interesting 'tea party' article

[Azazello1313]

The Tea Party is 2009 onward, I don't think you can argue that. I do acknowledge that the Tea Party is a re-formation/rebranded/re-formatted version of Perot-ista philosophy along with a nice chunk of Paul style libertarianism as well.Throw in some confused (we don't want govt run healthcare, now don't touch my MedicAid!!) voters as well and it's coming together as we see it.

 

 

And BP, O'Donnel is clearly their worst candidate, while Paul is looking strong and Angle will probably beat Reid.

 

I agree with all of that.

[Perchoutofwater]

Taxpayer organizations have indeed been around for a long time but that hardly constitutes a populist anti-governmental movement, does it?

 

Bottom line: The Tea Party - a real populist movement - emerged in 2009. The trigger was Obama's election and the concentrated propaganda of the non-Congress Republican machine.

 

BTW, I'm not defending in any way shape or form the record of the last two years. Although much of what has been done moves in the right direction, IMO, it's been a communications disaster, an incorrect set of priorities and far too much compromise / backroom dealing.

 

Obama has led the single largest expansion of government power and spending since LBJ. He campaigned on doing that, though many in their anger at Bush failed to listen. It is only natural that these local organization unite in some manner. Having said that I don't know that you can say it is an anti-Obama movement. Look at the number of Republicans that have lost their primaries. As Az has pointed out people were starting to get fed up on the national level under Bush. I personally have been very critical of Bush's increases in "permanent spending" such as Medicare D. People want to scale back government, and have for quite some time. Rather than listen to the people Obama, Pelosi, and Reid go in the opposite direction passing a stimulus plan and a health care plan that the majority of American's reject. In addition to that they have been trying to pass a cap and trade plan which is really nothing more than a tax based on questionable science. The people have had enough. To try to make this out as an anti-Obama thing is naive. While it might make liberals like you feel better it is incorrect. What this is, is a rejection of the polices you and other liberals support. It isn't so much about people or personalities as it is about the role of government in our daily lives and in our pockets. For some (not saying you in particular) it is much easier to say that the TEA party is anit-Obama, racist, etc... than to admit that it is really about an honest difference in opinion on the size and scope of government. It is much easier to try to make light, castigate, and belittle the movement than admit that a lot of people honestly have a difference of opinion regarding the issues that so many liberals hold dear.

 

I can't tell you how many times I've been called a racist, an Obama hater etc.. when I've tried to argue issues with liberals, not only here but in other areas. People would rather try to besmear the messenger than attack the message itself. Typically you find about one in ten liberals willing to have an honest debate about the issues of the day, you have about 6 in 10 that are in the Z-OMG brigade, and then another 3 in ten that will just start calling you names. It is rare to find a liberal that is willing to argue in support of the legislation past an proposed in the last 18 months rather than just make personal attacks against those that oppose them or try to make a joke out of it.

 

The TEA party is still in it's infancy. It regardless of what Dick Army or Sarah Palin might claim it has no real leaders. It is still a lose group of local organizations that are trying to push a national agenda. If you go to a TEA party meeting in Texas and another in Vermont you are likely to find a bunch of similarities, but at the same time a bunch of differences as well. As a result there is no real vetting process, which is why we have ended up with some very unfortunate candidates such as O'Donnell. I don't know if the TEA party will eventually grow into a real political party rather than a movement. I kind of doubt it. I think we will continue to see them support candidates from the major parties that embrace fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately because of this lack of real organization we will see local TEA parties endorse some candidates that are poor choices, though that really isn't much different than the traditional GOP or Dems. Look at the guy the Dems have in this election. You don't even have to look that far either, look at Alvin Greene, heck look at the bearded Marxist running against O'Donnell. There are bad, poorly vetted candidates associated with the major parties as well. I'm sure we could both count of 4 or 5 from each of the major parties between us. Yes O'Donnell is bad, but to try to use her to say the TEA party is all like that would be like me saying that all the Dems are Klansmen based on Robert Byrd. That is a stupid supposition, but that is exactly what many on the left and the MSM are trying to do to the TEA party based on O'Donnell.

[Pope Flick]

in any case, the point of the article was to demonstrate the failure of the argument that tea partiers can't really care about spending and government because none of them cared about those things until obama got into office, and that therefore there must be "darker" motives at play.

 

 

Yeah, ever since Buchanon got involved in the Refrom Party and helped in splitting it up (how does one party contain both him and Ventura?) there's been as much of a '3rd party vacuum' as ever, and the Tea Party fills it, oddly within the Republican Party. I see Obama's election and TARP as the events which allowed for it to coallesce and get legs but it's been here consistently since Perot organized his movement back in 1992, which kinda buried Libertarians as The Viable 3rd Party (now they are on par with the Greens).

[Perchoutofwater]

The Tea Party is 2009 onward, I don't think you can argue that. I do acknowledge that the Tea Party is a re-formation/rebranded/re-formatted version of Perot-ista philosophy along with a nice chunk of Paul style libertarianism as well.Throw in some confused (we don't want govt run healthcare, now don't touch my MedicAid!!) voters as well and it's coming together as we see it.

 

 

And BP, O'Donnel is clearly their worst candidate, while Paul is looking strong and Angle will probably beat Reid.

 

Very true. I also supported Perot, and have support Ron Paul in the past. My biggest concern regarding the TEA party is that it will be engulfed by the GOP regarding social issues. I hope that this doesn't happen, as it will spell the end of the TEA party as an affective catalyst for real change.

[Ursa Majoris]

as it will spell the end of the TEA party as an affective catalyst for real change.

But is it an advocate for change anyway? It seems to me they are against this and against that but without specifics (with a few honorable exceptions). Here is the Contract From America, as seen on Wiki's tea Party entry. Numbers in parentheses are the percentage of people who voted for the listed items from the original list of 21:

 

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%)

3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)

4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the Internal Revenue Code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)

5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)

6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

7. Repeal the healthcare legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%)

8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%)

9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend current temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)

 

#1 assumes we still live in the 18th century

#2 rejects Cap and Trade. Where's the alternative climate change policy?

#3 makes no mention of where the necessary cuts will be

#4 hopes that Tea Partier taxes will go down and someone else will pay the balance

#5 see #1

#6 makes zero allowance for extraordinary circumstances

#7 offers no alternative

#8 assumes one size fits all everywhere

#9 assumes earmarks are a major factor in government spending

#10 no idea on how the cuts get paid for.

 

There is a place for simplification in all things but this is half-baked unplanned nonsense for the most part.

[Perchoutofwater]

But is it an advocate for change anyway? It seems to me they are against this and against that but without specifics (with a few honorable exceptions). Here is the Contract From America, as seen on Wiki's tea Party entry. Numbers in parentheses are the percentage of people who voted for the listed items from the original list of 21:

 

 

 

#1 assumes we still live in the 18th century

#2 rejects Cap and Trade. Where's the alternative climate change policy?

#3 makes no mention of where the necessary cuts will be

#4 hopes that Tea Partier taxes will go down and someone else will pay the balance

#5 see #1

#6 makes zero allowance for extraordinary circumstances

#7 offers no alternative

#8 assumes one size fits all everywhere

#9 assumes earmarks are a major factor in government spending

#10 no idea on how the cuts get paid for.

 

There is a place for simplification in all things but this is half-baked unplanned nonsense for the most part.

 

#1 Just says abide by the law of the land. The Constitution is the law of the land. If something needs to be changed then there is a mechanism for that change. It requires an overwhelming majority and ratification, which I view as a good thing. If you don't like the Constitution get enough support to change it based on the way it was intended to be changed rather than ignore it.

#2 Cap and trade is more of a tax than a real environmental policy. Yes, we need a better environmental policy. Yes we need to look to science to help us make that policy. Having said that we need to make damned sure the science is there before we implement it, and we need to make sure what ever we implement actually does some good, not just makes it more expensive to do what may or may not be bad.

#3 Many of the cuts would be through eliminating departments that have no constitutional mandate, such as the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Housing, etc.... Additional cuts would be made in social programs, and hopefully in the defense budget.

#4 is pointed at making sure everyone has some skin in the game. If everyone realizes that the next government spending program is going to cost them some money and not just the evil rich, there is a lot higher probability that they will not vote for officials that will vote for additional spending. Additionally it would simplify the tax code taking away loopholes and credits so that the tax code isn't used as a way for the federal government to dictate our actions.

#5 see #1 and the amendment process. If you and enough people feel that way then there is a way to amend the constitution, rather than just ignore it. I prefer the Rule of Law.

#6 I actually agree with you here and feel that point needs to be refined. I also think that budgets should be made biennial or triennial rather than annually so that adjustments can be made to make up for extraordinary circumstances.

#7 Is what we have now any better than what we had before? I don't think so. Repeal it and start over. There is need for reform, but what we have is worse than what we had before. We've had several conversations on better ways to accomplish this such as severing the link with employment, allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, providing low cost catastrophic coverage (major medical), etc.. It should also be linked to immigration reform.

#8 I honestly don't see where you get "it assumes one size fits all". What they are saying is look at all the options, don't take anything of the table. Look at solar and wind where affective, but also make it much easier to build and operate nuclear plants, and open up readily available oil reserves for drilling on land. (ANWAR).

#9 Earmarks are a factor in spending. When you are broke (and we are) you look at any way of saving money. Additionally this would help force our politicians to be voted on based upon the best policies rather than how much money they bring home.

#10 I agree with you, though I think #4 takes care of it. This is a list o the top 10 items those surveyed wanted there is some obvious overlap between #1 and #5 and between #4 and #10.

[Ursa Majoris]

#8 I honestly don't see where you get "it assumes one size fits all". What they are saying is look at all the options, don't take anything of the table. Look at solar and wind where affective, but also make it much easier to build and operate nuclear plants, and open up readily available oil reserves for drilling on land. (ANWAR).

#9 Earmarks are a factor in spending. When you are broke (and we are) you look at any way of saving money. Additionally this would help force our politicians to be voted on based upon the best policies rather than how much money they bring home.

So let's just look at these two. My point in #8 was that part of the platform is to "reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation". I assume from that the Tea Partiers will be just fine with a nuclear plant going up across the street? In France, individuals have very few rights in the face of government planning - is this really what the Tea Partiers want? Be careful about doing away with regulations - they may just be protecting YOU!

 

In #9, earmarks are a great sound bite for TV and anger generation but rolled up together they are as significant as the NPR subsidy. It's the equivalent of you being foreclosed on and finding a quarter in your driveway.

 

Nowhere in this Tea Party frenzy do I see any attempt to seriously tackle the things that really will make a difference. Perhaps they realize they get benefits from government programs themselves. Some Tea Partiers exist off the government tit without even realizing it, as has been shown by several interviews of Tea Party folks. Maybe they think Social Security just grows on trees?

[Perchoutofwater]

So let's just look at these two. My point in #8 was that part of the platform is to "reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation". I assume from that the Tea Partiers will be just fine with a nuclear plant going up across the street? In France, individuals have very few rights in the face of government planning - is this really what the Tea Partiers want? Be careful about doing away with regulations - they may just be protecting YOU!

 

In #9, earmarks are a great sound bite for TV and anger generation but rolled up together they are as significant as the NPR subsidy. It's the equivalent of you being foreclosed on and finding a quarter in your driveway.

 

Nowhere in this Tea Party frenzy do I see any attempt to seriously tackle the things that really will make a difference. Perhaps they realize they get benefits from government programs themselves. Some Tea Partiers exist off the government tit without even realizing it, as has been shown by several interviews of Tea Party folks. Maybe they think Social Security just grows on trees?

 

How long does it take to get a nuclear power plant permitted? Why does it take so long? Personally I don't have a problem with a nuclear power plant in my general vicinity, though I don't want it right across the street from my house I wouldn't have a problem with int being 20 miles from my house. There are still some isolated areas in every state, and in a most of the western states there are large isolated areas.

 

If you aren't willing to tackle the small stuff, whey are you going to be willing to tackle the big stuff Ursa? What is your opposition to getting rid of earmarks?

 

Most TEA party members I've talked to are in favor of slowly phasing out SS, and I fall in to this category. Others would like to see it slowly phased out as a retirement fund but left as a safety net for those that truly can not help themselves (I'd rather see the states take care of this). Still others would rather see it modified increasing the age based on life expectancy now versus when it was originally introduced. I haven't spoken to a single person who wants it to remain as it is.

 

Obviously the TEA Party is still in it's infancy and lacks any real structured organization. We typically know the general direction we want to go, but how to get there needs to be refined, and debated. As the party grows I think you will see more and more well refined plans on how to accomplish these issues, or support of more well refined plans offered by others. Most of the TEA Party people love Paul Ryan, and I can see them latching on to his plan as he refines it.

[Ursa Majoris]

How long does it take to get a nuclear power plant permitted? Why does it take so long? Personally I don't have a problem with a nuclear power plant in my general vicinity, though I don't want it right across the street from my house I wouldn't have a problem with int being 20 miles from my house. There are still some isolated areas in every state, and in a most of the western states there are large isolated areas.

 

If you aren't willing to tackle the small stuff, whey are you going to be willing to tackle the big stuff Ursa? What is your opposition to getting rid of earmarks?

Don't you think it's ironic that a group that believes government to be too big etc etc wants to reduce regulation so that the same government can easily permit corporations to ride roughshod over local and regional objections to such facilities as nuclear plants? It's even more ironic when it's local and regional government they prefer over federal.

 

As for earmarks, I'd love to see all of them eliminated. I just don't see the point in wasting time on relative trivia when there are big urgent issues to solve now. It's simple prioritization is all. FWIW, I would prefer there to be an annual "earmarks" bill so that all earmarks would be in one place and have to be justified (not all are worthless), as opposed to being tacked on to a totally unrelated bill.

[Perchoutofwater]

Don't you think it's ironic that a group that believes government to be too big etc etc wants to reduce regulation so that the same government can easily permit corporations to ride roughshod over local and regional objections to such facilities as nuclear plants? It's even more ironic when it's local and regional government they prefer over federal.

 

Who says that removing burdensome federal regulation would allow corporations to ride roughshod over state and local governments?

[cre8tiff]

I was really hoping my first person I put on ignore wouldnt be a Packer fan . . .

 

Oh well . . . .

 

If you put him on ignore, you also put his avatar on ignore. That may give you pause...

[Ursa Majoris]

Who says that removing burdensome federal regulation would allow corporations to ride roughshod over state and local governments?

Are you really that naive? Or do you think we're all idiots?

[redrumjuice]

All you need to know:

 

Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ‘No New Deficit Spending’

[Perchoutofwater]

Are you really that naive? Or do you think we're all idiots?

 

You forget that while I'm decreasing the hold the federal government has, I'm also for increasing the powers of the state governments. I can't speak to your state, but Texas has one of the fiercest environmental agencies around. I'd fully expect the states to weigh in. I also fully expect that I have a lot more control over my state government than I do over my federal government.

[Big John]

If you put him on ignore, you also put his avatar on ignore. That may give you pause...

Only the posts are blocked, you can still see the avatars of ignored members.

[bpwallace49]

Only the posts are blocked, you can still see the avatars of ignored members.

 

Yep.

 

 

[Ursa Majoris]

You forget that while I'm decreasing the hold the federal government has, I'm also for increasing the powers of the state governments. I can't speak to your state, but Texas has one of the fiercest environmental agencies around. I'd fully expect the states to weigh in. I also fully expect that I have a lot more control over my state government than I do over my federal government.

What do you do if a state wants to put one up on the border with another state?

 

In any case, what you are doing with this "regulation reduction" is giving government - any government - greater power over individuals. This is what France has done to get things completed quicker.

[gbpfan1231]

If you put him on ignore, you also put his avatar on ignore. That may give you pause...

Your Avi kinda freaks me out.

 

Enjoy the babe BP even if you can't read this.

[Azazello1313]

what the tea party is not:

 

GREENWICH, Conn. -- Democratic Rep. Jim Himes says he isn't afraid of the Tea Party. Specifically, the Connecticut freshman doesn't worry about the anti-bailout fervor endangering his Democratic colleagues.

 

"There's a 50-mile radius around New York City," Himes, a former Goldman Sachs banker, tells me, "where 'everything-is-Wall-Street's-fault' doesn't fly like it does in Iowa."

 

The 2008 Wall Street bailout helped ignite the Tea Party rebellion of 2010 that could give Republicans control of Congress. But if Himes is right, GOP enthusiasm could be lower in the New York suburbs than in the rest of the country because anti-TARP anger -- which Himes called "insane anger" before catching himself -- is nearly absent in these New York and Connecticut towns full of bankers and professionals with seven-figure retirement portfolios.

 

yeah they really stuck it to those fat-cats, didn't they?

 

Republicans Nancy Johnson and Chris Shays represented most of Connecticut's Western half through the late 1980s and all of the 1990s. When Connecticut lost a House seat to reapportionment, Johnson even beat a Democratic congressman in an incumbent-vs.-incumbent matchup in the 2002 general election.

 

Johnson lost in the Democratic wave of 2006, and Shays fell in the Obama tsunami of 2008. But unlike many of the Democratic pickups those years, the Connecticut results felt less like reversals and more like the last hurrah for a dying breed -- the northeastern suburban Republican.

 

Similarly, nearly all of Long Island was represented by GOP congressmen as recently as 1994. Today, there's only one Republican left out there. What's behind this trend?

 

Harold Bachmann, a retiree and Suffolk County native, blames the influx of city folk, which goes back to the 1960s when he noticed a new class of customers at the bar he owned. "You could tell, because they drank Rheingold."

 

In Connecticut, freshman Democrat Chris Murphy attributes his party's gains to GOP extremism. "There are a lot of Rockefeller Republicans in my district," he told me Tuesday night, "who feel they didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left them." Particularly, he cited "extreme social views."

[westvirginia]

Yeah, ever since Buchanon got involved in the Refrom Party and helped in splitting it up (how does one party contain both him and Ventura?) there's been as much of a '3rd party vacuum' as ever, and the Tea Party fills it, oddly within the Republican Party. I see Obama's election and TARP as the events which allowed for it to coallesce and get legs but it's been here consistently since Perot organized his movement back in 1992, which kinda buried Libertarians as The Viable 3rd Party (now they are on par with the Greens).

 

Sadly, I agree with you pope. I'm thinking of leaving the libertarian party because they just can't get it up...

[Brentastic]

Sadly, I agree with you pope. I'm thinking of leaving the libertarian party because they just can't get it up...

Nooooo. You must be resilient, there's new blood (me) and I'm a persistent S.O.B. We need our country back and Libertarian is the most logical path to progression. Don't give up now, work harder to get the right people in place.

 

We need to abolish the Fed, yesterday.

[evil_gop_liars]

Sadly, I agree with you pope. I'm thinking of leaving the libertarian party because they just can't get it up...

 

 

Nooooo. You must be resilient, there's new blood (me) and I'm a persistent S.O.B. We need our country back and Libertarian is the most logical path to progression. Don't give up now, work harder to get the right people in place.

 

We need to abolish the Fed, yesterday.

 

 

Yup...

[Pope Flick]

Sadly, I agree with you pope. I'm thinking of leaving the libertarian party because they just can't get it up...

 

 

I think we've talked about this: the Libertarians, in my mind, always suffered from the 80/20 problem. 80% of what they say I'm 100% on baord with. It's that 20% of crap they spew that wants to return us to a mid-19th Century isolationist country. They simply haven't updated their programs/planks what have you to reflect the reality of the 21st Century World.

[Azazello1313]

there is definitely