VIDEO: Asbury Park Press editorial board Sipprelle vs Holt

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

Here' is what I would like to see from a “current” (many people were interested in the movement before it was so clearly taken over by extremists) Tea Party supporter who claims not to be about religious extremism and to truly be against big government and for truly smaller spending.

- Admit that both national parties, including the Republicans, are about big government and high spending and that, as a point of fact, a majority of our current national debt was created during Republican administrations. Acknowledge the facts that our national debt started to skyrocket during the Reagan administration and that it is a matter of public record that when Democrats at the time protested the mushrooming debt, Reagan and key members of his economic team publically stated that “debt is good for the economy.” Acknowledge the fact that while the Democrats have correctly been portrayed as covering government expenses with taxes that Republicans have simply transferred the burden to the national debt, not actually reducing and in fact increasing overall spending.

- Accordingly indicate that you are equally opposed to re-electing Republican incumbents to office and Democrats since, with only a few exceptions, almost every incumbent in national office has supported entitlements and other measures that assert federal government control over our lives. For example, banning stem cell research is a form of big government. If you are for small government and it has no religious base to it, you would agree that, regardless of your personal views, regulating stem cell research is not the purview of the federal government. This is but one example. If the Tea Party wants to credibly be about small government then it should not be a branch of the Republican Party with virtually every candidate running as a Republican. This completely undermines its credibility since the Republicans have no history of small government or spending reductions when actually in power. At least Bill Clinton actually did reduce spending, the only modern president to do so, which is not to say the Democrat party as a whole has any more credibility on the issue than Republicans. Neither do.

- Disavow the religious extremists among the Tea Party candidates and public figures, such as Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell. Similarly, disavow any social and non-economic issues being part of the Tea Party platform. Gun control, illegal immigration, abortion, religion in schools, anti-Muslim baiting should have nothing to do with the party. You can’t control what the media says but you can go on the record right here as being against all those things as part of the platform. That’s not to say you are taking a personal stand for or against them, just that you agree they have nothing to do with a party that supposedly should be about collecting everyone who is for small government.

- Go on the record with what Tea Party candidates should do to reduce spending, in detail. Would they truly be for ending entitlements, or just those they don’t like? So far virtually no Republican or Democrat has supported this. And it is impossible to have a credible discussion about major cost reduction without taking a stand on social security which is the 800-pound gorilla of our federal budget, dwarfing even defense spending. Don’t be coy. Let’s get it on the record. Would you touch social security? The millions of baby boomer the tea party is courting deserve to hear this. To say you wouldn’t is to admit there would be no meaningful effort to reduce national spending. Which combined with tax cuts would mean, dare we say it, more debt.

The reality is that associating the Tea Party with extremism is not a media invention. It’s not the media that writes the speeches for the conventions or invites people like Sarah Palin to headline them. If the party really wasn’t about extremism, why even invite someone like Palin to “Tea Party” events, let alone have candidates welcome her endorsements?

The other reality is that there already is a long-standing party that is about small government. It’s called the Libertarian party. It’s been around for a long time. The problems are that it’s never gotten any mass traction and it takes the idea of small government seriously, supporting not just less spending but less government influence, regulation and laws in general. Which makes it abhorrent to the real bases that the Tea Party is feeding off of who actually want government to restrict people’s lives in various ways and to assure that those social security checks keep rolling. As a statistical fact a vast majority of those who call themselves tea Party supporters (which is not hard since it’s also true of a majority of US citizens in general) are currently beneficiaries of government aid in some way. Even before “ObamaCare” 50% of us were already benefitting from government healthcare, including many Tea Party supporters. Are all those supporters willing to give up their benefits when they throw ObamaCare out, or is it all about a new social-economic version of NIMBY – the government benefits I get are good and appropriate, just none of the rest? A true Libertarian would say cut it all, I will take personal responsibility for my finances, my health care, my retirement, etc. I don’t care what religion someone else belongs to our how they live their life or where they build their houses of worship. None of my business. Government should build and maintain our roads, provide for a basic defense (as opposed to exist to support the military industrial complex that even General and President Eisenhower warned us not to support) and public safety, lock up people who steal from or hurt other people and maybe, just maybe, help educate our kids. Otherwise stay out of everything else. That is small government.

I would personally support lower taxes and smaller government spending. But I wouldn’t support a BS version that doesn’t touch social security or medicare and that comes with the baggage of reactionary social extremism.

[Guest]

[Guest]

I love how the kooks quote and worship Ronnie Ray-Gun.
He, along with a lap-dog congress, turned us from the world's largest creditor nation into the largest debtor by hocus-pocus financial shananigans.
The only reason why the reich-wing can paint democrats as being such big spenders is because democrats allow themselves to be painted as such.
Whomever controls the narrative controls the electorate.
Keep feeding the sheeple the same lies all of the time and they'll soon start to take it for the truth.
I just find it funny that the gop can present themselves as innocents in all of this when their main mantra for years was "deficits don't matter".
We'll just borrow more money, and worry about the bill many years from now when we are all dead & buried and other people's Grandchildren will be stuck holding the bag.
You nutbags know that I'm right!

[Guest]

[Guest]

Here are some videos of Barney Frank and how comments that seem to be ignored. Let's not forget Barney is the chair of the Financial Services committee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UZ9l_AxKjA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ill-YnbGiaY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

[Guest]

Republicans always have favored the interests of wealthy people over the interests of everybody else. Once again the Republican party wants to "privatize" social security which means get rid of it, and funnel that money to their Wall street friends via private investment. Can you imagine what would have happened if that was in place during the recent stock market crash?? Seniors would literally be dying left and right for lack of a safety net. Republicans think that is ok though, it's survival of the fittest, all the while hiding behind their religious pomposity. Republicans also want to get rid of unemployment benefits, the minimum wage, the new health care reform, which in spite of what they think will actually be great for the country. Doctors and Insurance companies do not have to make billions of dollars off of the backs of working class people. They also want to, of course, get rid of the Wall street Reform Act that has just been signed into law, and guess why that is?? So the rich can get richer. I wish the middle class would just wake up out of their boozy fog and realize that they are having the wool pulled over their eyes, time and time again.

[Jack Frohbieter]

When you work through all of these comments you are faced with this reality. As a voter you have one choice to make on November 2 concerning the course the Federal Government is to take. That choice is to vote for Rush Holt or Scott Sipprelle.

Rush Holt is a professional politician who has been in Congress for 12 years and has voted for almost all of the programs and budgets that have resulted in a debt of $13 Trillion and programs with unfunded liabilities of $70 to 100 Trillion. To put it in perspective, that is debt and obligations that are over one half of the entire world’s wealth. Rush Holt voted for the stimulus bill, the “health care” bill, to increase the Federal Government size by 11% in 2010 and is working to saddle us with the “Cap and Trade” bill that will be a much larger tax increase than the tax increase scheduled to occur on 1 Jan 2011. Rush Holt agreed to Congress leaving town without a budget for this fiscal year so he and others could come home and campaign for the right to go back and do it to us again.

Scott Sipprelle by contrast is a businessman who has contributed to the creation of hundreds of jobs. He believes that the Government has become oppressive and domineering. He believes the size and reach of the Government is beyond anything allowed by the Constitution. He believes that legislators should be term limited and has vowed to serve only three terms if elected to them. He will be dedicated to reversing the course of ever increasing Government intrusion into our lives.

The choice is quite simple. Continue what we are doing or change what we are doing. Returning Rush Holt to Congress is a vote to continue the growth and intrusiveness of the Government. Electing Scott Sipprelle is a vote to stop that growth and intrusiveness.

Our children and grandchildren and their children will be forced to carry the burden being laid on them by Rush Holt and his ilk. I want to be able to respond to them when they ask what I did to keep them from becoming slaves to the Government. I will be able to tell them I fought to keep it from happening. I am proudly going door to door passing out Scott Sipprelle literature and urging the residents of Cranbury to vote for Scott. Please join me and support Scott Sipprelle for Congress.

[Guest]

Mr. Frohbeiter, your beloved George Bush and his ilk caused the trillions of dollars deficit due for the most part to his unjust wars. If you were a student of history you would also realize that the Wall Street bailout was imperative so that our whole economy would not collapse. I have read your letters to the editors over the years and am always amazed by the fact that you are only concerned about your own pocketbook and have never made it a point to understand the basic fundamentals of the subjects that you profess to know so much about.

Scott Siprelle is nothing but a wealthy investor who wants to be President.

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Jack Frohbieter]

The control of spending is a function of Congress. Our Constitution requires the House to originate spending proposals. The President can’t spend a dime unless Congress has appropriated the money. It is no accident that the spending picked up when the Democrats took control of the House in 2006 and absolute control of Congress in 2008.

My original point is that sending Rush Holt back to Congress is to give your approval to the spending that he has voted for and to encourage more of the same. I for one believe this is against the best interest of this country and its citizens. If you agree with the spending that is occurring vote for Rush. If not, vote for Scott.

[Guest]