fundamental change', as targeted by BHO, in creating a nation of dependents and appeasers is not 'extreme'.
    I'll start it off by saying that one factor seems to be whether you're spending your own money, or somebody else's...

  • kevjlang posted at 4:02 pm on Sat, Oct 19, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    We've functioned quite well in the past with conservatives, fundamentalists, moderates, progressives, liberals, and radicals finding some way to be functional. What we need to get rid of is the dysfunctionalists. I know where we can find hundreds of them in one metro are.

  • sverige1 posted at 2:20 pm on Mon, Oct 21, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to gecroix posted at 4:58 pm on Fri, Oct 18, 2013:

    "So, dependency on government is a GOOD thing then, as long as we spend no extra money?"

    To answer your question, Yes. A cost effective way to pay for a program that can be executed with the least amount of paperwork, yet benefit the needy "and more" - is the best route. Paperwork that gets in the way simply isn't necessary.

    I've mentioned that this kind of program is best suited, first in mind, with the school breakfast and lunch programs. Each child (regardless of income) should have a free breakfast and a free lunch. That way, the "extra" food that the child who already had a good breakfast doesn't want can go to the ones who are all the more hungry.

    I do know that some school policies ask classrooms to "tally" the use of the breakfast/lunch each time it's distributed and turn it in. They may as well make it for all the kiddos, and let the real hungry ones "stash" away the rest in their backpacks. For some, breakfast/lunch at school is all the sustenance they get.

    Take away the very rich folks' tax breaks and make them pay more their fair share, then these food programs will get $ out of the pockets of folks who otherwise wouldn't "miss" it anyway. Romney and his ilk, so to speak.