Tea Party Wins

[Edward Campbell]

I have been very critic of the (self identified) Tea Party caucus in the US House of Representatives but I have no brief for or against the Tea Party movement, itself. As I have said before, I doubt it is monolithic - not nearly as monolithic as some claim. I think some (many?) Tea Party advocates just want to rid the political system of the entrenched special interests - especially those like big banks, teachers' unions, the defence industry, public sector unions, the insurance industry and the welfare industry that consume billions and tens of billions and sometimes hundreds of billions without adding anything much to the nation's security or productivity. I wish them, those Tea Party advocates, luck.

But I have an equal disinterest in the "Occupy _____" movement and, to a large degree, in my own political party, the Conservative Party of Canada - of which I am a member and to which I give money on a steady basis. I dislike all collectives, including governments, churches, unions, special interest groups and political parties just about equally - although I dislike those who presume to intrude upon my privacy more than I dislike those that leave me alone.

I believe in "those who govern less govern best." I served, happily and loyally, in the CF for most of my adult life; the CF is a very conservative and collectivist organization - one might think it is anathema to a classic, 19th century liberal like me; not so; I can be a liberal, in almost every way, and still abide by, share and even love the conservative and professional values of the military - see Huntington et al - and worry, even complain about too big government. There is no contradiction in taking the Queen's shilling and advocating that the Queen spend fewer of them on fewer, better selected, things.

 

[tomahawk6]

Comparing foreign aid to Israel with Planned Parenthood and NPR is absurd.Supporting Israel is a lomg time national security commitment the other two are not.Nor is Planned Parenthood and NPR necessary.NPR could continue to operate supported from their subscribers and Planned Parenthood could do the same.They dont need to be funded with taxpayer dollars.Whenever budgets get tight the first place the politicians look is the defense budget. Funding for the national defense is required under the constitution,unlike the two examples you gave.

 

[Redeye]

Comparing foreign aid to Israel with Planned Parenthood and NPR is absurd.Supporting Israel is a lomg time national security commitment the other two are not.Nor is Planned Parenthood and NPR necessary.NPR could continue to operate supported from their subscribers and Planned Parenthood could do the same.They dont need to be funded with taxpayer dollars.Whenever budgets get tight the first place the politicians look is the defense budget. Funding for the national defense is required under the constitution,unlike the two examples you gave.

:boke:

Supporting Israel (which, economically, seems to be able to take care of itself) is a "national security commitment"? In what way, exactly? How does an ongoing program of corporate welfare which arms arguably the most worthless ally the USA has ever had in any way impact the United States' national security?

Funding for national defense is required, but massive, massive spending cuts (ie "being fiscally responsible") could easily be made to defense, without any impact on national security, but even bringing up the idea is political kryptonite, and part of why no progress in fixing America's problems is likely any time soon.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Brilliantly put.

One of the worst teabaggers I've ever had the "pleasure" of interacting with spend most of his working life in the USMC, and now lives on a disability pension. He's also a deadbeat dad, and a bankrupt. So much for "personal responsibility".

And I agree with the key point you make - any discussion of "fiscal responsibility" which isn't accompanied by plans to discuss significant downsizing of the US military is completely pointless. Bear in mind that the morons of the rabid right will decry anything of the sort. When President Obama worked on New START to significantly reduce the US nuclear arsenal (while retaining more than enough weapons to wipe out the world's population a few dozen times over), they attacked him as though he was giving away all security. The cost of maintaining that arsenal must be astronomical. They're in similar hysterics when it comes to Iran.

I also found it rich that they were falling all over themselves to attack federal funding of Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio (into the low hundreds of millions) while ignoring the $3.5 billion given annually to Israel as "foreign aid", much of which goes directly into the pockets of the defense industry.

This is the one and final warning.

There are actual members of the Tea Party on this board. Members of this board that have been here almost since the beginning. Every time the derogatory name 'tea bagger' is used, we get complaints. There is nothing subtle about the sexual connotation of the phrase and real members of the Tea Party find it offensive. It will not be used here. We don't  allow other sexual based slurs for other political parties, we won't start with this one.

This is not open for discussion.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

One of the worst teabaggers I've ever had the "pleasure" of interacting with spend most of his working life in the USMC, and now lives on a disability pension. He's also a deadbeat dad, and a bankrupt. So much for "personal responsibility".

...and I've had the acquaintance of several ex-soldiers who are child molesters and many financial planners who scammed folks out of their savings. Using your logic I guess this makes you just short of Satan.

You know you lose any good points you have to make with your insipid vitriol. You can get help with that......................

Bruce

 

[cupper]

Comparing foreign aid to Israel with Planned Parenthood and NPR is absurd.Supporting Israel is a lomg time national security commitment the other two are not.Nor is Planned Parenthood and NPR necessary.NPR could continue to operate supported from their subscribers and Planned Parenthood could do the same.They dont need to be funded with taxpayer dollars.Whenever budgets get tight the first place the politicians look is the defense budget. Funding for the national defense is required under the constitution,unlike the two examples you gave.

I believe the point of the comment was that the focus that the Tea Partiers have placed on funding cuts against Planned Parenthood and NPR is like trying to bail the Titanic with an eye dropper.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I think the cheerleading here for the Tea Party and American rightwing anti-government agitating in general while rhapsodizing about the glories of unfettered capitalism is rich coming from a bunch of people who have spent their entire careers in the employ of the state

Do you imagine that to be either a witty or sensible observation?  If so, I regret your self-delusion.  There are always going to be some people in the employ of the state, assuming there is a state.  Viewed by utility/necessity, public spending and employment is a spectrum.  Hard over on one side, you have the absolute necessities for a society to survive: security, administration of justice.  Somewhere not far after that, basic infrastructure.  As you move further to the other side, the more questionable endeavours and outright transfers of wealth and general unnecessary meddling in the lives of people occupy their respective positions.  The TP, AFAIK, is not asking for the total elimination of everything.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Wishing for the US to reduce its military spending, whether in the form of CVBGs or anything else, is a legitimate policy position.  But don't pretend it won't have real unforeseen consequences to the security, stability, and - ultimately - prosperity of many nations which do not happen to be the US.  Those factors must be included in the estimate.

I notice Europe hasn't been encouraging the US to reduce its risk of financial instability by eliminating the burden of US forces in Europe.

 

[Redeye]

Wishing for the US to reduce its military spending, whether in the form of CVBGs or anything else, is a legitimate policy position.  But don't pretend it won't have real unforeseen consequences to the security, stability, and - ultimately - prosperity of many nations which do not happen to be the US.  Those factors must be included in the estimate.

I notice Europe hasn't been encouraging the US to reduce its risk of financial instability by eliminating the burden of US forces in Europe.

Certainly there has to be a discussion/debate on impacts - as with any policy decision. The point, however, is that there's a whole lot of room to make cuts without significant impact, I'd happily infer. The alternative, of course, is for taxes to rise with the clear message being "You want this stuff, time to start paying for it."

 

[Redeye]

About slurs, then.

How about we just outlaw them altogether - as I note that numerous such slurs against other parties, policy groups, etc are frequently tolerated, regardless of etymology. Seems reasonable to me, and fair all around.

 

[Redeye]

...and I've had the acquaintance of several ex-soldiers who are child molesters and many financial planners who scammed folks out of their savings. Using your logic I guess this makes you just short of Satan.

You know you lose any good points you have to make with your insipid vitriol. You can get help with that......................

Bruce

Fair. However, I note when I look at a lot of info on Tea Party events, I engage with them, or talk to others that do, that a large percentage of them can be reasonably accused of having a mentality that reads something like "F*** you, I got mine." I'm not sure if any demographic study has been done on them, but I'd infer a large percentage of them are probably benefiting from the Social Security and Medicare programs they now want to gut for those coming after them.

The problem with the Tea Party (besides its being a bizarre social construct where a bunch of working class/middle class folks are essentially stooges for wealthy corporate interests that have been screwing them for years) is that not only have their folks in the US Congress paralyzed any effort to make any progress on dealing with real, serious issues that face the United States, they've completely failed to offer any sort of workable plan of their own that is likely to get anywhere.

The next year and a half will be interesting, because the GOP seems to have a slate of unelectable candidates (who just seem to look worse with each debate), but voter apathy and general efforts to disenfranchise people are a long standing US problem. It'll be interesting to see whether the "Occupy" movement gets anywhere - but unless it translates directly into "Occupy Voting Booths" then it won't accomplish anything.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Fair. However, I note when I look at a lot of info on Tea Party events, I engage with them, or talk to others that do, that a large percentage of them can be reasonably accused of having a mentality that reads something like "F*** you, I got mine." I'm not sure if any demographic study has been done on them, but I'd infer a large percentage of them are probably benefiting from the Social Security and Medicare programs they now want to gut for those coming after them.

The problem with the Tea Party (besides its being a bizarre social construct where a bunch of working class/middle class folks are essentially stooges for wealthy corporate interests that have been screwing them for years) is that not only have their folks in the US Congress paralyzed any effort to make any progress on dealing with real, serious issues that face the United States, they've completely failed to offer any sort of workable plan of their own that is likely to get anywhere.

The next year and a half will be interesting, because the GOP seems to have a slate of unelectable candidates (who just seem to look worse with each debate), but voter apathy and general efforts to disenfranchise people are a long standing US problem. It'll be interesting to see whether the "Occupy" movement gets anywhere - but unless it translates directly into "Occupy Voting Booths" then it won't accomplish anything.

I think you are still misunderstanding the Tea Party movement - and it is not a coherent, cohesive political party, no matter how much some, including Sarah Palin I suspect, might wish.

There are, in my understanding, too many too diverse views:

1. Some, the original Tea Party 'members,' wan(ed) strict adherence to the Constitution - no spending, no programmes that cannot be tried, directly, to the Constitution;

2. Some want strict fiscal responsibility - no new spending, cuts to existing spending but no new taxes, either - that group struck a chord with many American voters in 2010;

3. Others are Jeffersonians who want a small, insular, even isolationist American government;

4. Some are libertarians;
.
.
.
.
.
. and
n. Some are, to be sure, angry white men - just like many Democrats are angry black women.

I think you are reading too much one sided, Democrat propaganda and not looking closely enough at who Tea Party supporters are what they believe. Perhaps they are the first wave of organized independents. I am pretty sure they scare the hell out of Democrats and establishment Republicans alike - anyone who does that can't be all bad.

 

[GAP]

Both parties have made a hash of the economy for the last 20-30 years, by pandering to the lowest common denominator.....it has now coming full circle to bite them in the a$$....and it will keep on gnawing until something realistically changes instead of cosmetic pandering just enough to calm everybody down....

It will hurt, but it might also bring back some of the work ethic in the overall community......

 

[Redeye]

I think you are still misunderstanding the Tea Party movement - and it is not a coherent, cohesive political party, no matter how much some, including Sarah Palin I suspect, might wish.

I get that - but there's a fairly distinct "Tea Party caucus" all the same.

There are, in my understanding, too many too diverse views:

1. Some, the original Tea Party 'members,' wan(ed) strict adherence to the Constitution - no spending, no programmes that cannot be tried, directly, to the Constitution;

A proposition which has been reasonably ridiculed as being preposterous and unworkable.

2. Some want strict fiscal responsibility - no new spending, cuts to existing spending but no new taxes, either - that group struck a chord with many American voters in 2010;

This is a more reasonable point of view - but the problem them becomes where to make those spending cuts and how, and they haven't come up with any sort of plan/proposal, not least in part because of the complete unwillingness to discuss making significant defense spending cuts as part of any such proposal.

3. Others are Jeffersonians who want a small, insular, even isolationist American government;

4. Some are libertarians;
.
.
.
.
.
. and
n. Some are, to be sure, angry white men - just like many Democrats are angry black women.

Most seem to fit that description - but again, a "movement" that's totally disjointed is hard to assess. It's not hard to look at a subset, the size of which I'll make no comment about, being simply angry that a well-spoken, well-educated black man won the 2008 election.

I think you are reading too much one sided, Democrat propaganda and not looking closely enough at who Tea Party supporters are what they believe. Perhaps they are the first wave of organized independents. I am pretty sure they scare the hell out of Democrats and establishment Republicans alike - anyone who does that can't be all bad.

They're not organized, nor are they really "independent" - again, there's various "branches", but many of them seem to just be fronts for a variety of interests and PACs. I think a lot of Democrats would LOVE to see them become organized and a third party, allowing the sort of vote splitting that they fear with the more left wing of their party.

As far as understanding them goes, I've tried to engage them in various forums, trying to understand what, beyond talking points, they actually have to offer. And it's really, really hard, for the simple reason that there isn't much depth in most cases, and where there is, it's usually based on completely, demonstrably false pretences to begin with. That's the real problem there - that there is no decent dialogue about how to solve problems - just a lot of arguing over who is at fault, which doesn't matter, and in an earnest assessment, it's everyone's fault anyhow.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Cutting spending and not raising taxes - and I agree that all spending must be "on the table" - is a clear, simple,, intellectually defensible proposition to almost everyone except Obama, Reid and Pelosi and other doctrinaire big spending, big taxing Democrats. The problem isn't the Tea Party it is greedy people who know that the Democrats will continue, to the bitter end, to redistribute the common wealth from the productive to the unproductive. It might make you feel good to see productive resources going to the idle poor, but it is killing America.

Am I heartless? i don't think so. Do I want more and more homeless Americans? Yes, IF that is the temporary transitional phase we (Canadian too) must endure. I hope and expect that private charity can do more than public support. I know that means testing and visible charity harm the self esteem of the poor but I accept them as necessary evils.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is what turned so many Americans and Canadians against the Tea Party. Nothing illegal happened, it wasn't even threatening in a place where carrying an unconcealed firearm is perfectly legal and respectable, but it was horrid PR and it gave the Democrats all they needed to paint good, honest, hard working Americans as dangerous extremists - and that's what they, the Democrats, did. It (the Democrats' smear) was a lie, but, hey, it's politics, right? Who gives a damn about the future of the country if we can re-elect Harry Reid?

 

[Redeye]

Cutting spending and not raising taxes - and I agree that all spending must be "on the table" - is a clear, simple,, intellectually defensible proposition to almost everyone except Obama, Reid and Pelosi and other doctrinaire big spending, big taxing Democrats. The problem isn't the Tea Party it is greedy people who know that the Democrats will continue, to the bitter end, to redistribute the common wealth from the productive to the unproductive. It might make you feel good to see productive resources going to the idle poor, but it is killing America.

Some resources will always go to the "idle poor", because they'll always exist. Do I want that sort of thing encouraged? No. Neither do I want a society where people die in the streets of poverty when there's so much to go around. It seems you have a failure to understand what most people who'd call themselves Democrats down there want as well, because what you describe ain't it. What it appears they want to see is a decent society where all people have the chance to work hard and succeed - where that idea of the American Dream middle class lifestyle still exists, and so on. There's some of them who lie more to the left, and it's interesting that because of their two-party construct they're all in the same party because they have to belong to something.

That might include both cutting pointless spending, and raising taxes, because it is an equally intellectually defensible proposition, based on looking at history, that modest tax hikes on those most able to pay (the 1% as it were) will both improve the fiscal position of the country and not cause harm to its economy.

Am I heartless? i don't think so. Do I want more and more homeless Americans? Yes, IF that is the temporary transitional phase we (Canadian too) must endure. I hope and expect that private charity can do more than public support. I know that means testing and visible charity harm the self esteem of the poor but I accept them as necessary evils.

If there was any merit to believing that would actually happen - to believing in the Big Lie of "trickle down", then I'd probably agree. In fact, at one time, I did. But then I realized that while that's an ideal, it doesn't really work out that way, so some other balance must be found.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Some resources will always go to the "idle poor", because they'll always exist. Do I want that sort of thing encouraged? No. Neither do I want a society where people die in the streets of poverty when there's so much to go around. It seems you have a failure to understand what most people who'd call themselves Democrats down there want as well, because what you describe ain't it. What it appears they want to see is a decent society where all people have the chance to work hard and succeed - where that idea of the American Dream middle class lifestyle still exists, and so on. There's some of them who lie more to the left, and it's interesting that because of their two-party construct they're all in the same party because they have to belong to something.

That might include both cutting pointless spending, and raising taxes, because it is an equally intellectually defensible proposition, based on looking at history, that modest tax hikes on those most able to pay (the 1% as it were) will both improve the fiscal position of the country and not cause harm to its economy.

If there was any merit to believing that would actually happen - to believing in the Big Lie of "trickle down", then I'd probably agree. In fact, at one time, I did. But then I realized that while that's an ideal, it doesn't really work out that way, so some other balance must be found.

But that is not, in any way, unique to Democrats, that's what Republicans, in at least equal numbers, want and, in my (admittedly limited) experience, that's what Tea Party supporters want, too.

The Democrats do not have a lock on morality - in fact they are at least as immoral as any other party or movement. They just have a better PR machine.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This is what turned so many Americans and Canadians against the Tea Party. Nothing illegal happened, it wasn't even threatening in a place where carrying an unconcealed firearm is perfectly legal and respectable, but it was horrid PR and it gave the Democrats all they needed to paint good, honest, hard working Americans as dangerous extremists - and that's what they, the Democrats, did. It (the Democrats' smear) was a lie, but, hey, it's politics, right? Who gives a damn about the future of the country if we can re-elect Harry Reid?

The photo was selectively cropped, by the MSM to try and connotate armed 'white' people. The person armed person in the photo was actually black.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Some resources will always go to the "idle poor", because they'll always exist ...

The fact, and I agree the poor are always with us, that something exists does not mean we must public throw money at it. It rains, that does not mean we need government money for umbrellas.