[Yhor]

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.

That's a really good point. However, I think the important demographic of the Tea Party is their average age. Most of them either are on SS/MC, or are approaching the age when they will start to draw from it. I think they are trying to cement the retirement benefits that they planned on their whole life because they are genuinely worried the rest of the country (younger people) will start to cut back on government benefits to try to keep the programs afloat. Old people just want to get their money and die. Young people are starting to think it's time to screw the old people and keep the nation's retirement plan from bankrupting the country. After all, it's the old people who allowed congress to spend all that money too early, so fuck'em.

I went to a rally on Thursday at our capitol. I wanted to see it first hand, so I could see if the news portrayed it as something it wasn't. Our local news seemed pretty fair with reporting the event, but I haven't caught much national news on it except some rambling from Rachel Maddow. I found it very peaceful and to be a lot of people my age (mid-upper 30's) mixed up with a few 55+ and even teens and 20 somethings.

The message was one of fighting with a ballot box, not physical violence. The worry you seem to think they have about cutting programs for retirement isn't worry programs will be cut, it's worry that the money they've been forced to put in for their entire working lives will be lost to unintended spending of that money... fraud if you will. That is one of the things that motivates government opposition, the taking of money via tax on their income and spending it on items that are not at all connected to what it's promoted purpose is for. When the government takes money from SS and Medicare and spends it on anything other than it's intended purpose, that is robbery of the people who were told they can rely on it and trust the government to use it for it's intended purpose. Stealing from the citizens is mostly what brought about the first tea party... why don't people understand this?

[Tristan]

I'm totally against the "End Runaway Spending" bullet point: "impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending..." People don't realize that such a restriction can be dangerous.

That being said, there is no question that we spend too much. The military is effective but not efficient with this level of spending, and all of our social programs are neither effective nor efficient. The trick to limiting spending is not to have a statutory restriction, but to have an electorate rife with fiscal hawks. Perhaps we could repeal women's suffrage. Women never care about how much stuff costs. Just kidding, just kidding.

[Night Runner]

My favorite political blog just posted a brilliant in-depth analysis of this contract. The title says it all:
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.

[Tristan]

That analysis is worthless. According to the very sources he cites, the deficit will continue to rise even if the Bush tax cuts are repealed. Then, he says that fiscal conservatives (which I take to mean both the politicians and the rank-and-file) do not want to make the cuts. To support this view, he cites
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stammering about not wanting her social security cut. Yes, he cites one Tea Partier. And Social Security is not part of the deficit. In fact Social Security is being looted because despite the fact that it's not solvent, it's not yet as blatantly unbalanced as the, uh, "tax-supported" federal outlays.

Over the last eight decades, discontent with the federal government's efficacy has grown in proportion to its spending. Don't repeal tax cuts; instead, cut spending to the austere limits of the revenue base.

[realitycheque]

I don't know if anyone else has concluded this, but it seems today's Tea Partiers were yesterday's happy Teaquila Partiers who woke up from being drunk on easy credit and tax deferrals (aka tax cuts) and unbudgeted warmongering, claimed to have found fiscal religion after the 2008 elections, and became hungover Teatotalers who will fall back off the wagon (if not already hanging off the side).

[meanlittlechimp]

Most of these jackasses don't even realize social security and medicare is a government program.
Survey from CBS/Nytimes
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"And nearly three-quarters of those who favor smaller government said they would prefer it even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut.

But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

Others could not explain the contradiction.

“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”

Translation: she just didn't like the idea of the mud people getting free shit (it never occurred to her that rednecks get benefits too).

Not only do they have no clue about taxes or what is, or isn't the federal government, they think Obama is a muslim and not born in the United States. Let's face it, they are the modern equivalent of yokels protesting civil rights and blacks and women being allowed to vote 50 or 100 yrs ago. They are the most reactionary, conservative, racist ignorant shitheads of our generation.

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

The message was one of fighting with a ballot box, not physical violence. The worry you seem to think they have about cutting programs for retirement isn't worry programs will be cut, it's worry that the money they've been forced to put in for their entire working lives will be lost to unintended spending of that money... fraud if you will. That is one of the things that motivates government opposition, the taking of money via tax on their income and spending it on items that are not at all connected to what it's promoted purpose is for. When the government takes money from SS and Medicare and spends it on anything other than it's intended purpose, that is robbery of the people who were told they can rely on it and trust the government to use it for it's intended purpose. Stealing from the citizens is mostly what brought about the first tea party... why don't people understand this?

Really? If it's about the issues, why is so much venom directed towards Obama? They don't direct any of that hate towards the administration in charge for the previous 8 years leading up to our collapse. Instead they're likely to believe absurd claims of Obama's citizenship, his muslim background and countless other red neck fantasies.

Obama who actually had to work for his accomplishments is considered some elite liberal. while a drunk, coked up, trust fund, frat boy like George Bush is viewed as the everyman they identify with.

Do you really think its' about cold analysis of the issues? or because they don't trust niggers who use fancy words and are suspected communists and terrorists? They show up with guns to town hall meetings to "discuss" taxes and health care while having no clue about the most elementary facts involved in the debate.

[Ray9]

Really? If it's about the issues, why is so much venom directed towards Obama? They don't direct any of that hate towards the administration in charge for the previous 8 years leading up to our collapse. Instead they're likely to believe absurd claims of Obama's citizenship, his muslim background and countless other red neck fantasies. Obama who actually had to work for his accomplishments is considered some elite liberal. while a drunk, coked up, trust fund, frat boy like George Bush is viewed as the everyman they identify with. Do you really think its' about cold analysis of the issues? or because they don't trust niggers who use fancy words and are suspected communists and terrorists? They show up with guns to town hall meetings to "discuss" taxes and health care while having no clue about the most elementary facts involved in the debate.

Well, you certinly get an A+ from keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow. I've been to two tea parties and I can tell you there is no conspiracy against any group or race. In fact I've seen a mix of groups and races there. Tea parties are citizens excersizing their right to peaceful assembly in a free country where the 1st Ammendment is king. Granted, Bush was no prize but was seen as the lesser of two evils as is so often the case nowadays. As far as Obama working for what he got, that statement falls under the heading of comic relief. He was handpicked from the start as the posterboy for Affirmative Action and let's face it, he never had a real job.

[jesse]

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.

This simply goes to show how far off the government and its politicians have deviated from what has been outlined in the constitution. It is not shocking as much as disgusting because the way I see it, the US was founded on elbow grease and doing things yourself instead of making yourself a victim and demanding government do this and that. Unfortunately every decade that goes by seems to make the second option much more enticing and attractive.

Out of the points, this is really nothing new but a simplified and abridged version of the spirit of the constitution. Point by point, the contract regurgitates what it's all about. Perhaps this movement actually receives significant momemtum because these values are suffering from erosion big time.

1) Uphold the constitution and its values instead of finding a thousand and one ways to pervert and skirt around them based on whims.

2) Cap & Trade: this is a ridiculous solution to a problem which is largely marred and vastly overrated.

3) Balanced budget: it would help a lot to remove the warhawks from power, downsize and eventually shut down ALL foreign military bases, and bring down spending on defense overall. Secondly, entitlements have to be dismantled along with the latest round of undue government patriarchy.

4) Simplifly taxation: absolutely. Excellent tax policy is simple, easy to calculate and effective as well as morally and ethically sound on all levels of income. In addition, when the tax system is seen as fair, there will be less people trying to find ways around them. You'll always have a few tax dodges, but this would be marginal since the tax base is very wide.

5) restore fiscal responsibility: see balanced budget.

6) end runaway government spending: see balanced budget & fiscal responsibility

7) Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care: this is an area the government has no place to meddle with. Instead of giving the healthcare racket even more government provisions, it should be treated as any other business and service provider. Government-run healthcare is inefficient, costly and a bottomless well that always "needs" even more funding.

8) Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy: I don't mind being somewhat dependent on oil, although there are cleaner sources of energy that cannot be as easily disrupted depending on the political climate.

9) Stop the Pork: see balanced budget and fiscal responsibility

10) Stop the Tax Hikes: this is exactly what happens when government believes it can spend as much and as often as it wants because the citizens will eventually pick up the tab. It will definitely require a severe form of austerity to cut our losses and find ways to start paying back the insane amount of debt acquired over the years and decades.

[Warrior]

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

I went to a rally on Thursday at our capitol. I wanted to see it first hand, so I could see if the news portrayed it as something it wasn't. Our local news seemed pretty fair with reporting the event, but I haven't caught much national news on it except some rambling from Rachel Maddow. I found it very peaceful and to be a lot of people my age (mid-upper 30's) mixed up with a few 55+ and even teens and 20 somethings. The message was one of fighting with a ballot box, not physical violence. The worry you seem to think they have about cutting programs for retirement isn't worry programs will be cut, it's worry that the money they've been forced to put in for their entire working lives will be lost to unintended spending of that money... fraud if you will. That is one of the things that motivates government opposition, the taking of money via tax on their income and spending it on items that are not at all connected to what it's promoted purpose is for. When the government takes money from SS and Medicare and spends it on anything other than it's intended purpose, that is robbery of the people who were told they can rely on it and trust the government to use it for it's intended purpose. Stealing from the citizens is mostly what brought about the first tea party... why don't people understand this?

I wasn't able to go to the local event Thursday because of ky kids' birthday activities. However, I did get a coworker to take some video. I haven't seen much news coverage, either, but what I saw on the video more or less matches your description. The keynote speaker was pretty good. He was African-American and came down really hard on folks saying the Tea Party movement was racist. There were also a lot of booths for local candidates at the event, but the speaker told people not to vote for someone just because they showed up at a Tea Party. He said to talk to them, ask them what they believed, and how they intended to vote on important issues. Pretty positive and uplifting message overall.

I guess Chris Stigall was there, too. I didn't see any video of him. I was disappointed about that. He is my favorite talk radio guy.

Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, you certinly get an A+ from keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow. I've been to two tea parties and I can tell you there is no conspiracy against any group or race. In fact I've seen a mix of groups and races there. Tea parties are citizens excersizing their right to peaceful assembly in a free country where the 1st Ammendment is king. Granted, Bush was no prize but was seen as the lesser of two evils as is so often the case nowadays. As far as Obama working for what he got, that statement falls under the heading of comic relief. He was handpicked from the start as the posterboy for Affirmative Action and let's face it, he never had a real job.

I agree. Bush was not a shining example of Conservatism, but he did at least hold positions with some type of responsibility in the private sector before serving as govenor of a state.

There will always be some people, all across the political spectrum, that have wild ideas, but those are not representative of the Tea Party as a whole. The Tea Party opposes Obama based on the issues at hand and a fundamentally different idea about what government's proper role is.

[Yhor]

I'll refrain from directly arguing with you MLP, considering most of what you asked of me is complete bullshit that you must have been emotionally charged to respond with. I'm sorry you feel the way you do about such a large group of Americans, and I can tell you that I hold no ill will against your assumptions that you seem make from a very small portion of that group.

I like the tea party, and I think what motivates them is clear. The policies they address are failing to do what they were intended to do and are grossly inefficient; the policies they are against are a direct threat to individual's liberty and self sufficiency... a majority of these policies were supported or even started by Bush. Bush is bad, but at least he didn't propose a government mandate of purchase from private industry.. no elected republican supported that, by the way.

There is a movement to destroy the tea party. I find it telling of the lengths people will go to to destroy credibility and cause the tensions to grow stronger between those who support the tea party and those on the fence.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[LaoTzu]

	Stealing from the citizens is mostly what brought about the first tea party... why don't people understand this?

Perhaps you could view it in that light... Corruption and conflating Government and Business interests without regard for the citizenry was more in tune with what the original BTP was all about. (The King was helping his Business friends by unloading their Tea on the Colonies at a largely subsidized value...undercutting small business and threatening their livelihood.)

The US could cut military spending in half, and still spend more than China and Russia combined. This would leave over $300B to get all other programs healthy. Problem solved. Military spending accounts for half of US spending per year. Arguing over social programs in light of this is just silly IMO.

As for respecting Tea-Partiers... there was no respect given for Liberal protests during the Bush admin either. Perhaps everyone needs to learn a little respect....


As for the 'mandate' requiring people to pay for health-care: It's kind of funny that those who demand people pay their own way are fighting against measures that make people pay their own way. Healthcare is a huge economic issue when it comes down to it... and fixing this problem helps to right the economy in the broadest sense possible. That people are forgetting these things goes to show that Tea Partiers haven't got a clue...

[Yhor]

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.

Perhaps you could view it in that light... Corruption and conflating Government and Business interests without regard for the citizenry was more in tune with what the original BTP was all about. (The King was helping his Business friends by unloading their Tea on the Colonies at a largely subsidized value...undercutting small business and threatening their livelihood.) The US could cut military spending in half, and still spend more than China and Russia combined. This would leave over $300B to get all other programs healthy. Problem solved. Military spending accounts for half of US spending per year. Arguing over social programs in light of this is just silly IMO. As for respecting Tea-Partiers... there was no respect given for Liberal protests during the Bush admin either. Perhaps everyone needs to learn a little respect....

I agree personally. I find it doubtful that many who fall in line with Republicans would, though.

I disagree with your added comment about the mandate... if it were a mandate for a govt sponsored item, instead of mandate for private industry, I would be less adamant in my opposition... while still disagreeing with it in principle.

[LaoTzu]

If you don't carry insurance, then what happens?
I'm assuming you pay a fine to the Gov't. You can view it as a tax perhaps?

You don't HAVE to carry insurance. It's still a choice. It's just that either way, you're still paying. Were I a young American, I'd probably decide not to pay, and see if they catch on... and even if they did, I'd rather my payment go to the Gov't than an Insurer.

[Tristan]

	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.
	The US could cut military spending in half, and still spend more than China and Russia combined. This would leave over $300B to get all other programs healthy. Problem solved. Military spending accounts for half of US spending per year. Arguing over social programs in light of this is just silly IMO.

I've read arguments against the level of military spending on this forum, and I found many of them highly sensible. I think vague arguments against heavy military spending in principle are specious, but some people on INTJf made extra effort, and gave specific reasons (mixed with straight common sense) where and how the current spending is overkill. At the core, we really aren't obliged to defend the rest of the planet from the rest of the planet. Their sense made me revise my own ideas.

Don't undo their hard work.

Oh God, the siren song of pumping more money to "get all other programs healthy." I wonder if people will ever learn. It's not the budget, but the organization, the incentives, the very nature of the programs that is sick. US social programs suck, and only suck harder when they get more money.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
furnished publicly crush individual degrees-of-freedom in two swift strokes: they remove peoples' incentives to take care of themselves, and they lower peoples' ability to take care of themselves by distorting the intrinsic cost of supplying the good. The United States in particular is a diverse, competitive, immense, and materialistic country; I like to say, "what works in Luxembourg might not work here."

[LaoTzu]

I mean 'get them healthy' in the sense that Social Security was a self-sustaining system until Regan began borrowing from it... It could be self-sustaining again, if there were people interested in it becoming so.
Putting a lock on it through legislation would be a good start to it's becoming healthy once more.
As for social programs, they have their benefit. Otherwise there wouldn't be social programs. They tend to look like losses on paper... but then not all the benefits are easily quantified. If it costs me a dollar in tax so someone can eat, I'm all for it. If it costs me another so someone can afford co-op housing, I'm all for it. If it costs me another so someone can afford higher ed , I'm all for it. If someone breaks their face doing a triple-ollie and can't afford to pay for it... I will grudgingly help there too
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Without social programs, you may as well switch back to Feudalism. Corporate control of the halls of power (which is the aim of the puppetmasters of the TeaPartiers) will ensure you reach it.

US social programs suck, because there is one party who's stated explicit aim is to destroy them. Conservative parties elsewhere in the world do not share this stated goal.

[Warrior]

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.

I mean 'get them healthy' in the sense that Social Security was a self-sustaining system until Regan began borrowing from it... It could be self-sustaining again, if there were people interested in it becoming so. Putting a lock on it through legislation would be a good start to it's becoming healthy once more. As for social programs, they have their benefit. Otherwise there wouldn't be social programs. They tend to look like losses on paper... but then not all the benefits are easily quantified. If it costs me a dollar in tax so someone can eat, I'm all for it. If it costs me another so someone can afford co-op housing, I'm all for it. If it costs me another so someone can afford higher ed , I'm all for it. If someone breaks their face doing a triple-ollie and can't afford to pay for it... I will grudgingly help there too To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Without social programs, you may as well switch back to Feudalism. Corporate control of the halls of power (which is the aim of the puppetmasters of the TeaPartiers) will ensure you reach it. US social programs suck, because there is one party who's stated explicit aim is to destroy them. Conservative parties elsewhere in the world do not share this stated goal.

The goal is not to destroy all social programs. The goal is to change them so that they effectively provide for those in real need, while at the same time addressing the real problems people have so that they are able to move off social programs. A social program that does not do that is nothing short of cruel.

As far as I can tell, the aim of the Tea Party is to get people to exercise the power they already have to take control of government, not put corporations in charge.

[Tristan]

Few corporations advocate a free market except with words (and certainly not with their money and lobbying). It's better for the established corporations if they can get government contracts or become a national company, a la GM. A social economy locks out competition. Therefore social programs and a socialist government are better access points for corporations "controlling the halls of power." Feudalism is also guild-supported, and guilds are the feudal predecessors of the modern worker syndicates which socialists advocate. In practice, social programs fuse corporation and state.

[Feral]

Don't tax me!
Fix my pot holes!
Socialism is bad, the president is a Socialist!
I want my Medicare!
Public option is socialism!
We're a majority!

blah blah blah.
They're good entertainment.

[Yhor]

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

The goal is not to destroy all social programs. The goal is to change them so that they effectively provide for those in real need, while at the same time addressing the real problems people have so that they are able to move off social programs. A social program that does not do that is nothing short of cruel. As far as I can tell, the aim of the Tea Party is to get people to exercise the power they already have to take control of government, not put corporations in charge.

This has been my experience as well. Most I've seen were working class/management types, included were legal Mexicans and even a few black people. A discussion that I joined in on as an example was about govt making people dependent on it's programs... Bill Cosby was quoted a lot and I injected some Alan Keyes points. The goals of the people I listened to were more in line with bottom up govt, instead of top down (local governments > the Federal government).

---------- Post added 04-18-2010 at 01:28 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Feral To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Don't tax me! Fix my pot holes! Socialism is bad, the president is a Socialist! I want my Medicare! Public option is socialism! We're a majority! blah blah blah. They're good entertainment.

You are great entertainment. Your views seem to based on pure ignorance and generalizations of out of context leftist quotes.

[Arkeph]

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

This has been my experience as well. Most I've seen were working class/management types, included were legal Mexicans and even a few black people. A discussion that I joined in on as an example was about govt making people dependent on it's programs... Bill Cosby was quoted a lot and I injected some Alan Keyes points. The goals of the people I listened to were more in line with bottom up govt, instead of top down (local governments > the Federal government.

I find it difficult to reconcile that picture with some of the more extreme rhetoric, the poorly-conceived "Contract from America," and the large involvement of the Republican party (along with their Fox News counterparts) in the Tea Party. I get the impression that you are describing one of many groups with the same name.

[Feral]

	Originally Posted by Yhor To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You are great entertainment. Your views seem to based on pure ignorance and generalizations of out of context leftist quotes.

Good. I'm glad you can see what I'm getting at.

[Yhor]

	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.
	I find it difficult to reconcile that picture with some of the more extreme rhetoric, the poorly-conceived "Contract from America," and the large involvement of the Republican party (along with their Fox News counterparts) in the Tea Party. I get the impression that you are describing one of many groups with the same name.

I'm describing what I saw in Oklahoma City at the capitol on April 15th.

Did you happen to catch the link I posted above?
Just in case you missed it..

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


Also... more specific

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

[lurk]

	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.
	I mean 'get them healthy' in the sense that Social Security was a self-sustaining system until Regan began borrowing from it...

Cite?

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

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government." Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

[hubcap]

	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.
	I mean 'get them healthy' in the sense that Social Security was a self-sustaining system until Regan began borrowing from it...

Social Security was doomed to fail from its inception. It is nothing more than a government ran Ponzi Scheme.

Before you go blaming Reagan for the failure of Social Security I would suggest you read this article by Snopes:




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

[sMoKeY]

Now I really appreciate Australian politics.