Posted by blogbudsman on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 6:24 AM:
Here's a thorough (long) article attempting to assess the Tea Party movement. Americans are called upon from time to time by those in power taking advantage of our good graces and forgetting why we put them in office. They do not relinquish power gracefully and will fight ruthlessly to preserve their power. The outcome is never guaranteed. An informed electorate is absolutely necessary for the survival of our nation - regardless of your individual philosophy of life; and what we wish for the next generations.
There is no single "Tea Party." The name is an umbrella that encompasses many different groups. Under this umbrella, you'll find everyone from the woolly fringe to Ron Paul supporters, from Americans for Prosperity to religious conservatives, independents, and citizens who never have been active in politics before. The umbrella is gigantic. But there are discernible ribs that extend outward from its central post, and points of shared concern that support the overall structure.
First, the Tea Party is unified by the pervasive sense that the country is wildly off course. It believes the establishment has bent and twisted the rules for its own benefit. America, the Tea Partiers believe, is headed for a fiscal reckoning unlike any it has ever seen.
Second, the Tea Party is unified in opposition to the policies that it believes put America in its current predicament. It's opposed to bailouts, which favor the wealthy and connected. It's opposed to out-of-control spending at every level of government. It's opposed to an expansive state that subsidizes bad behavior while accruing more and more power for itself, opposed to a limitless government that nonetheless fails in the basic duties of securing the borders, regulating the financial sector, and keeping America safe.
Third, the Tea Party draws its strength from the American founding. It celebrates the Founders and their ideas. Tea Party members devour books about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Samuel Adams. They carry pocket copies of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They believe strongly in the Bill of Rights, especially in the Tenth Amendment's admonition that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. Their rhetoric invokes the constitutional vision of a limited government with enumerated powers.
Replies (32)
I had an idea last night to gradually reduce the Federal deficit... phase out Social Security.
We all know it's headed towards doom anyways. So my thoughts are to enact a law to have it abolished in about 20 years. This would hopefully help gain people's attention as to the importance of saving, but not hurt anyone right now. I think SS was the the start of the landslide of trying to save people from themselves, and would be an absolutely huge step in reversing the trend.
-- Posted by almighty on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 7:04 AM
Reminds me of that sign in the dentist's office - "Ignor your teeth and they'll go away."
almighty my friend, Social Security is broke. It's phasing itself out. That ship has already sailed.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 7:13 AM
You have a bit of a point, but the problem I see is that unless it were officially gone, the government would continually authorize itself to print more & more money to fund Social Security. Then they would authorize themselves to print money for other needs once they did that. Then the dollars value would go out the wazoo even further.
-- Posted by almighty on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 7:25 AM
I went to a candidate forum sponsered by the Tea Party in Rolla yesterday evening. There were a lot of good discussions regarding making the necessary spending reductions to start working down the public debt, stop borrowing, and stop inflating the currency.
Everything was on the table - earmarks, SS, Medicare, the wars. One of the candidates, I don't know who ;) even threw out a state's right to seceed during a nullification discussion.
Nobody walked out in indignation; clutching their breasts in utter shock.
The tea in Rolla has a lot of reality in it.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 8:44 AM
Spaniard wrote:
"I am surprised to learn that the teabaggers believe that a basic duty of the federal government is to regulate the financial sector."
Do you have some evidence to support this claim?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 8:49 AM
Never mind, I overlooked that line in my first read. Yes, I too am surprised to believe they think that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 8:51 AM
Spaniard wants to disregard the Tea Party becuase it threatens his beloved democrats.
Vandeven.. sounds like a very interesting meeting. Good to know. Hope it gave you some ideas.
-- Posted by Skeptic1 on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 8:52 AM
Well, the Democrats do have an apparent double stardard on this issue:
ACORN is good, because it encourages people to participate in the political process.
TEA Party is bad, because it encourages people to participate in the political process.
To the best of my knowledge, the TEA Party has not been encouraging people to violate the law or to intimidate voters. Yet, the Democrats find them to be a threat to political process. Meanwhile, in cases that appear to involve actual lawbreaking and voter intimidation, the Democrats are silent:
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 9:14 AM
Ironically the Tea Party is actually more of a Republican threat, adidas. There's much better chances of people splitting loyalties between Repubs & Tea Party than taking them off the Dems support list.
-- Posted by almighty on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 9:14 AM
adidas,
There were good ideas shared by all. I learned a lot.
almighty,
I live down here in Democrat Scott County. There is a gentleman that I know who is a hardcore Dem - he painted the "Had Enough, Vote Democrat" logo on the bed of his truck. Hell, he may have wrote the thing because it has been on there for 10 years or more.
Anyhow, the other day I couldn't help but notice the freshly painted logo on his truck bed: "Had Enough Change Yet?"
The Democrats are going to stay home in November, just like the Republicans stayed home in 2006.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 9:24 AM
almighty, you're probably correct, but so what. Actually, it hasn't worked out that way so far; and even Democrats are beginning to buck the administration. Heck, they aren't even going to do their jobs and approve a budget this year, let alone attend their own constituent meetings at home. Let's not let a good crisis go to waste - they should all be scared, party be damned.
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 9:27 AM
Well, we can't be held responsible when Ike slips over the edge in to hyperbole.
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 10:41 AM
Well, we can't be held responsible when Ike slips over the edge in to hyperbole.
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 10:41 AM
Typical voyager - someone asks a question - a Dem answers when their thoughts and then you snipe. Yeah...you are way ahead of us. laughing Bring on the quote...
-- Posted by concerned4all on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 10:51 AM
Spaniard wrote:
"This democrat is not threatned by the tea party nor do I believe they pose a threat at the ballot box. I do, however, believe they are nothing more than misguided, under-informed angry people who cannot articulate a consistent common message as to what they stand for. I think they are either cowards or hypocrites for only now speaking out against "big government" and spending."
Ah! But you accuse me of lumping all Democrats together, and then you lump all TEA Party members together in the same manner.
The TEA Party is a movement, it is not a political party. They do not have a platform, as such. To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single, controlling entity. Any group can band together under the TEA Party banner, apparenlty, sans 'committee approval'. Thus, the TEA Party of Cape Girardeau may differ broadly from the TEA Party of Alexander County, IL.
Is this really any different from the Democrat or Republican Parties? Do the candidates and spokespeople for the Democrat Party of Cape Girardeau reflect the views of Democrat National Committee? Do the Republicans? I hardly thinks so.
I've seen Democrats run as Republicans and Republicans run as Democrats. I've seen Republicans run on the Libertarian ticket and on the Reform Party ticket. Do they abandon one set of beliefs in favour of the other when they switch party tickets? I doubt it.
We have liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. There are Libertarian Republicans and Moderate Democrats. With all this diversity in parties that have a written platform, why would anyone expect a fledgling group of voters who feel disenfranchised by the current parties to present a unified front.
When you consider that they do not even have a unifying leader such as the Reform Party had with Ross Perot, whose banner they are to unify behind, their differences are all the more understandable. There are many vying for that role. We'll have to wait and see if one steps forward. It is actually interesting to note that this is one the few recent political movements that has not sprung up around a single personality, and has instead sprung up around ideas.
As for the 'angry' part, I will note that Democrats were pleased with 'voter anger' when it was propelling them to power. The "Had Enough?" bumper stickers were designed to focus that anger. Now that the anger has turned on them, they seem to think that voter anger is a bad thing.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 11:20 AM
Why do you say they are 'only now speaking out against 'big government' and spending? Have you been asleep the past twenty years? It was speaking out against 'big government' and spending that elected Ronaldus Maximus. President Clinton was forced to proclaim "The era of big government is over", even though it was a lie. They spoke out in 1994, when they threw out the Democrats the last time.
They were not silent during the Bush years, but they had nowhere to focus their anger. The alternative to the Republicans was the Democrats. Finally, when they were convinced that they had 'had enough', many of them helped throw the Republicans out. How has that worked out for them?
Now, they are forced with no choice. The big spending Republicans were thrown out, and replaced with the bigger spending Democrats. We've lost what little restraint there was, and now there is no choice. The Republicans haven't gotten the message, so they are looking for a new voice. The TEA Party offers some semblance of unity, some sense of common cause against the pressures of 'big government' that is lacking in both political parties today.
Sen. McCain offered no indication that he was going to stand against the tide. Sen. Obama was an unknown, he talked a good game, and convinced many that he might, indeed, change Washington. When he came to power, it was evident that he would not. Do you expect those that were fooled by the Rhetoric, that were left with no real choices in the past election, to remain silent as they country the love is driven towards bankruptcy with generous giveaways that we can not afford?
They are unified, to an extent, under the cause of less government, less spending, less taxes. How much less remains an issue amongst the individual members and the local chapters. They have common cause, even if not a common goal. I ask again, how is that different from other political groups.
Cowards? Hypocrites? Hardly. If you can't see that the events of the past three years have changed the political spectrum, you are surely blind. The cowardly thing to do would be to remain silent while our future is sold from under us.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 11:44 AM
Spaniard,
While it isn't in my pocket, I do keep a copy of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence in my I-Phone. I also read them about every week.
-- Posted by non-biasedphilosopher on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 12:02 PM
James,
There was a question last night along the same lines regarding which federal departments I would work to eliminate. I answered...
Dept of Homeland Security
Dept of Education
IRS
EPA
BATF
DEA
That's a nice list to start with. While technically not a public entity, I also want to end the Federal Reserve.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 12:20 PM
The Tea Party can't save crap. The only salvation for this "great country" is educated voting, elimination of hand-outs on ALL levels, and staying out of foreign nation building activities.
-- Posted by crackpot on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 1:23 PM
James Nall wrote:
"As a former Navy person, I would cut out all carriers, escorts, and cruisers."
Maintaining a Navy is one of the few constitutional duties our government has. I would start with the things that aren't in the Constitution: Social Security & Medicare for example. Of course, we can't just cut them, now that we have such a dependency on them, so we have to phase them out - let them 'wither on the vine', as Newt Gingrich so well put it before he was raked over the coals for his comments, primarily by Democrats.
I notice you left entitlements out of your list.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 2:18 PM
James Nall wrote:
"The Constitution means whatever the government says it means, we are a democracy now."
No, we are not. We are Kakistocracy, at best.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 2:34 PM
almighty ... My opinion is that the 'intent' of SS has changed since it's inception. It is also my opinion that just as back then, many people, whether due to their financial inability to 'squeeze' savings into their budget or simply not capable of seeing the value of that preparation, will not 'save for retirement.'
The only way that would work is for our leaders to pass a law making it mandatory to save for retirement. Hmm ... individual savings ... with compounded interest ... To be drawn out based upon life expectancy upon retirement by the individual. What do you think?
When SS was instituted, the qualifying age was exactly what the average American male life span was ... it probably wasn't meant to be so much of a 'retirement' benefit as a feel-good plan. Can't recall what the percent taken for it from wages were then but that has gradually risen considerably, as well as SS monthly payments.
There need to be major changes, but those would probably be political death to anyone who voted for them. For one thing, the payments to widows with children should be changed (not eliminated!) to reflect what the father and his employer(s) paid into the system, even including compounded interest. As it is, a child could possibly be drawing the father's SS benefits for 15 years or more ... and the mother, if she doesn't re-marry, could also be drawing a check. Perhaps all that is balanced out by those (without dependents) who die before they reach retirement age?
adidas ... Seldom disagree with you, but I view the 'Tea Party,' at least at this point, as being more of a threat to the Republican party than the Democratic one. I certainly hope I'm wrong in that opinion ... because otherwise, we're going to have the current president elected again. Guess a lot of it might depend upon who the next candidates are ... and so far, I haven't seen any 'possibles' who might induce any large number of Democrats to change their mindset.
But yes ... indications are the Democrats are becoming unhappy with the current administration ... not necessarily because of disagreement over 'policy,' but because of declining popularity. Still, that's probably not going to affect their votes much in a presidential election, nor their firm (stubborn?) support of their party itself.
UH OH ... I seem to be in agreement with almighty! Isn't there a book titled 'How to Win Friends and Influence People?' I should pick up a copy maybe? ~grinning~
-- Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 4:29 PM
Where's Batman when you need him? Oh right he probably can't afford his gadgets and Bat-mobile anymore.
-- Posted by almighty on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 5:55 PM
gurusmom wrote:
"The only way that would work is for our leaders to pass a law making it mandatory to save for retirement. Hmm ... individual savings ... with compounded interest ... To be drawn out based upon life expectancy upon retirement by the individual. What do you think?"
You mean sort of a privatized plan? Privatize Social Security? Isn't that something like the 'risky scheme' the Democrats rejected when President George Bush proposed it?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 7:54 PM
And what, may I be so bold to ask, is a Kakistocracy?
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 8:22 PM
Yes, adidas ... sort of what Bush proposed ... and I supported at least the theory or principle of it, while suspecting that it wouldn't turn out the way anticipated, once all the politicians got through with it (sort of like when I supported us having some kind of health care, then seeing what our leaders actually did with it) ... I sometimes wonder, speaking of Bush ... what his terms in office might have been if it hadn't been for 9/11.
I keep meaning to ask how you're doing?
I dunno, Lemmie ... hadn't thought that far along about SS being an individual retirement savings plan. Thinking now, though ... that our government could hold the funds (NO borrowing or ...) and then pay the compounded interest ... which could possibly be much less expensive than the way it's all being handled now?
The way I see it, though, is that I would trust a banking institute with a good, solid reputation about 100% more than I now trust our government ... especially when it comes to 'handling' our money.
Guess it just keeps boiling down to ... many of us having a (probably deserved) lack of trust in our government ...
-- Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Jun 23, 2010, at 11:49 PM
voyager asked:
"And what, may I be so bold to ask, is a Kakistocracy?"
Good God, man! You own a computer, do you not know how to Google" ;)
bad government: government by the most unscrupulous or unsuitable people, or a state governed by such people."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 24, 2010, at 8:57 AM
How did this screwball term originate? Why use the term. It would be clear and more understandable writing if "bad government" were usedSorry, I'm a skeptic. Its difficult to accept as viable some Google results.
-- Posted by voyager on Thu, Jun 24, 2010, at 9:02 AM
The term 'Kakistocracy' has been around a long time. We used in the Navy (where the officers wore Khaki, so we changed it to 'Khakistocracy'), but it originates from the Greek ' á'é--ôþò'.
Since Mr. Nall suggested that we were a 'Democracy', which we're not, it seemed approriate to me to counter with another '-ocracy', rather than merely saying we have bad government. It is possible to have bad government under a Democracy, a Republic, or a Monarchy, but Kakistocracy refers to a specific form of government, in which the most unethical or most unqualifid people run the government.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 24, 2010, at 9:12 AM
Menu
Here's a thorough (long) article attempting to assess the Tea Party movement. Americans are called upon from time to time by those in power taking advantage of our good graces and forgetting why we put them in office. They do not relinquish power gracefully and will fight ruthlessly to preserve their power. The outcome is never guaranteed. An informed electorate is absolutely necessary for the survival of our nation - regardless of your individual philosophy of life; and what we wish for the next generations.
The article:
http://weeklystandard.com/print/articles/two-faces-tea-party
There is no single "Tea Party." The name is an umbrella that encompasses many different groups. Under this umbrella, you'll find everyone from the woolly fringe to Ron Paul supporters, from Americans for Prosperity to religious conservatives, independents, and citizens who never have been active in politics before. The umbrella is gigantic. But there are discernible ribs that extend outward from its central post, and points of shared concern that support the overall structure.
First, the Tea Party is unified by the pervasive sense that the country is wildly off course. It believes the establishment has bent and twisted the rules for its own benefit. America, the Tea Partiers believe, is headed for a fiscal reckoning unlike any it has ever seen.
Second, the Tea Party is unified in opposition to the policies that it believes put America in its current predicament. It's opposed to bailouts, which favor the wealthy and connected. It's opposed to out-of-control spending at every level of government. It's opposed to an expansive state that subsidizes bad behavior while accruing more and more power for itself, opposed to a limitless government that nonetheless fails in the basic duties of securing the borders, regulating the financial sector, and keeping America safe.
Third, the Tea Party draws its strength from the American founding. It celebrates the Founders and their ideas. Tea Party members devour books about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Samuel Adams. They carry pocket copies of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They believe strongly in the Bill of Rights, especially in the Tenth Amendment's admonition that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. Their rhetoric invokes the constitutional vision of a limited government with enumerated powers.
Replies (32)