[ErikNikolai]

The Tea Party movement has released it's statement of principles, called "The Contract from America". I was initially very skeptical about it, but turned out positively surprised. There is in fact not a single reference to religion in this contract, nor is there any advocacy of socially conservative policies. The contract is 100 % focused on individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom. A very positive development if you ask me.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[daydreamer]

do you think it is practical?

[ErikNikolai]

	Originally Posted by daydreamer To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	do you think it is practical?

In the long run, certainly. Moral, practical, and ideal.

[Rationality]

I keep seeing the Tea Party mentioned in the NYTimes but I'm not quite sure what their deal is yet. I have libertarian political views so I generally agree with their "contract". Unfortunately I don't see our government changing anytime soon.

[Cooper]

After a quick read, I cannot say I agree with it. I like the ideas of most of it, but I can see some 'loop holes' and some 'hidden' ways of letting is the religious right and others. I will have to read it again and take notes....

[larkin]

Originally Posted by ErikNikolai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Tea Party movement has released it's statement of principles, called "The Contract from America". I was initially very skeptical about it, but turned out positively surprised. There is in fact not a single reference to religion in this contract, nor is there any advocacy of socially conservative policies. The contract is 100 % focused on individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom. A very positive development if you ask me. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The stupidity of this document is manifold.

I'm only touching on a few that are particularly moronic. And in a couple of places I'm listing the year they're proposing we regress to by each provision. I swear to god, some people will not be happy until we're back on the fucking frontier.

	1.) Protect the Constitution. Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.

(Proposed year of regression: 1800) Newsflash: the U.S. already requires this through the process called judicial review. We've discussed this at some length
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. Sorry if they don't always agree with the outcome. Also, given the fact that the Tea Party routinely questions participation in the Census, an absolute and explicit Constitutional duty, I sincerely wonder if they're actually dedicated to the Constitution or just whatever they think it should be.

	4.) Enact Fundamental Tax Reform: 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.

(Proposed year of regression: under debate, but I'm pinning it to pre-1776, since progressive taxation was first espoused in The Wealth of Nations)
And yes, the tax code seems like it will be better and fairer when you can judge it by the number of words in it, doesn't it?

5.) Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete 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, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning.

Although I don't disagree with the idea, they are aware this already exists, right?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
are independent, report to a Presidential task force and are embedded in every cabinet department. Why, it's as if these people have no idea about actual federal governance.

	9.) Stop the Pork: place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.

Earmarks are nothing more than legislature-appropriated funds rather than bureaucratic-appropriated ones. These are almost always projects that would be federally funded anyway, and actually having it done by legislators ironically gives the projects a bit more transparency and accountability than if they were simply appropriated by an agency. There's a legitimate procedural complaint about earmarks - bureaucrats often complain, correctly if not rightfully, that it's legislative micromanagement - but it has nothing to do with stopping spending or balancing the budget.

As usual, no specific complaints about real violations of individual liberties. Also as usual, two choices: these people are either as shallow as or as stupid as the talking points they're promoting. I'm going with a little of both.

[LaoTzu]

It starts off decently, and devolves into the typical right-wing agenda. It also lacks in specificity in some key areas on how these things will be implemented properly.

Those items alone would not address the myriad of issues that the US faces right now.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by ErikNikolai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The Tea Party movement has released it's statement of principles, called "The Contract from America".

I'm a little ticked off that they signed it "The American People" despite the fact that it in no way represents The American People. It should be signed "The Tea Party." Or maybe, "Some People With An Internet Connection."

	Originally Posted by ErikNikolai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"We, the citizens of the United States of America, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America..."

This is a problem. I recognize that it mirrors things like the Declaration of Independence and the Magna Carta, but this is neither, and it is not even a binding contract. Even if it was a binding contract, it is barely more than some vague guidelines, ensuring that very little of it could be used to determine whether or not someone had violated it.

"Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices."

This has a huge philosophical problem. Rights ARE granted by the government. That's how they work. God has never once reached down from heaven and bitch slapped a government that was taking away the rights people thought they were born with. This is not a point that is difficult to support; what person alone in the wilderness talks about their inherent rights? Rights only exist when there is more than one person around. The right to life exists between a government and its citizens, not between a swimmer and the ocean.

Besides, who gets to decide what "excessive" control over economic choices is? That's weak.

"...When our government ventures beyond [limited powers] and attempts to increase its power over the marketplace and the economic decisions of individuals, our liberties are diminished and the probability of corruption, internal strife, economic depression, and poverty increases."

I'm not sure how the one directly follows from the other. This is incredibly vague. It seems like it would make more sense if they simply stopped at "limited government" and didn't add in a bit of fear mongering.

"The market economy, driven by the accumulated expressions of individual economic choices, is the only economic system that preserves and enhances individual liberty. Any other economic system, regardless of its intended pragmatic benefits, undermines our fundamental rights as free people."

This is probably right, but only technically. It leaves out an entire realm of equally well proven facts, the most important of which is that the market cannot account for things that don't have a dollar value attached to them. So, basically the Tea Party is saying that the tragedy of the commons doesn't matter, cuz everyone should be free to abuse common resources. And that's just for starters.

The rest of it is relatively specific acts, so those seem more appropriate in a different debate. Philosophically this makes sense, but it can't possibly work. It doesn't take enough of the real world into account. It sounds an awful lot like the ongoing battle between "centralized" and "distributed" architectures. The pendulum always swings back and forth because both have legitimate advantages, and both have legitimate disadvantages, and when you're using one it's a whole lot easier to see its disadvantages and the advantages of the one you're not using. It seems like the Tea Partiers are basically arguing against the current structure of the government simply because it's there, and not because they have a better idea.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by ErikNikolai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Tea Party movement has released it's statement of principles, called "The Contract from America". I was initially very skeptical about it, but turned out positively surprised. There is in fact not a single reference to religion in this contract, nor is there any advocacy of socially conservative policies. The contract is 100 % focused on individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom. A very positive development if you ask me. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

*shock* You mean the tea party movenent isn't what the liberal drive-by media casts it to be? Whodathunk?

Yes, these are ALL good ideas, and I think several have a good chance of happening, including repealing Obamacare, which presently is supported by the majority of Americans, if memory serves.

Maybe some of y'all should be come one.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	...repealing Obamacare, which presently is supported by the majority of Americans, if memory serves.

My memory tells me that people only favor repealing the health care bill when they don't know what's in it, but that if asked about each of the individual components they are in favor of it.

[ErikNikolai]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I swear to god, some people will not be happy until we're back on the fucking frontier.

It seems as though you believe that reducing the size and scope of government is analogous to reversing human progress. How did you come to that conclusion? Are you aware that Hong Kong and Singapore progressed from being third world hellholes to being two of the most prosperous countries/city states in human history (in just 60 years), by "moving back to the fucking frontier" as you put it?

There is nothing backwards about protecting individual rights. Calvin Coolidge said it well:

"About the Declaration of Independence there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the revolutionary fathers."

[larkin]

Originally Posted by ErikNikolai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There is nothing backwards about protecting individual rights. Calvin Coolidge said it well: "About the Declaration of Independence there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the revolutionary fathers."

This document mentions relatively little about individual liberties. The rights that are defined as inalienable by Jefferson based on Locke are: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness; this document mostly complains about taxes. Clearly, the founding fathers thought all of these inalienable rights were possible to guarantee while still being taxed, as long as the taxed were adequately represented. Which they are. As long as they fill out their census forms.

Plus, Calvin Coolidge? Is there a plan to reinvigorate the historical reputations of our crap Presidents that I'm generally unaware of here? Who are you going to quote next, James Buchanan?

	Originally Posted by ErikNikolai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It seems as though you believe that reducing the size and scope of government is analogous to reversing human progress. How did you come to that conclusion?

I thought I was pretty clear about what was regressive about the document; it apparently rejects the concepts of judicial review, established in 1801, and progressive taxation, first promoted by Adam Smith in 1776.

Sometimes reducing the size and the scope of the federal government is absolutely necessary; I never said reducing the size and the scope of government is fundamentally regressive. Although when attempted by stupid people (the type of people who say they want the federal government to be of a size where it can be "drowned in a bathtub" - doesn't that just seem like the ideals our founding fathers would have espoused?), it certainly can be.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My memory tells me that people only favor repealing the health care bill when they don't know what's in it, but that if asked about each of the individual components they are in favor of it.

But as the components, all of them, come out.. and the obvious results (see companies revising earnings report DOWN because of the bill), support for repeal continues to build.

[Arkeph]

I have to agree. I respect the intent of the teaparty group, but their ignorance about how the country is governed and was intended to be governed makes their stated goals incoherent.

We are in a genuine constitutional crisis with respect to the theory of the unitary executive and presidential powers in wartime, but the teapartiers are either not aware or don't care much about it. Many are in full support of unlimited executive power, even as they preach the virtues of limited government.

Our military costs us nearly a trillion dollars a year, but it's not a concern. ~$30 billion in earmarks, however, is enough to spark outrage.

Healthcare costs are soaring, as they have been for years, but the solution offered is to basically give insurance companies even greater ability to choose the regulatory framework they operate under while ignoring the very complex set of problems and incentives which are causing costs to rise. They want the government to stop regulating healthcare, but are extremely protective of established socialized healthcare programs.

Political corruption is blatant and destructive, but nothing is offered as a solution. The teaparty groups don't seem to be aware of how representatives are being manipulated by corporate interests, seeming to assume that ideology is the only thing that motivates the pols.

A huge emphasis is placed on balancing the federal budget, but a strong economic argument for doing so isn't offered and the only mechanism offered is to cap spending increases while tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration (famed for its budget deficits) are made permanent. "Have your cake and eat it too" could easily be the slogan of the teaparty movement.

By and large, this seems to be a group interested more affirming their own beliefs about what the country should be (hence the nostalgic and reality-defying rhetoric) than in finding solutions to the real problems the country faces. It's more of a shared fantasy than a reform movement.

	But as the components, all of them, come out.. and the obvious results (see companies revising earnings report DOWN because of the bill), support for repeal continues to build.

I really don't like the mandate, and I'm not sure if the exchanges are going to be in any way effective at lowering costs, but is there a lot of support for repealing provisions which prevent coverage being stripped from people who get sick?

[ArtistTyrant]

Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This document mentions relatively little about individual liberties. The rights that are defined as inalienable by Jefferson based on Locke are: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness; this document mostly complains about taxes. Clearly, the founding fathers thought all of these inalienable rights were possible to guarantee while still being taxed, as long as the taxed were adequately represented. Which they are. As long as they fill out their census forms. Plus, Calvin Coolidge? Is there a plan to reinvigorate the historical reputations of our crap Presidents that I'm generally unaware of here? Who are you going to quote next, James Buchanan? I thought I was pretty clear about what was regressive about the document; it apparently rejects the concepts of judicial review, established in 1801, and progressive taxation, first promoted by Adam Smith in 1776. Sometimes reducing the size and the scope of the federal government is absolutely necessary; I never said reducing the size and the scope of government is fundamentally regressive. Although when attempted by stupid people (the type of people who say they want the federal government to be of a size where it can be "drowned in a bathtub" - doesn't that just seem like the ideals our founding fathers would have espoused?), it certainly can be.

1. its not an issue of protesting taxation, its an issue of being taxed and simultaneously taken advantage of by the federal government, while lacking options to change the federal government, because the two party system is entrenched in politics and doesn't seem to be changing

2. Calvin Coolidge was the best president of the 20th century

3. having judicial rule doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a transparent claim for what taxpayer money is going towards, through the Constitution...like it or not, that document is the foundation of the US, and proponents of major spending should be able to state why it is necessary to spend huge sums of money taken from the citizens, through a principle or clause of the Constitution, if they do not, they are either corrupt, grasping for power through illegitimate means, or both...the main concern of politicians is supposed to be the welfare of their constituents

4. Adam Smith was a Scottish economist, not an American Founding Father

[wunder]

Conspicuously reminiscent of the conservative Contract With America, the propaganda device that helped sweep Republicans to a majority, presented by Newt Gingrich with a little help from conservative think tanks. Wonder if the author of Contract From America is the same ghost pundit. Heritage Foundation?

[Holiman]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	*shock* You mean the tea party movenent isn't what the liberal drive-by media casts it to be? Whodathunk? Yes, these are ALL good ideas, and I think several have a good chance of happening, including repealing Obamacare, which presently is supported by the majority of Americans, if memory serves. Maybe some of y'all should be come one.

*shock* the media has represented the Tea Party to be a poorly educated (about US politics and history) group that speaks almost entirely in slogans with no thought or deeper answers behind them. Im thinking this document proves that, the Tea baggers have also been notoriouse about not involving themselves in social issues because of their devisive effects. I personally would love goverment reform but I dont see anything in the bagger movement.

[boldbidder]

Once the tea partiers are able to get back to work this will all die down. People love to take up causes/crusades when they've got tons of time on their hands.

With that said, I think it would be inaccurate to give the entire tea party movement credit for this document as it has largely become a collection of splinter factions without discernible leadership or direction. This document only representing one of those factions.

The most dangerous part in all of this is that some very opportunistic politicians will invariably take advantage of the movements enthusiasm, get themselves elected and continue to maintain the status quo in Washington. Kinda like undergrad cafeteria; chicken cutlets on Monday yields Diced Chicken Pasta on Tuesday. Mmmm mmmm good.

[LaoTzu]

My biggest issue with the Tea-Partiers is that they were silent while BushCo was in absolute control for 6 years, running up massive debt and wiping thier asses with the constitution...

If there is any doubt about their true aim, this is the most telling part of it.

It's important for them to be heard; when they're making actual arguments and positing realistic solutions... but I'm not convinced they have done so as of yet.

I'd like to hope that they'll not become a tool of the GOP ... but it's probably a forgone conclusion.

[hubcap]

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This has a huge philosophical problem. Rights ARE granted by the government. That's how they work. God has never once reached down from heaven and bitch slapped a government that was taking away the rights people thought they were born with. This is not a point that is difficult to support; what person alone in the wilderness talks about their inherent rights? Rights only exist when there is more than one person around. The right to life exists between a government and its citizens, not between a swimmer and the ocean.

If the government of the United States governs with the consent of the people, it is impossible that the government is the source of the peoples authority or rights. So, in the United States rights are NOT granted by the government. Rights can be illegitimately usurped by the government or the people can willingly relinquish their rights to the government, but the government is not the source of the peoples rights.

[boldbidder]

Originally Posted by LaoTzu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My biggest issue with the Tea-Partiers is that they were silent while BushCo was in absolute control for 6 years, running up massive debt and wiping thier asses with the constitution... If there is any doubt about their true aim, this is the most telling part of it. It's important for them to be heard; when they're making actual arguments and positing realistic solutions... but I'm not convinced they have done so as of yet. I'd like to hope that they'll not become a tool of the GOP ... but it's probably a forgone conclusion.

They still had jobs then, that's why they were silent. Kinda hard to be pissed about the constitutionality of earmarks when you're pulling a double shift.

[hubcap]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I thought I was pretty clear about what was regressive about the document; it apparently rejects the concepts of judicial review, established in 1801, and progressive taxation, first promoted by Adam Smith in 1776.

Judicial review only works if you can get before the court, and ultimately only if you can get in front of the Supreme Court, and rarely does any decision made by the Supreme Court make everyone happy. How did you feel about the judicial review in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission? That ruling upset Obama to the point where he publicly criticized the Court in the State of the Union speech.

Sometimes reducing the size and the scope of the federal government is absolutely necessary; I never said reducing the size and the scope of government is fundamentally regressive. Although when attempted by stupid people (the type of people who say they want the federal government to be of a size where it can be "drowned in a bathtub" - doesn't that just seem like the ideals our founding fathers would have espoused?), it certainly can be.

Who gets to determine which people are stupid? Should we restrict the right to vote only to those people who aren't stupid?

I think it is beyond stupid to have a national debt that exceeds GDP.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 08:55 PM ----------

Originally Posted by LaoTzu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My biggest issue with the Tea-Partiers is that they were silent while BushCo was in absolute control for 6 years, running up massive debt and wiping thier asses with the constitution... If there is any doubt about their true aim, this is the most telling part of it. It's important for them to be heard; when they're making actual arguments and positing realistic solutions... but I'm not convinced they have done so as of yet. I'd like to hope that they'll not become a tool of the GOP ... but it's probably a forgone conclusion.

Actually most of the folks in the Tea Party were unhappy with Bush too. The Tea Party didn't start just because of Obama. The republicans were aware their base was pissed but they also knew their base wouldn't vote for a liberal democrat - so they took them for granted. FTR there are many democrats in the Tea Party movement.

People in general are just pissed at the government in general.

[Warrior]

	Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Many are in full support of unlimited executive power, even as they preach the virtues of limited government. I really don't like the mandate, and I'm not sure if the exchanges are going to be in any way effective at lowering costs, but is there a lot of support for repealing provisions which prevent coverage being stripped from people who get sick?

I have been to several tea Party events and heard several members speak outside of those events as well. Not once has anyone come close to saying they were in favor of unlimited executive power.

Some type of meaningful reform on how insurance companies handle policy holders that get sick or that have pre-existing conditions is supported by every Republican and Tea Party member I have heard speak on the subject.

[daydreamer]

	Originally Posted by ErikNikolai To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In the long run, certainly. Moral, practical, and ideal.

moral? without reference to religion?

ideal, why? because it is moral? or is it ideal despite being moral...

practical is not usually something i associate to be true of some that is either moral, or ideal.

i think the document does make claims to all three, unsuccessfully, and incompletely.

[Tristan]

	Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Our military costs us nearly a trillion dollars a year, but it's not a concern. ~$30 billion in earmarks, however, is enough to spark outrage.

The military is a function of government. People complain that the military is unnecessary in a peaceful world, perhaps failing to consider that the military's overwhelming power carries a corresponding deterrence, and is thus important in this peace. Earmarks are just bribes used to get undesirable legislation through that normally wouldn't be able to pass. Thus, $30 billion is cover for a much larger, manifold cost in obnoxious legislation and spending.

	Originally Posted by LaoTzu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My biggest issue with the Tea-Partiers is that they were silent while BushCo was in absolute control for 6 years, running up massive debt and wiping thier asses with the constitution... If there is any doubt about their true aim, this is the most telling part of it.

Order of magnitude may be a factor. While Bush was a high deficit spender, Obama acquainted the country with a much larger scale of deficit spending in the first year, and is expected to continue to run much larger deficits than Bush.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The other factor is what I just mentioned above about the military. Bush ran deficits on an augmented military agenda; this would be accepted uncritically by anyone favoring military over domestic spending. It's not "telling" at all if we recognize that legitimate spending is all in one's perspective.