So, what does the Tea Party stand for?

ponderingturtle said:
I wouldn't say that, I think part of the motivation behind the tea party is to get as much distance between themselves and Bush as possible. They might well not have disagreed with his decisions and actions, but they will not talk about it.
Click to expand...
Bush did not need tea-party protesting, except at the very end. Everyone else, and their dogs, were protesting him plenty.

ponderingturtle said:
History starts for them when Obama won the election.
Click to expand...
Actually, their history started with protesting the bail-out frenzy, which was under Bush. But, I guess they have short memories.

thaiboxerken was making the point that everything the Party is ranting about was under Bush, others make the point that Obama is actually better for their issues. But, one thing you have to understand: Most of the Tea-Partiers don't see it that way! They dislike percieved socialist agendas, real or illusionary, and so Obama is getting most of their wrath.

Bush was not percieved as a socialist, for various reasons. A significant one was because of the perception that his policies were "for the people". Whatever that means. Until, of course, the bail-outs started.
 
If the Tea Party really didn't like the Bush administration, why did they cheer for, and rant for Cheney to run at one of their conventions? Oh wait, that was a CPAC convention.
 
Tricky said:
Most of these are hogwash. Constitutional compliance depends on how you interpret the Constitution. Deference to states rights is extremely iffy. Does it mean putting states rights above federal law? If so, that essentially means dissolving the US.
Click to expand...

No, it means that there are certain things that the Federal government is responsible for, and everything else should be handled by the states. Basically, if it isn't related to national defense, immigration, foreign policy, maintenance of the currency, external trade, or trade between the states, the Federal government should stay out of it.

Was the US "dissolved" before National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation in 1937?

The restoration of individual rights... is also quite open to interpretation. One could interpret that individuals have a right to expect basic health care.
Click to expand...

You may believe in positive rights (things that place an obligation upon others) but many people believe instead in negative rights and believe that the imposition of positive rights must, of necessity, reduce negative rights. Suffice it to say that tea party members do not believe that positive rights are rights and vociferously oppose that whole notion, from which springs much of their resistance to the philosophy of the current administration.

Integrity? I don't think that any party has a claim on that.
Click to expand...

Nope. Which is something that the tea party is attempting to restore. I wish them good luck with that.

So it really comes down to smaller government and lower taxes. Now if they can figure out a way to provide the services that the Federal Government provides at a cheaper rate, more power to them. If they expect that they can do this simply by cutting off services, well they might want to take a look at countries that have no plan for dealing with poverty before they wish for that. Is Somalia their model government? Low government interference for sure.
Click to expand...

So apparently the options are either Swedish social democracy (which the Swedes are actually moving away from) or Somalian style anarchy. No false dichotomy there. Does cutting off Federal funding for the arts mean that Chicago is going to turn into Mogadishu? Ok, bad example. Will eliminating government subsidies for home buyers and subsidies for both growing and not growing crops mean the appearance of warlords controlling vast swathes of America? Will repealing the recent healthcare legislation mean that the Gulf coast will end up as a haven for pirates? Will devolving power from the Federal government to state and local governments cause us all to become qat chewing drones?

We need to see some of the extensive plans they have for remodeling government, what to do when a state declares they don't want to go along with the other 49 on something like, say, providing for the common defense, exactly where they think federal jurisdiction ends.
Click to expand...

Nice strawman. Providing for the common defense is one of the (relatively few) responsibilities and powers of the Federal government that are actually enumerated in the constitution. I rather doubt that you've seen many tea party supporters arguing that states' rights trump the Federal government's responsibility to provide for the common defense.

Right now it's a party of slogans. It has no real, workable principles. If they ever tried to hammer them out, I think they'd find out how little they have in common.
Click to expand...

According to you. There are millions of people who disagree.
 
MikeMangum said:
So apparently the options are either Swedish social democracy (which the Swedes are actually moving away from) or Somalian style anarchy.
Click to expand...

Speaking of Strawman…
The point being made is that it’s better to move in the direction of Sweden, while you are advocating moving towards Somalia.
 
lomiller said:
Speaking of Strawman…
The point being made is that it’s better to move in the direction of Sweden, while you are advocating moving towards Somalia.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand how removing government subsidies (all of them) to private companies and individuals would impact the functioning of police and the courts and reduce the rule of law, which is the primary problem facing Somalia. Can you explain how cutting corn subsidies will in any way lead to lawlessness?
 
MikeMangum said:
You may believe in positive rights (things that place an obligation upon others) but many people believe instead in negative rights and believe that the imposition of positive rights must, of necessity, reduce negative rights. Suffice it to say that tea party members do not believe that positive rights are rights and vociferously oppose that whole notion, from which springs much of their resistance to the philosophy of the current administration.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the huge snip, but I'll just take this point for a second as it comes up a lot with the Tea Party. Constitutional case law also believes in positive rights. Tea Party members sure love their interpretation of the Constitution, but they seem to ignore or deny the fact that not only is their interpretation not the only valid or useful one, but that that their interpretation relies on some very outdated ideas.

It's such irrationality as claiming 'the Constitution is on our side' that is troubling about the Tea Party, for me personally anyway. Many of them seem to be absolutist, with everything. Don't even start talking to them about modern interpretations of the ten commandments being different from a hundred years ago.
 
MikeMangum said:
You may believe in positive rights (things that place an obligation upon others) but many people believe instead in negative rights and believe that the imposition of positive rights must, of necessity, reduce negative rights. Suffice it to say that tea party members do not believe that positive rights are rights and vociferously oppose that whole notion,
Click to expand...


You may actually a fairly valid point

They are not in favor of freedom of religion they favor the freedom to impose their religion on others.

They don’t favor freedom to choose their own lifestyle they favor the freedom to dictate how others should live.

They don’t favor economic freedom they favor the freedom to try and manipulate the economy to their own benefit even if it hurts the country as a whole.
 
MikeMangum said:
I'm not sure I understand how removing government subsidies (all of them) to private companies and individuals would impact the functioning of police and the courts and reduce the rule of law, which is the primary problem facing Somalia. Can you explain how cutting corn subsidies will in any way lead to lawlessness?
Click to expand...

Wait, is the Tea Party for cutting corn subsidies?
 
MikeMangum said:
I'm not sure I understand how removing government subsidies (all of them) to private companies and individuals would impact the functioning of police and the courts and reduce the rule of law, which is the primary problem facing Somalia. Can you explain how cutting corn subsidies will in any way lead to lawlessness?
Click to expand...

Now you are just being dishonest. The post I quoted was responding to this:
Note how it says nothing at all about “subsidies”, rather it talks about the services government provides.

So it really comes down to smaller government and lower taxes. Now if they can figure out a way to provide the services that the Federal Government provides at a cheaper rate, more power to them. If they expect that they can do this simply by cutting off services, well they might want to take a look at countries that have no plan for dealing with poverty before they wish for that. Is Somalia their model government? Low government interference for sure.
Click to expand...
 
lomiller said:
You may actually a fairly valid point

They are not in favor of freedom of religion they favor the freedom to impose their religion on others.

They don’t favor freedom to choose their own lifestyle they favor the freedom to dictate how others should live.

They don’t favor economic freedom they favor the freedom to try and manipulate the economy to their own benefit even if it hurts the country as a whole.
Click to expand...
Do you need to borrow a match, so you can burn them yourself?
 
AlBell said:
Do you need to borrow a match, so you can burn them yourself?
Click to expand...


Since you seam to have missed the point let me break it down for you. The post I was responding to explicitly stated that the tea party opposed positive rights, rights that require the government to intervene and limit what someone else can do. I didn’t make the assertion I simply gave some examples where I observe it to be true.

Freedom of religion –Requires the government to protect you from people who don’t want you to hold that religious view and would therefore be rejected by tea party activists.

Freedom to impose ones religion on others – requires no government action and would therefore be the type of right supported by tea part activists.


Freedom to choose ones own lifestyle – requires government to protect you from people who wish to dictate your lifestyle and would therefore be rejected by tea party activists.

Freedom to impose lifestyle choices on others – requires no government action, and is therefore the type of right tea party activists would support.


Economic freedom– requires government to protect you from people who wish to manipulate markets for their own benefit and would therefore be rejected by tea party activists.

Freedom to try and manipulate the economy to their own benefit– requires no government action, and is therefore the type of right tea party activists would support.
 
lomiller said:
You may actually a fairly valid point

They are not in favor of freedom of religion they favor the freedom to impose their religion on others.

They don’t favor freedom to choose their own lifestyle they favor the freedom to dictate how others should live.
Click to expand...

What exactly does this have to do with the tea party? The tea party, as a rule, stays away from social issues specifically because there is not widespread agreement on those issues and to them the fiscal issues are simply more important right now. Instead of divining motives based on your own prejudices, why don't you look at what the tea party members actually say?

They don’t favor economic freedom they favor the freedom to try and manipulate the economy to their own benefit even if it hurts the country as a whole.
Click to expand...

Can you show an example?
 
lomiller said:
Since you seam to have missed the point let me break it down for you. The post I was responding to explicitly stated that the tea party opposed positive rights, rights that require the government to intervene and limit what someone else can do. I didn’t make the assertion I simply gave some examples where I observe it to be true.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you understand the difference between positive and negative rights? Negative rights are things that other people (and the government) cannot do to you or prevent you from doing. Positive rights are things that the government must provide for you.

Positive_rightsWP
A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action of another person or group. In theory, a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder.
Click to expand...

Free speech is a negative right. Health care would be a positive right. No one has to provide you with free speech, they simply have to NOT ACT to curtail your speech. Someone does have to provide you with health care, which means that if healthcare is a right, that right imposes an obligation on others to provide it to you.
 
lomiller said:
Now you are just being dishonest. The post I quoted was responding to this:
Note how it says nothing at all about “subsidies”, rather it talks about the services government provides.
Click to expand...

Am I being dishonest? Really? Was the US equivalent to Somalia before the New Deal?
 
lomiller said:
Since you seam to have missed the point let me break it down for you. The post I was responding to explicitly stated that the tea party opposed positive rights, rights that require the government to intervene and limit what someone else can do. I didn’t make the assertion I simply gave some examples where I observe it to be true.

Freedom of religion –Requires the government to protect you from people who don’t want you to hold that religious view and would therefore be rejected by tea party activists.

Freedom to impose ones religion on others – requires no government action and would therefore be the type of right supported by tea part activists.


Freedom to choose ones own lifestyle – requires government to protect you from people who wish to dictate your lifestyle and would therefore be rejected by tea party activists.

Freedom to impose lifestyle choices on others – requires no government action, and is therefore the type of right tea party activists would support.


Economic freedom– requires government to protect you from people who wish to manipulate markets for their own benefit and would therefore be rejected by tea party activists.

Freedom to try and manipulate the economy to their own benefit– requires no government action, and is therefore the type of right tea party activists would support.
Click to expand...
Go for three times. Maybe your wishes will come true.
 
ponderingturtle said:
DevilsAdvocate said:
Well, I think that is the heart of the problem. The Tea Party seems to have descended into a platform of simply anti-government. Whatever the government is doing, it is wrong. There are many complaints, but not much for answers.
Click to expand...
This isn't true at all. Look into the tea party protesting NASA cuts. They love pork when it is their pork after all.
Click to expand...
That is what I was saying. I didn't mean "anti-government" in the terms of they don't like anything from the government (although that is big part of the Tea Party), but rather in the sense of "I'm against what the government is doing (or proposing to do).

Many people, probably most people, don't like some of the things the US government is doing. You can't please all the people all the time. My point was that the Tea Party has become the group of people that are not pleased with the government--which is pretty much all of the people some of the time. But it is just "I don't like something that the current government officials are doing" and not any kind of group focused on what the government SHOULD do. It just anybody and everybody who has some issue about what the government should NOT do: a hodge-podge of complainers against whatever the government is doing—which is usually complaints about things that don’t help them personally.

As I said, this works well for the Republicans. Democrats control the federal government. So if the Tea Party is simply against whatever the current government is doing, then that means voting out the current government officials (mostly Democrats) by voting in somebody else (which would most likely be a Republican).

The Tea Party is simply anybody that feels simply that they don’t like, or have some issues with, the current government (I called this “anti-government”, which is probably not the best term). No solutions---just “I don’t like it.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom