Tea Party Democrats

[BigBallinStalin]

I was going to rage about the uselessness of "tea partier'" as a label but I covered that in another thread. TL DR anyone can claim to be a tea partier and be endorsed/disowned by a small army of other tea partiers.

I have been making that point for some time... I keep getting told that I just don't understand the movement.

You don't. You still don't. And you probably never will. Because, you only focus on one type of idea and apply it inaccurately to all of them. Basically, you equate corporatism with Tea Party, and maybe you could explain how your logic got you there.

In general, the Tea Party does represent certain ideas and sentiments which most of them have in common. This is seen with Democrats and with Republicans as well, so it's not impossible or useless to use the label correctly.

However, what has happened is that certain politicians have jumped on that bandwagon by supporting a few of the general points while either not holding the promises or holding just a few of the promises. This further distorts the image, which is presented by certain media sources, who then distort the Tea Party image even more. Then some people take such images to be true, and here we are.

[thegreekdog]

BBS brings up a good point. There are members of the Republican party that don't agree with other members of the Republican party. Some Republicans (hell, some Republicans in Congress) are pro-choice, others are not. So what is the Republican Party? Is it pro-choice or pro-life?

And if we don't know the answer, does that make the Republicans dangerous?

[GreecePwns]

The Republican Party itself is what the official platform says it is, which is pro-life. it's members don't necessarily have to agree with it. Is there a Tea Party platform of any sort, and if so, are social issues covered by it?

[Baron Von PWN]

I was going to rage about the uselessness of "tea partier'" as a label but I covered that in another thread. TL DR anyone can claim to be a tea partier and be endorsed/disowned by a small army of other tea partiers.

I have been making that point for some time... I keep getting told that I just don't understand the movement.

You don't. You still don't. And you probably never will. Because, you only focus on one type of idea and apply it inaccurately to all of them. Basically, you equate corporatism with Tea Party, and maybe you could explain how your logic got you there.

In general, the Tea Party does represent certain ideas and sentiments which most of them have in common. This is seen with Democrats and with Republicans as well, so it's not impossible or useless to use the label correctly.

However, what has happened is that certain politicians have jumped on that bandwagon by supporting a few of the general points while either not holding the promises or holding just a few of the promises. This further distorts the image, which is presented by certain media sources, who then distort the Tea Party image even more. Then some people take such images to be true, and here we are.

I think my main beef with the tea party is its total lack of ideology or philosophy. Its lack of a leader or any kind of coherent message. It's merely an amalgamation of mushy anti tax rhetoric, If someone says "I'm a libertarian!" I have a good idea of what they might want to see government look like(very small, little interaction with market ect). If someone says "I'm a Tea partier!" I can assume they probably don't like taxes and not much else.

I may as well claim myself to be a tea partier. I think there should be less taxes, it should be accomplished by nationalizing various sectors of the economy until sufficient income is generated to remove the need for income taxes.

[PLAYER57832]

I was going to rage about the uselessness of "tea partier'" as a label but I covered that in another thread. TL DR anyone can claim to be a tea partier and be endorsed/disowned by a small army of other tea partiers.

I have been making that point for some time... I keep getting told that I just don't understand the movement.

You don't. You still don't. And you probably never will. Because, you only focus on one type of idea and apply it inaccurately to all of them. Basically, you equate corporatism with Tea Party, and maybe you could explain how your logic got you there

.
No, I don't.

I say that those who favor corporations have seen a wonderful opportunity in the Tea Party and are making sure that the rhetoric keeps being about "no new taxes", instead of "have we given corporations too many tax breaks, deductions, etc in the past".

In general, the Tea Party does represent certain ideas and sentiments which most of them have in common. This is seen with Democrats and with Republicans as well, so it's not impossible or useless to use the label correctly.

However, what has happened is that certain politicians have jumped on that bandwagon by supporting a few of the general points while either not holding the promises or holding just a few of the promises. This further distorts the image, which is presented by certain media sources, who then distort the Tea Party image even more. Then some people take such images to be true, and here we are.

In this case, anyone wanting to cut government or taxes will call the Tea Party "their own".. and then leap into whatever programs they really favor.

Do Tea Partiers rally to support corporations? No. But, supporting corporations is the result when we face such an incredible debt, directly as the result of huge tax breaks given the very wealthy and big corporations and refuse any option but cutting benefits.. the tax breaks continue for the wealthy and all the cuts are born by the middle and lower class.

I see that as akin to supporting corporations, whether intentional or not.

[Woodruff]

I constantly long for Doc Brown and luns to be more active.

Me too...I miss both of them.

[Woodruff]

I was going to rage about the uselessness of "tea partier'" as a label but I covered that in another thread. TL DR anyone can claim to be a tea partier and be endorsed/disowned by a small army of other tea partiers.

I have been making that point for some time... I keep getting told that I just don't understand the movement.

As I indicated before, there are two key elements to the Tea Party movement that cuts across everything: (1) Spend less; (2) Tax less.

Unless it's something that individual wants the government involved in, then "spend less" doesn't seem to be a particularly important point. While that's true of mainstream America (myself included), I find it makes the whole "spend less" claim to be useless because I don't know very many people at all that don't think our government needs to spend less.

[thegreekdog]

I was going to rage about the uselessness of "tea partier'" as a label but I covered that in another thread. TL DR anyone can claim to be a tea partier and be endorsed/disowned by a small army of other tea partiers.

I have been making that point for some time... I keep getting told that I just don't understand the movement.

As I indicated before, there are two key elements to the Tea Party movement that cuts across everything: (1) Spend less; (2) Tax less.

Unless it's something that individual wants the government involved in, then "spend less" doesn't seem to be a particularly important point. While that's true of mainstream America (myself included), I find it makes the whole "spend less" claim to be useless because I don't know very many people at all that don't think our government needs to spend less.

Which is why everyone belongs in the Tea Party.
Which is why it's so scary for the political establishment.

[Night Strike]

Do Tea Partiers rally to support corporations? No. But, supporting corporations is the result when we face such an incredible debt, directly as the result of huge tax breaks given the very wealthy and big corporations and refuse any option but cutting benefits.. the tax breaks continue for the wealthy and all the cuts are born by the middle and lower class.

I see that as akin to supporting corporations, whether intentional or not.

Then you're choosing to see things incorrectly. Cut the massive amounts of government spending and don't add any new taxes. You don't even have to lower tax rates to make most of the Tea Party members happy; just stop raising and threatening to raise taxes. When the country is spending $1.5 trillion dollars more than it makes every year, you think the problem is tax revenue and not the government spending too much? The reason why cuts have to be made to entitlements is that 1) they're the biggest chunk of the government's spending and 2) it's not the government's Constitutional role to be providing them anyway. People need to be weened off of their governmental dependence and start working for themselves.

[Phatscotty]

I say we have been compromising the spenders way for far too long. Every single year spending goes up and gov't grows. Yet the problems are worse than ever...hmmm When have the spenders ever compromised?

Says the guy who wants to spend more money by drug testing welfare recipients.

i know you think scotty and i are butt buddies, but this is wrong; if there were enough drug users denied welfare, then the government would actually be reducing expenditures.

My butt is jealous.

We should do what we can to discourage waste because it's the right thing to do.

[PLAYER57832]

Do Tea Partiers rally to support corporations? No. But, supporting corporations is the result when we face such an incredible debt, directly as the result of huge tax breaks given the very wealthy and big corporations and refuse any option but cutting benefits.. the tax breaks continue for the wealthy and all the cuts are born by the middle and lower class.

I see that as akin to supporting corporations, whether intentional or not.

Then you're choosing to see things incorrectly. Cut the massive amounts of government spending and don't add any new taxes. You don't even have to lower tax rates to make most of the Tea Party members happy; just stop raising and threatening to raise taxes. When the country is spending $1.5 trillion dollars more than it makes every year, you think the problem is tax revenue and not the government spending too much? The reason why cuts have to be made to entitlements is that 1) they're the biggest chunk of the government's spending and 2) it's not the government's Constitutional role to be providing them anyway. People need to be weened off of their governmental dependence and start working for themselves.

The problem with your assessment is that we NEED food programs, healthcare, education, safety inspections... and actually more environmental protection(not less!).

[Woodruff]

I was going to rage about the uselessness of "tea partier'" as a label but I covered that in another thread. TL DR anyone can claim to be a tea partier and be endorsed/disowned by a small army of other tea partiers.

I have been making that point for some time... I keep getting told that I just don't understand the movement.

As I indicated before, there are two key elements to the Tea Party movement that cuts across everything: (1) Spend less; (2) Tax less.

Unless it's something that individual wants the government involved in, then "spend less" doesn't seem to be a particularly important point. While that's true of mainstream America (myself included), I find it makes the whole "spend less" claim to be useless because I don't know very many people at all that don't think our government needs to spend less.

Which is why everyone belongs in the Tea Party.
Which is why it's so scary for the political establishment.

Which is why it's a waste of time for everyone to be claiming the Tea Party has a platform that means anything, unfortunately.

[Phatscotty]

the platform is fiscal responsibility.

it means less taxes, less spending, less borrowing, less government.

simple, but I'm sure you will do your best to make it difficult.

[Woodruff]

the platform is fiscal responsibility.
it means less taxes, less spending, less borrowing, less government.
simple, but I'm sure you will do your best to make it difficult.

It must NOT be that simple, since you personally DO want more spending and you personally DO want more government.

You keep talking out of both sides of your mouth.

[Phatscotty]

the platform is fiscal responsibility.
it means less taxes, less spending, less borrowing, less government.
simple, but I'm sure you will do your best to make it difficult.

It must NOT be that simple, since you personally DO want more spending and you personally DO want more government.

You keep talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I disagree. Where you point to where I want to spend more, actually comes out of that programs existing budget.

Fail

I am not 100% against gov't. I just want less of it. Because I can admit there are some areas of government that do work well as well as necessary institutions and regulations does not mean "I personally want more gov't"

I mean, how in the world do you attempt to define a person who advocates for the abolishing of numerous agencies of federal and state gov't as a person who wants more gov't?

fail

I am highly amused that you think you can define me. You are always way off, never right., never close. Ever.

fail

and yes. It remains simple

the platform is fiscal responsibility.
it means less taxes, less spending, less borrowing, less government.
simple, but I'm sure you will do your best to make it difficult. (or start attacking me)

[Night Strike]

Do Tea Partiers rally to support corporations? No. But, supporting corporations is the result when we face such an incredible debt, directly as the result of huge tax breaks given the very wealthy and big corporations and refuse any option but cutting benefits.. the tax breaks continue for the wealthy and all the cuts are born by the middle and lower class.

I see that as akin to supporting corporations, whether intentional or not.

Then you're choosing to see things incorrectly. Cut the massive amounts of government spending and don't add any new taxes. You don't even have to lower tax rates to make most of the Tea Party members happy; just stop raising and threatening to raise taxes. When the country is spending $1.5 trillion dollars more than it makes every year, you think the problem is tax revenue and not the government spending too much? The reason why cuts have to be made to entitlements is that 1) they're the biggest chunk of the government's spending and 2) it's not the government's Constitutional role to be providing them anyway. People need to be weened off of their governmental dependence and start working for themselves.

The problem with your assessment is that we NEED food programs, healthcare, education, safety inspections... and actually more environmental protection(not less!).

Then let state and local governments do those programs, not the federal government.

[PLAYER57832]

[ Then let state and local governments do those programs, not the federal government.

Far less efficient. Also, it is just pushing taxes from one pot into another.

[Night Strike]

[ Then let state and local governments do those programs, not the federal government.

Far less efficient. Also, it is just pushing taxes from one pot into another.

The federal government is the MOST inefficient government we have in this nation. Local governments have direct oversight of their students, know exactly where the most needy people are, can organize healthcare coverage with the local providers for low-income people, and can directly oversee every business for safety and food standards. The federal government can only increase taxes and bureaucracy. They can't actually affect the changes they want to see.

And for some areas, it might just be pushing taxes from one pot to another. But when you do that, suddenly many different tax rates start to pop up. If a city or state doesn't want to fund education programs for illegals like California does, then they won't need to raise taxes to cover those expenses. If a local government wants their citizens to pay for equal health care for everybody, they will redistribute the money accordingly. And suddenly with all of these different options available to people, the citizens can either accept the changes or move to locations that better suit their needs, whether that be more government handouts or less government regulation. And what's even better is that when regulations are handled on a local level, the citizens are more closely involved and can relatively quickly change things that are broken rather than just put up with wastefulness like we have to with the federal government running everything. Hmmm..........and this is how the founders envisioned our country to operate. What a novel concept!

[Phatscotty]

Do Tea Partiers rally to support corporations? No. But, supporting corporations is the result when we face such an incredible debt, directly as the result of huge tax breaks given the very wealthy and big corporations and refuse any option but cutting benefits.. the tax breaks continue for the wealthy and all the cuts are born by the middle and lower class.

I see that as akin to supporting corporations, whether intentional or not.

Then you're choosing to see things incorrectly. Cut the massive amounts of government spending and don't add any new taxes. You don't even have to lower tax rates to make most of the Tea Party members happy; just stop raising and threatening to raise taxes. When the country is spending $1.5 trillion dollars more than it makes every year, you think the problem is tax revenue and not the government spending too much? The reason why cuts have to be made to entitlements is that 1) they're the biggest chunk of the government's spending and 2) it's not the government's Constitutional role to be providing them anyway. People need to be weened off of their governmental dependence and start working for themselves.

The problem with your assessment is that we NEED food programs, healthcare, education, safety inspections... and actually more environmental protection(not less!).

Then let state and local governments do those programs, not the federal government.

Yup. You can choose to leave a state that becomes too oppressive/greedy/regulated. You shouldn't have to leave the country because of high taxes or regulations, although many people already have.

Likewise, you can choose to move to a state that has the best free healthcare and welfare. So long as the people of that state pay for their own government, and the people have a choice to support that or not. NS's suggestion would be a great victory for Freedom and Liberty, and even the pursuit of Happiness.

Choosing where to live would be like choosing the best possible meal for dinner every night.

[thegreekdog]

[ Then let state and local governments do those programs, not the federal government.

Far less efficient. Also, it is just pushing taxes from one pot into another.

You really think it's far less efficient? Can you explain your reasoning?

[Phatscotty]

I was going to rage about the uselessness of "tea partier'" as a label but I covered that in another thread. TL DR anyone can claim to be a tea partier and be endorsed/disowned by a small army of other tea partiers.

I have been making that point for some time... I keep getting told that I just don't understand the movement.

You don't. You still don't. And you probably never will. Because, you only focus on one type of idea and apply it inaccurately to all of them. Basically, you equate corporatism with Tea Party, and maybe you could explain how your logic got you there.

In general, the Tea Party does represent certain ideas and sentiments which most of them have in common. This is seen with Democrats and with Republicans as well, so it's not impossible or useless to use the label correctly.

However, what has happened is that certain politicians have jumped on that bandwagon by supporting a few of the general points while either not holding the promises or holding just a few of the promises. This further distorts the image, which is presented by certain media sources, who then distort the Tea Party image even more. Then some people take such images to be true, and here we are.

And overall, the agenda takes effect and if we can get more T.E.A. in Congress in 2012 we will be able to save America's balance sheet.

Rick Santelli's Tea Party rant heard round the world
Marco Rubio -What is the Tea Party?

Watch how these people vote in Washington rather than listening to how Lawrence Odonnel and Bill Maher tells you how stoopit they are. And I will tell you something right now, I think Bill Maher is Tea Party material, he just hasn't come out of the closet. I also think Jesse Ventura would be a great leader for the Tea Party. Tragically, I hear Jesse falling into smear campaign against the Tea Party based on race etc... Very tragic but I have confidence he will wake up. In fact, I'm going to write him a letter telling him why we need him. Jesse Ventura is a huge Ron Paul supporter and it really is sad

One can look at the members of the Tea Party Caucus, as it exists in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Members, 112th Congress

* Sandy Adams, Florida
* Robert Aderholt, Alabama
* Todd Akin, Missouri
* Rodney Alexander, Louisiana
* Michele Bachmann, Minnesota, Chairman
* Roscoe Bartlett, Maryland
* Joe Barton, Texas
* Gus Bilirakis, Florida
* Rob Bishop, Utah
* Diane Black, Tennessee
* Michael C. Burgess, Texas
* Paul Broun, Georgia
* Dan Burton, Indiana
* John Carter, Texas
* Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
* Howard Coble, North Carolina
* Mike Coffman, Colorado
* Ander Crenshaw, Florida
* John Culberson, Texas
* Jeff DuncanSouth Carolina
* Blake Farenthold, Texas
* Stephen Fincher, Tennessee
* John Fleming, Louisiana
* Trent Franks, Arizona
* Phil Gingrey, Georgia
* Louie Gohmert, Texas
* Vicky Hartzler, Missouri
* Wally Herger, California
* Tim Huelskamp, Kansas
* Lynn Jenkins, Kansas
* Steve King, Iowa
* Doug Lamborn, Colorado
* Jeff Landry, Louisiana
* Blaine Luetkemeyer, Missouri
* Kenny Marchant, Texas
* Tom McClintock, California
* David McKinley, West Virginia
* Gary Miller, California
* Mick Mulvaney, South Carolina
* Randy Neugebauer, Texas
* Rich Nugent, Florida
* Steve Pearce, New Mexico
* Mike Pence, Indiana
* Ted Poe, Texas
* Tom Price, Georgia
* Denny Rehberg, Montana
* Phil Roe, Tennessee
* Dennis Ross, Florida
* Ed Royce, California
* Steve Scalise, Louisiana
* Tim Scott, South Carolina
* Pete Sessions, Texas
* Adrian Smith, Nebraska
* Lamar Smith, Texas
* Cliff Stearns, Florida
* Tim Walberg, Michigan
* Joe Walsh, Illinois
* Allen West, Florida
* Lynn Westmoreland, Georgia
* Joe Wilson, South Carolina

[edit] Members of Senate Caucus

* Jim DeMint (South Carolina)[6]
* Mike Lee (Utah)[6]
* Jerry Moran (Kansas)
* Rand Paul (Kentucky)[6]

[thegreekdog]

PhatScotty - probably 80% of those people are merely neo-conservative, big spending Republicans.

[PLAYER57832]

[ Then let state and local governments do those programs, not the federal government.

Far less efficient. Also, it is just pushing taxes from one pot into another.

You really think it's far less efficient? Can you explain your reasoning?

The second is the most important.. its just pushing taxes from one pot into another. As much as corporations have power in the US, they have even more at the state level.

Beyond that, I gave a quick answer that lumped everything into one pot, when they are not the same. The federal government plain HAS to be in charge of pollution, environmental concerns. Even just the US is not large enough for some issues, they have to handled on an international level. You can protect a snail darter that is limited to a 50 mile stretch of river, but not most species. Even when it comes to the snail darter, we really need a comprehensive, overall plan. We need to be able to "pick our battles".

Food needs to be national for another reason. The state incomes, etc vary significantly. When people in one area go hungry, it hurts everyone, not just those people in that state. This is never more true than for kids. Now, I am among the first to levy complaints about the federal food program. And, one of the things I truly want to promote is schools purchasing more food locally. However, that change is not about whether the money comes from the state or federal government. I can gaurantee that MY kids are gettiing better food at school because of federal mandates. I can also pretty much assert that kids in Santa Barbara County, CA are likely not getting quite as good food as if the local planners had their say. However, I can also say that I know that kids in both Santa Barbara and my locality are getting decent food at reasonable prices, and that the federal food program is a big reason. Nightstrike, etc have talked about local food pantries and such. A lot of them recieve federal money or surplus food. (as do schools) The key is to have a mix. For example, whether a locality puts pinto beans, red beans or white beans in the food boxes would be a local issue. However, that beans are included maybe would be a federal issue (let's not get bogged down in specifics, please.. I am just throwing out hypothetical examples here).

Education is different again. Certain standards have to be mandated. Mississippi cannot just decide to have a KKK based curriculum. Kansas and Tennessee should not be allowed to eliminate whole sections of biology. Texas should not be allowed to rewrite history to eliminate some facts they dislike (discussion of ideas.. fine, actually altering facts.. no). Florida, however should be allowed to have bilingual education and northern California schools should be free to have project Wild Developed science programs using local species like salmon and redwoods as their base. In Colorado and Wyoming, it makes more sense to concentrate on wolves than on redwoods. The same basic biological principles should be taught in each, just the format differs. These standards can and should change over time and to some extent within regions. The problem with education is that there is not one, set model that "works for all". Also, so much research and evolution in both content (particularly science and business content) and delivery has come out that its hard to set one, clear standard. At least, the biggest thing that comes out is that its hard to have one, set, standard that can be tested on a multiple choice exam. This is why more local control works in that case. A lot of what method works has to do with the actual teachers available, the actual students present, etc. Even "local" control isn't always adaptable enough. What we really need is to allow teachers to truly teach... BUT that means having teachers that are all well qualified and sadly, we don't have that. One thing I do like is the idea of using more technology based programs. For example, having a teacher go over various things, but then letting computers do the basic tutoring.. teaching kids math, some other basic skills. That has to be monitored, with a back up of assistants available to help those kids who have difficulty with that method. However, most kids learn "mechanical" and "rote" type stuff as well or better via computer. (note.. this does require a LOT more explanation, but that would take a thread onto itself). Anyway, this lets the teachers concentrate on more critical thinking and what I call (for lack of a better word) "subtle teaching"... things like picking up on other people's attitudes, etc.

The problem I have with a lot of Nightstrike and now even your arguments are that you tend to be "all or nothing". You keep seeing the government as the enemy. It is not, CANNOT be our enemy. A nation divided CANNOT stand. That is the truth. Whatever our problems, if we are to continue to have a prosperous nation, we have to work within the government, not destroy it.

[PLAYER57832]

PhatScotty - probably 80% of those people are merely neo-conservative, big spending Republicans.

Exactly....

But since there is no real Tea Party.. they can do whatever they wish.

[PLAYER57832]

And for some areas, it might just be pushing taxes from one pot to another. But when you do that, suddenly many different tax rates start to pop up. If a city or state doesn't want to fund education programs for illegals like California does, then they won't need to raise taxes to cover those expenses.

OH please, this is not about educating the children of illegal workers (who mostly are citizens, anyway), this is about whether Texas or Kansas can mandate creationism, whether Mississippi can teach KKK directed curricula, etc.

If a local government wants their citizens to pay for equal health care for everybody, they will redistribute the money accordingly.

Bringing on even more extreme inequality... which hurts everyone. Those kids who don't get a good education in Texas are very free to migrate to New York.. where, if they are not properly prepared, they wind up on the welfare roles or worse (worse being drugs, other crime, etc.).

And suddenly with all of these different options available to people, the citizens can either accept the changes or move to locations that better suit their needs, whether that be more government handouts or less government regulation.

Not so easy to move when you are married, with kids, have a job (even if not a great one). Also, without the basis of a good education and health, moving does nothing but create another burden on the new local. Those areas with higher incomes, higher standards of living ALSO tend to have a higher standard of education, etc... and require more from even their lowest level employees. You can get paid more to do carpentry work in CA than in Mississippi, but the standards required are also much higher. There are some quite skilled artisans and carpenters in the south, but there are also a fair number who can barely handle a hammer.

And what's even better is that when regulations are handled on a local level, the citizens are more closely involved and can relatively quickly change things that are broken rather than just put up with wastefulness like we have to with the federal government running everything. Hmmm..........and this is how the founders envisioned our country to operate. What a novel concept!

Citizens can be just as stupid, or even more on the local level than on the national level. My locality, most of PA are prime examples... but this is long and I have to go now. (and that could take up an entire other thread).