• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How different are Liberal ideals from the Tea Party's?

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
If we take this post to be accurate about what the Tea Party wants I tend to find some similarities with my Liberal ideals.

So look at them:

These are the Tea Parties 3 Core Values

1. Fiscal Responsibility

2. Constitutionally Limited Government

3. Free Markets
Click to expand...
Well I'm for fiscal responsibility too. A good way to accomplish that is to raise taxes on the rich. Not to unbearable levels but more than we currently have. I also feel we could reasonably cut the military budget by 20% and should end subsidies for things like corn-ethanol. Instituting universal healthcare would also save money down the road.

I'm also not against a constitutionally limited government. But what does this mean? I fail to see what the government is doing right now that is against the constitution. Well those indefinite detentions should probably go. Is that what the Tea Party means?

Free Markets are also good. But we have free markets now and no one outside of a really tiny fringe is calling for some sort of centrally commanded economy. Only where there is a pressing issue to protect the commons (say water treatment or schools) is the free market absent.

Note that these are only my views on the subject. They are only my views and I also don't have sole ownership of the term "Liberal" so others who characterize themselves as such might disagree.
 
For starters, the 'Tea Party' people are nothing but stupid, idiotic, liars.

For example, it took them weeks before the developed the wisdom to change their name from 'Tea Bag Party' to 'Tea Party'. Then there was all that crap that had about how the Obama Health Care Plan would institute "Death Panels".

:rolleyes:
 
Travis said:
I'm also not against a constitutionally limited government. But what does this mean?
Click to expand...
Your view diverges from that of the Tea Party in the instant that you ask the question, "What does this mean?" To a teabagger, the only proper question to ask with regard to the Constitution is: "What does it say?" (just don't expect many of them to be able to actually answer that question themselves).

They are originalists. They see the Constitution more as a sacred text ("to which let no man add, from which let no man detract") than as a living document which may be interpreted broadly and flexibly -- or even (gasp!) changed -- so as to accomodate the changing needs of society. The "Individual Mandate" portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, for example, is unconstitutional because the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not explicitly bestow upon Congress the authority to make such a law.
 
Travis said:
I'm also not against a constitutionally limited government. But what does this mean? I fail to see what the government is doing right now that is against the constitution. Well those indefinite detentions should probably go. Is that what the Tea Party means?
Click to expand...

Department of Education, EPA, and more need to go under this view. They are very dubious of the extremely wide range we have given "elastic clause" and the commerce clause.

Actually, I am as well. But I see it as people realising the deficits of a too limited central government and sort of playing it by ear.
 
From what I can glean, the Tea Party is essentially a knee-jerk reaction to fear (of the troubled economy) and a perception that government is deeply flawed and "broken".

Add to this that most who so identify are older, white, and Christian and you end up with people who find themselves in league with the extreme right of the Republican party.

None of the people who I've listened to in interviews seem to have deeply thought about the implications of what they want. Take the "affordable health-care act". Most are adamantly against it on the grounds stated above.
Yet when asked about various aspects of the plan out of context... They all like those.
Same with "small government".... What, education, social security, medicare? Why of course, those are necessary!"
 
Dymanic said:
Your view diverges from that of the Tea Party in the instant that you ask the question, "What does this mean?" To a teabagger, the only proper question to ask with regard to the Constitution is: "What does it say?" (just don't expect many of them to be able to actually answer that question themselves).

They are originalists. They see the Constitution more as a sacred text ("to which let no man add, from which let no man detract") than as a living document which may be interpreted broadly and flexibly -- or even (gasp!) changed -- so as to accomodate the changing needs of society. The "Individual Mandate" portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, for example, is unconstitutional because the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not explicitly bestow upon Congress the authority to make such a law.
Click to expand...

But that's dumb. The only things the government is forbidden to do are explicitly laid out in the Constitution.

They are still asking to go with an interpretation of that document. Why is their interpretation more correct?
 
Travis said:
They are still asking to go with an interpretation of that document. Why is their interpretation more correct?
Click to expand...
same reason a biblical literalist's interpretation of the bible is correct. because they say it is
 
Travis said:
That needs to become a bumper sticker.
Click to expand...

Yes!

But not a text sticker; it should use graphic symbols (think "I Heart NY" or a fishie with legs).

Anyone care to help?

I'm just an ideas guy and not very good at drawing. :(

:th:
 
Travis said:
But that's dumb. The only things the government is forbidden to do are explicitly laid out in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You clearly have not read the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

The only things the US government is allowed to do are those things delegated to it in the Constitution.
 
Brainster said:
You clearly have not read the 10th Amendment:



The only things the US government is allowed to do are those things delegated to it in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Is school prayer in the Constitution?

Banning abortions?

Prohibiting porn?

Just checking where your strict constructionism starts and stops.
 
Unabogie said:
Is school prayer in the Constitution?

Banning abortions?

Prohibiting porn?

Just checking where your strict constructionism starts and stops.
Click to expand...

Universal health care?

Environmental regulation?

School lunch components?

Please do not conflagrate a "small government Republican or libertarian" with a "big socialist government type Republican".
 
mhaze said:
Universal health care?

Environmental regulation?

School lunch components?

Please do not conflagrate a "small government Republican or libertarian" with a "big socialist government type Republican".
Click to expand...

Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are big socialist government type Republicans?

Because they both want to ban abortions, which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, last time I looked.
 
Unabogie said:
Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are big socialist government type Republicans?

Because they both want to ban abortions, which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, last time I looked.
Click to expand...
ron paul has a nice way around that one. the federal government wont ban abortions, but the state governments will. so he gets the best of both worlds, hes a nice small-government type at the federal, but a big government type at the state
 
defaultdotxbe said:
ron paul has a nice way around that one. the federal government wont ban abortions, but the state governments will. so he gets the best of both worlds, hes a nice small-government type at the federal, but a big government type at the state
Click to expand...

Yeah, the distinction between Federal and State government seems completely arbitrary to me. Either you support a certain freedom or you don't. People who claim to be for freedom, like Paul and Santorum, sure have a strange view of what that word means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom