The Tea Party what do they want?

[Ironwolf]

Imported from another thread. I ask only that we keep the thread civil and calm, you know have a discussion/debate!


I am a Tea Party member and if you are willing to discuss this logically and debate reasonably I would be happy to explain my own feelings on this.

I was brought up and once considered myself a Conservative Democrat, however the Democratic party has sank into fiscal insanity. We currently have a national debt of $17 trillion. It is odd when the first President Bush ran on read my lips no new taxes and - taxed people he lost the election now we have politicians running on RAISING taxes to get elected to increase the number and amount of handouts the government gives away - we have serious problems.

I know many Tea Party members feel much the same way I do - I do not care what programs you wish to have - but you must PAY for them within a balanced budget. The Democrat party controlled Senate has NEVER had a budget (even though lawfully required) in 5 years. The President has had Zero (0) people vote for one of his attempts at a pork filled budget.

Now do the Republicans have clean hands? No - the one amendment added into the most recent CR (Continuing Resolution) and Debt Limit raise had $2.5 BILLION for Senate leader Mitch McConnell and his state. So what we have in Washington is a bunch of wolves inviting us the sheep they control - to dinner.

The Taxed Enough Already party says - we want you to stop passing debt to our grand children. We LIKE Constitutionally limited government. What we don't like and what threatens all these current idiots of both parties in Congress and the President, is the looting of the taxpayers. They expand daily the size and depth of government control. So what we (I) want is common sense and a reasonable thing - DO NOT SPEND MORE THAN YOU HAVE.

Dave Ramsey - NOT A TEA PARTY guy explains it all perfectly (note this is BEFORE the first election):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7uncSbRBwM&list=PLC5F3970584B707C4
Modify message

[JaguarX]

Although each party has it's points and it's dirt.

Although I think many of the tea party members are a bit too zealous they do make one simple common sense point. It's easy. Dont spend what ya don't have. That is the only way to get out of debt and don't spend more than the income.

The question is as much as people pay in taxes and stuff, where is all that money going? I have a feeling I already know. First, pork barrel spending should not only be illegal but should be outlawed.

At the same time though, with the handout thing is slippery slope. Majority of people receiving aid either actually do work, or have worked most of their lives. It don't make sense that a person working full time especially cant even get enough wages to feed themselves or family and have to depend on government assistance to make it. While the companies and businesses are bringing in record profits. Either way though handouts from since it began wasa one way road. Now that it's here, even if they stop it now, it will safe money for a few days, but then you have more hungry more homeless people which then end up in the hospital with more illnesses. And instead of a $100 check up the handout provides it end up needing major treatment to keep them alive that cost $200,000 and up and guess who have to pick up the tab? The tax payers anyways. Yes there are some that sit around and abuse the system much majority of recipents of these handouts been laid off because the company wanted to save a few bucks or they outsourced their job overseas, or got injured on the job and got tossed to the side and many more are actually working but get paid pennies for it. The government can only create so many jobs and when they do create jobs guess who pay for it? The tax payers. Overall, there should be the private sector, the ones that control the job market, create the jobs and stop outsourcing if they want the handouts to end and not be needed. Unfortunately they wont do that without incentive to keep their business within the states and supply jobs. Many of that level complain about their tax money being spent to help the same people they laid off so they could save a few bucks and buy a new yacht to show off.

But in tight times like these, I think most know they must do something to get out the hole but how to do it is the dividing factor. Some want to cut off government aid to the poor. Some do not want no more bailouts for major corporations or banks, some say stop foreign aid, some say stop wasteful spending by congress/senate on their travel expenses, some say stop spending money on NASA and the military. Some say cut out corporate tax breaks(one year recently GE made record profits but didn't pay a single penny in taxes.) and some say raise taxes for the low income people (as it stands many don't pay taxes because their income don't reach the set level, but receive lot of stuff off tax dollars others paid.)

In order to get out the hole, I think there will have to be some sort of semblance of agreement of what is important and what will cost more in the long run for short term placates, and what is simply perks some people can actually live without  but don't want to give up.

[Eoraptor]

Taxes taxes taxes TAXES, it all comes down to taxes.

Or rather, it comes down to the people who don't pay their taxes and the people who enable them to do that.

Does this country over-spend and spend badly? Yes it does. We all know of $500 toilet seats, $175 shovels, and the guy who is paid to sit in a break room because regulations say that he HAS to because of some insanity of red tape. And we also know that the social systems are badly broken, geared to allow in people who don't need them and to keep out the truly needy who can't afford a lawyer or a doctor who will fight for their rights.

and yet. what is the first thing you hear about whenever a company opens, or wants to open, a new office or make an expansion? "This expansion was made possible in part thanks to tax incentives and infrastructure improvements by the city, county, or state." These agreements are only supposed to last a year, five years at the most, and are supposed to be predicated on goals being met or jobs created, and yet, somehow they never end up that way. Waivers are always granted, extensions extended, etc...

We've literally created a system where we COMPETE to NOT make companies and wealthy individuals pay their fair share. John Deere, Wells Fargo, Microsoft, Google, Verizon, Lockheed Martin... the very first thing they do when they decide they want to put in a new piece of operation, be it a tower, a call center, a data center, or a plant, is to ask the prospective locations "what will you give us to do this thing?" It's worse than the mafia.

Don't even get me started on big oil... I could go on that topic longer than Ted Cruze on healthcare.

Yes we're fighting a battle of poor spending, but we're doing it with one hand plus three fingers on the other tied behind our backs. It's set up a vicious cycle where we as a nation don't have enough money coming in to pay our bills, like education and infrastructure, and that causes those things to deteriorate, then we lose our ability to see the big problem right in front of us because we're too busy looking at our own shoelaces to ensure we don't trip up with what we have left. And that in turn causes the big problem to get even bigger and the infrastructure to break down even more and make us concentrate even more on our shoelaces and not tripping, right up until we trip.

all because government at every level has made tacit agreements to not make wealthy industry and individuals pay their portion of the tax load. 

To provide example and perspective... in the nineteen fifties and sixties when this country was at its economic apex, building the interstate highway system, building public hospitals, building schools and colleges, leading the entire world in scientific discovery through massive new atomic-age laboratories paid through with public funding, etc;  the tax load on the wealthy and super-wealthy was as high as seventy-five percent of gross income. And yet, you' be hard pressed to find anyone who could say that, economically, America as a nation was hurting. In fact, we were so well off, that we were able to have both a social and a sexual revolution through the sixties and seventies.

But by the time the nineteen eighties rolled around, the entire system was being turned on its head... public schools, hospitals, and colleges were closing left and right; highways, bridges, and rails were being left to rot on the idea we'd pay to fix them later; all controls on private industry were being rolled back, and the tax rate on the top 10% of American earners was being slashed to the bone on the laughable misguided idea that they would be generous enough to share their wealth.

Fast forward thirty years with that system in place.. a system of not taxing the people who can afford it and over-taxing the people who can't (like those half of all McDonald's workers working a full week and still needing food stamps) and total deregulation over private industry to the point of government sanctioned monopolies and zero control over ensuring competition; that bridges are literally falling down and our kids can't even get an art class in school because art supplies are too expensive and art class can't be graded by a standardized test to fight over the dregs of funding that remain, and that people are dropping dead because they were afraid to go to a hospital for the bill it would bring.

And yet it's hyper-conservatives such as Tea Party who claim we're paying too MUCH in taxes and we need less government control over the way the economy runs and even more privatization. What we need is rightsized government, a government that protects the public and the environment from big business, not a government that protects big business from the public and the environment. And yes, that is the very definition of dirty socialism and the antithesis of conservatism like the Tea Party... but frankly, I think we could do with a bit more of it.

[healix]

Chris Rock nailed it...

https://i.imgur.com/j4IqYy7l.png

[Shenku]

I can see your point about people at the top not payig enough in taxes, especially after all the ridiculous tax breaks some abuse, but that's only part of the problem, and taxing them even 90% of what they make won't fix the problem.

The problem is two fold. First, you have people like me who work so few hours a week and make so little money as is per year that come tax return time, the government actually gives us money. My last tax return, it calculated out so that the government was actually giving me back more money than I actually paid in, and by quite a lot. So essentially, despite money being taken out of my pay checks every cycle for taxes, I always end up owing litterally no federal taxes at all, and instead get free money every spring.

The second part of the problem is you have congress spending and spending like a spoiled college student with daddy's credit card, and when ever the card maxes out, they just switch to another card with a higher limit. Eventually, daddy needs to cut off the spoiled kid and make him stop spending like Wilma and Betty in The Flinstones...

Don't spend more than you take in. It's not that difficult of a concept to figure out, but this is the main thing the Tea Party is trying to tell congress. Government expansion and taxes are issues too, but the big problem most Tea Party people have is with the out of control spending and congress being too dysfunctional and isolated in their own narrow minded perceptions of reality to actually know what's going on, let alone actually do the jobs we pay them to do. And that's not even mentioning the so called "wolves" who are always looking for a way to get a little extra for themselves via what basically equates to legalized theft of federal tax dollars.

[Ironwolf]

As a Tea Party supporter this is MY issue with the government:

Crony Capitalism.

In Washington they all are in the back pocket of someone rich. Warren Buffet made $10 billion from his dealing with Obama's administration. I am not going to single out Obama because the ignorant idea that a Company like GE can make billions in profits and pay zero tax is just one of the problems and not limited to any party.

They tax the individuals to give the money to their rich friends.

They then force upon the regular citizens their personal little plans for Utopia. Don't eat this it is bad for you, don't let children run around going bang, bang with their fingers it's bad for them, don't wear a shirt with a gun on it - or one that says NRA. Basically they believe they are smarter than we are and so while they get a 75% exemption from the Healthcare law and get Gold packages - the average person is forced to take whatever the government says they must. Like men having to buy coverage for pregnancy!

The government keeps mandating more and more. Now they are using the IRS to bludgeon individuals while ignoring huge companies because they are the friends of a politician. Many Tea Party people have a wide gamut of ideas and like all groups some are bat-crap crazy - but most are rational and surprisingly knowledgeable:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/tea-party-science-98488.html

Here is the thing - this "scientist" made a value judgement on a group of people - he had never met. He decided they were ignorant, due strictly to stories in the media. Then once he tests them he finds they were actually quite intelligent. Then in spite of all of this he makes this statement:

While Kahan cautioned against thinking the results can be used to explain deep ideological fights over climate change and other politically relevant science, and he said the results wouldn't change his negative views of the tea party, he did say he will no longer make assumptions about the level of knowledge on his opponents' side.

So who has the open mind here? I am not a christian and I recall people saying  right wingers want to jam religion down others throats and make them believe their way only. Which group of people now force you to submit to dozens of "zero" tolerance stands on issues?

Use an open mind and see what we are trying to say - it is NOT that we don't want government - we want RESPONSIBLE governing. I would love a flat tax. Make it 10% for EVERYONE. Including every company. But you see politicians don't want that because then they can't give their friends special deals. So they take our money and spread it where THEY want to.

I have zero problems with the social programs to help the poor, older folks and those who are handicapped. But that is NOT where the taxes are going, it is going on $2.5 billion on a new dam to buy a Senator all while families of fire fighters killed in a blaze get ZERO - http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/08/19917073-yarnell-hill-firefighters-kin-say-theyre-being-cheated-out-of-benefits?lite

This is what we are fighting for. This is what I stand for and while again some of us may have differing ideas - no one else in Washington is willing to make a stand. Did you know the FED is currently spending $85 BILLION a month and where is it going?
http://blog.jdaassociates.com/where-is-the-85-billion-per-month-the-fed-is-printing-going/

Wall Street.

So the next ignorant politician who tries to tell you they are for the middle class - remember they are bribing Wall Street with $85 BILLION a MONTH. All this while they want to increase taxes on the average Joe.

[Kyriani]

I don't have an issue with a lot of the stated platforms of the Tea Party or even some of the Republicans or Democrats. My biggest issue is that it almost universally ends up being "do as I say not as I do". They often stray wildly from their stated platforms. Claiming "fiscal responsibility" and then spending like a drunken sailor does not a fiscal conservative make IMO. Claiming to be for "small government" and then passing laws that restrict a woman's right to handle her personal medical business or passing laws that actively deny tax paying citizens the right to marry just because they are of the same gender is not making government smaller either.

I also have a problem when those who claim to be for "fiscal responsibility" want to cut everything that helps the poor and sick but want to spend without limit on things like military contracts and wars.

I could probably support the Tea Party if not for some of the issues they take up and the extremist members that often grab the spotlight. I'm a gay tax paying citizen. Any party that actively tries to deny me the same rights as everyone else or worse supports violence being done towards me can never have my support. I 'd like to think Ironwolf doesn't personally feel that way towards me but I have no way of knowing that and those extremists often get all the coverage.

"Anti-gay bullying is not bullying at all; in fact, it is peer pressure and is healthy." That's according to Rich Swier, an activist with the Tea Party Nation. How any decent human being could ever espouse such a thing... especially when bullying like that has resulted in the suicide of so many young people, is just anathema to me.

If the Tea Party were truly fiscally conservative but stayed out of social issues I would have more common ground with them. But NOTHING in their platform can convince me to support them when they actively see me as "less than" and less deserving of equal treatment under the law.

I don't expect to post much else in this topic because the last time I was involved in such a topic I did not come away from it feeling the community that I normally feel on these forums. In any case... if the Tea Party dropped the crazy, actually lived up to its claimed fiscal conservatism without throwing the poor under a bus, and got their nose out of social issues, it could be a party I might support.

[Terwyn]

I'm Canadian, so I honestly do not have the same political background and framework that would exist in the US, but I will say one thing that I've noticed about the tea party - it has some potentially chilling similarities to the Bloc Quebecois.

[Zombie Man]

Saying that the Tea Party is just about Fiscal Conservatism is simply not the case.

It may be for you, Ironwolf. But your movement is tarred by association with radical elements. Can you tell us you disavow and would gladly throw out of the "Tea Party Movement" people who:

1. Are 'Birthers' and claim the president has no legal standing to be president because he's secretly foreign born.

2. Other conspiracy nutwings: People who claim the president is secretly Muslim; or that there is a cabal of congressional reps who are controlled by Muslim interests; or that there are serious attempts to enact Sharia law in the US; etc...

3. Are Flat Taxers. This movement would raise or start taxing those who are below the poverty line and drastically lower the taxes of the top 1-10%. A non-progressive tax rate is insane and only floated by those who are very wealthy and those who are middle to working class folk who duped to think they are actually rich or will likely to be rich (which is in fact very unlikely).

4.  Are internationally paranoid. They believe that the agenda of the U.N. is to make the U.S. a puppet of the organization and *any* UN initiative is inherently bad for the US.


These are the folk that give the Tea Part a bad rep. Will you disown them?

[eabrace]

https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/eabrace/titan/moderator_hat.png<--Moderator Hat
We all know where political discussions end up around here, so this is a pre-emptive warning to keep it civil in here.

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1464902400/hE1ED2165/

And you know I'll lock this in a heartbeat if I start getting moderator reports.

Play nice.

</Moderator Hat>

[FatherXmas]

Saying that the Tea Party is just about Fiscal Conservatism is simply not the case.

It may be for you, Ironwolf. But your movement is tarred by association with radical elements. Can you tell us you disavow and would gladly throw out of the "Tea Party Movement" people who:

1. Are 'Birthers' and claim the president has no legal standing to be president because he's secretly foreign born.

2. Other conspiracy nutwings: People who claim the president is secretly Muslim; or that there is a cabal of congressional reps who are controlled by Muslim interests; or that there are serious attempts to enact Sharia law in the US; etc...

3. Are Flat Taxers. This movement would raise or start taxing those who are below the poverty line and drastically lower the taxes of the top 1-10%. A non-progressive tax rate is insane and only floated by those who are very wealthy and those who are middle to working class folk who duped to think they are actually rich or will likely to be rich (which is in fact very unlikely).

4.  Are internationally paranoid. They believe that the agenda of the U.N. is to make the U.S. a puppet of the organization and *any* UN initiative is inherently bad for the US.


These are the folk that give the Tea Part a bad rep. Will you disown them?

I will.  It started as fiscal conservative, small government, sane taxation and sadly been hijacked by groups that may also believe in that but are much more vocal with other agendas and they now drown out our original voices.

The problem with a progressive tax is that the shear size of the tax code allows only the very rich to find the loop holes that allow them to only pay 10% income tax rather than 40% while families of two working professionals are stuck paying the 40%.  Flat tax advocates aim for a much simpler tax code that should prevent those who can afford it from gaming the system.

And it's not like liberal groups don't have their own conspiracy nutjobs with their "truthers" or Bilderberg/Masonic/secret society controlling the world economy.  Both sides have fringe elements.

[Ironwolf]

I have zero problems with anyone's sexuality. Who and what you do in your own bed is your affair.

You see the Tea Party folks aren't anyone set of ideals - they are people - just people. They see what Washington is doing and by god as a veteran and a taxpayer closing down war memorials for spite - is ridiculous.

I agree with having same sex benefits that married couples get. The only issue I have is if you try and say a church MUST marry you. That is their choice and can believe as they will the same as me. I know on Indian lands same sex marriage has been legal for a very long time.

My main issue as stated - the demonize anyone that attacks the status quo. If you watched any of the ted Cruz filibuster that wasn't a filibuster, he was very clear and very open. I was impressed by him as he gave numerous alternative to a mandated healthcare run by a central government and open to abuse by tyranny.

The IRS - the same one that abused the Tea Party is running Obamacare! That frightens me beyond belief knowing what the spiteful politicians did on the shutdown. Using divisive rhetoric to not bring Americans closer but to drive wedges in so they may keep us from uniting and driving them out. That is their goal and they have a willing media jumping in to attack as well.

Did you know the final day of the shutdown it was in the media 41 to 0 ZERO that the Republicans were the ones to blame for the shutdown. Not once saying the other party refused to make any kind of deal at all - you know politicking? It just keeps coming back to me watching what is happening in Detroit on a national scale.

Detroit has Billions in unfunded debt - pensions, healthcare and other expenses. It didn't happen all at once, it was over time. We have now got a debt of over $17 TRILLION. It is up $7 trillion under Obama. I don't care why, I don't care who caused it. I just want to know WHO IS GOING TO START FIXING IT. It wasn't great under Bush as he was good at security and terrible at spending. Not as bad as Obama - but bad enough.

You see I work in Detroit and it is grim there. I can see how bad it may get for my generation as we turn to retire and no money is left. That is what Detroit is facing now kicking people off the pensions.

[Segev]

As a Tea Party supporter this is MY issue with the government:

Crony Capitalism.

I actually dislike this phrase, because it too easily has the "crony" part dropped by the very scumbags who are abusing the system in order to vilify capitalism (which is, in fact, the enemy of "crony capitalists" and their politician bedfellows).

There's an old word for this that describes it perfectly: Mercantilism. So-called "private" enterprises that are, in fact, given preferential standing, treatment, and even funding by the government. The biggest farce perpetrated by this lot is a load of government regulations. Most are "vetted" by the top-dog companies that will be supposedly controlled by said regulations. This is used to "prove" that "even the private sector is behind this common-sense effort." The truth is, by designing them, these large and powerful companies create the regulations to be minimal expenses on their own part due to their size, but monumental barriers to entry into their fields by any competitor who isn't already in the ruling class (i.e. politicians and mercantilists who can afford to launder grants and loans from the government into campaign money and cushy post-career jobs for said politicians).

As a conservative, I actually think the Chris Rock meme linked above is foolish. No, it's NOT their job to "come together and form a consensus." Their job is to fight for policies that will achieve the ends their constituents elected them to pursue. That's why the Tea Party tends to be happy with gridlock: they elected people to STOP the run-away spending in Washington (and out of disgust over Obamacare), and the gridlock is almost exclusively over those two issues. "Compromising" to "keep the government working" is not in any way conducive to this. Not only is the government "not working" a misleading claim (witness the deliberate lengths the Executive branch went to to try to MAKE it sting: closing parks that are funded privately but happen to be on federal land; spending MORE money to post guards to keep veterans OUT of the WWII memorial; closing the National Mall to citizens but opening it to a pro-Amnesty-for-illegal-immigrants rally...but not, heaven forbid, the golf course at Camp David; deciding NIH funding for treating kids with cancer was not 'essential' and the Democrat-controlled Senate refusing to evne consider a bill to fund that specific thing), but the demonstration of just how well the nation as a whole continued to function without that federal spending was a good thing for the Tea Party position. That position being: we do not need all this spending.

(On the subject of deliberately making the shutdown hurt as much as possible, just imagine what could have happened if the ACA were in full effect and Sebelius had the power to declare that no medical treatment for ANYBODY would be okayed by the review boards because of the shutdown!)

The Tea Party is about smaller government because big government spends too much and has too much power for far, far too little benefit.

Speaking as a CI expert, I know from scientific research (some of which is my own, done personally) that a decentralized optimization algorithm finds multiple local maxima and adapts to local environmental conditions far better than a top-down heuristic decision-maker. The only regulation we need from government is an enforcement of a few simple rules to ensure that the fitness function is not distorted by encouraging malfeasant behavior. And no, "things that hurt customers" are not what we need to worry about. Believe it or not, goods and service providers who kill off their customers don't last very long. What we need is regulation to protect against deceptive and coercive practices which engage in fraud or extortion to take what people are not willing to give, and to protect against theft. That's really about it.

For other services, we can leave it to States and even Municipalities. Decentralize the decision-making and the power to confiscate wealth, and you concentrate less wealth and power in one place, making it less attractive to mercantilists (a.k.a. "crony capitalists," just in case my preferred redefinition has not yet sunk in) and power-hungry politicians. You also make it harder to commit graft on a large scale, because there are more eyes on it at an active level.

Now, the Tea Party as a group doesn't generally believe all of this can be done overnight. But we do tend to support those who fight for it, and get frustrated at Republican so-called "leadership" and the Democrats as a whole for their blatant disregard for our concerns. It's not "compromise" that we want; it's victory. We don't view "anything to keep the government working" as a good thing; we view it as a PROBLEM. Are there things we would prefer over a government shutdown? Heavens yes. But the shutdown - even a debt ceiling not being extended - is preferable to allowing the Democrats to hold this nation hostage with the threats thereof.

Yes, I said it: it was Obama and Reid "holding the nation hostage." They were the ones predicting dire consequences, and they were the ones refusing to negotiate. Refusing to give an inch. The House bill funded everything except Obamacare. It funded way more than the Tea Party probably would have liked. But it was Reid and Obama who held everything hostage to it. (When asked about the NIH funding for kids with cancer, and if Reid would support something that would help even one kid live, his response was "Why would we want to do that?" He went on to compare that to the plight of air force base employees in his home state, who "have troubles of their own." I shudder to think if he could have held the entire nation's health care hostage, rather than just a few hundred innocent kids.)

Fortunately, it was found out that, no, the "hostage taking" wasn't real. We can live without government "non-essential" services. Heck, I read an article the other day that noted that the dollar was as strong as it's been in 5 years during the shutdown, and has fallen again in value since the Republicans caved.

Now, this isn't to say that the Tea Party is wholly unsatisfied. We know we can't win everything. We are pleased with most of how this went. We hope to see more of this at the next debt ceiling clash. We want actual leadership, not a kowtowing to the ruling class's mandates and dictates. It's not that we like "fighting," but that we don't see "give in and do what the Democrats want" as preferable to said fighting.

For those who are baffled by this attitude, let me attempt to construct a counter-scenario.

Let's say George W. Bush was still President, and Boehner was Speaker, and Reid controlled the Senate. Let's say W. wanted funding to expand the war in the middle east, and to start toppling Syria, Iran, and Egypt's regimes. There is a huge outcry from the Left-wing base in this nation (say Occupy Wall Street had become a movement akin to what the Tea Party is now).

The House will only pass CRs that have funding for W.'s war. Reid, leading the senate, is unsure whether to pass them or not. W. and Boehner and Cruz talk about how not passing these things will bankrupt the economy and hurt the US world-wide. They warn against Reid "holding the country hostage" to stop a necessary war. They don't want to negotiate with these "Democrat terrorists."

Would you be shouting for Reid to just pass it, to compromise, because the nation can't be held hostage to this? Or would you be cheering him for using every bit of power he has to block the funding of these wars? Imagine these wars to be every bit as unjust as you like; this is roughly how the Tea Party views Obamacare, so it's a fair comparison, I believe. (Note, I am not going to get into whether either side is RIGHT to view them this horribly; I am trying to paint a picture of the emotional and intellectual response to them. Even if you think the Tea Party is "nuts" or somehow horribly unfair to think of Obamacare the way the Left tends to think of "Bush's wars" in the middle east, we do. Now, realizing that, put yourself in our position, and ask if you really want Reid in this hypothetical to cave to Bush and Boehner, or if you want him to fight for what's right even if it's unpopular with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.)

[Kyriani]

As far as I am aware no advocacy group has asked for churches to be forced to perform ceremonies they disagree with and I wouldn't support such a thing regardless. It violates the constitution just as denying same sex couples the same rights and protections that the law affords to everyone else does. The thing I think many people have difficult doing is separating the concept of religious matrimony and legal marriage. They also tend to fail to realize that some religions DO perform weddings for same sex couples yet those weddings do not get the same legal recognition which discriminates against those churches that do perform such weddings. I would never support forcing a church to perform a ceremony it doesn't agree with but I also would never deny a church the same legal standing for its ceremonies that other churches get.

I am not going to discuss Ted Cruz... I have nothing good to say about the man. It's best if I simply remain silent there.

Republicans were to blame for the shutdown. Why? Because there was nothing to negotiate. No deal to be made. Republicans had nothing to offer. They wanted to repeal or delay key parts of the ACA but they didn't have the votes to do so through the proper legislative process. So instead they resorted to extortion by attempting to hold the nation hostage in the hopes Obama would cave like he did last time. He didn't and Republicans got NOTHING for their efforts and added 24 billion dollars to deficit for their troubles. So much for fiscal conservatism.

The debt ceiling turns out to be unexploded ordnance lying around the American form of government. Only custom or moral compunction stops the opposition party from using it to nullify the president's powers, or, for that matter, the president from using it to nullify Congress's. (Obama could, theoretically, threaten to veto a debt ceiling hike unless Congress attaches it to the creation of single-payer health insurance.)

To weaponize the debt ceiling, you must be willing to inflict harm on millions of innocent people. Republicans proved willing to push us to the very edge of that. It is a shockingly powerful self-destruct button built into our very system of government, but only useful for the most ideologically hardened or borderline sociopathic. But it turns out to be the perfect tool for the contemporary GOP: a party large enough to control a chamber of Congress yet too small to win the presidency, and infused with a dangerous, millenarian combination of overheated Randian paranoia and fully justified fear of adverse demographic trends. The only thing that limits the debt ceiling's potency at the moment is the widespread suspicion that Boehner is too old school, too lacking in the Leninist will to power that fires his newer co-partisans, to actually carry out his threat. (He has suggested as much to some colleagues in private.) Boehner himself is thus the one weak link in the House Republicans' ability to carry out a kind of rolling coup against the Obama administration. Unfortunately, Boehner's control of his chamber is tenuous enough that, like the ailing monarch of a crumbling regime, it's impossible to strike an agreement with him in full security it will be carried out.

We can't make extortion routine as part of our democracy. Think about it this way: The American people do not get to demand a ransom for doing their jobs. You don't get a chance to call your bank and say I'm not going to pay my mortgage this month unless you throw in a new car and an Xbox. Most Americans -- Democrats and Republicans -- agree that health care should not have anything to do with keeping our government open or paying our bills on time.

Republicans ship our jobs to China shouting Free markets, while China has 45% import tariffs, 40% tax rates, takes a 51% interest in every business there, has unions now and government mandated wage increases of 23% per year to build a middleclass that buys its production as we once did, has an EPA now as the cost of not having one was destroying their country and is implementing a single payer healthcare system..

All of that has never stopped corporate America from sending our industry and jobs there.

I'd like conservatives to stop telling us that they want to drive women back to the back alley because they "care about their health." I want them to stop telling us they care about fiscal prudence when three decades of evidence makes abundantly clear that in a choice between responsible budgets and giveaways to the rich, they will choose the latter almost every time. I want conservatives to stop telling us that they want to pass laws to restrict minority voting because they claim to want to address the essentially non-existent problem of voter fraud. And, I'd dearly love for them to stop telling us that they take to heart the teachings of the Lord when, lacking remotely credible reasons, they reject health programs that could save thousands of lives a year, all because they just don't think the poor deserve anything but their suffering.

I don't say any of this assuming any person here feels exactly this way. This is just the mindset I am in after watching politics for the past 20 years. I'm not a spring chicken any more and I've seen enough to know who is going to treat me like a human being and who has an "every man for himself" mentality. Most conservatives I see today are toxic to me. And most of the ones who get the spotlight are the ones who'd put me in a concentration camp if they could get away with it. Until conservatives excise their extremist elements and learn to actually live as they say everyone else should live, they will continue to see their support shrink year after year.

[Golden Girl]

I could probably support the Tea Party if not for some of the issues they take up and the extremist members that often grab the spotlight. I'm a gay tax paying citizen. Any party that actively tries to deny me the same rights as everyone else or worse supports violence being done towards me can never have my support. I 'd like to think Ironwolf doesn't personally feel that way towards me but I have no way of knowing that and those extremists often get all the coverage.

"Anti-gay bullying is not bullying at all; in fact, it is peer pressure and is healthy." That's according to Rich Swier, an activist with the Tea Party Nation. How any decent human being could ever espouse such a thing... especially when bullying like that has resulted in the suicide of so many young people, is just anathema to me.

If the Tea Party were truly fiscally conservative but stayed out of social issues I would have more common ground with them. But NOTHING in their platform can convince me to support them when they actively see me as "less than" and less deserving of equal treatment under the law.

You just need to be patient now - recently, society has taken a huge step forwards, and while there'll still be some battles ahead as the crazies fight a doomed rearguard action, the actual war for marriage equality is already won - there's no going back now, and when the current generation of children who are now growing up in a fairer society become adults, to them the anti-equality brigade will be as influential and as relevant as their friends in the Klan were after segregation ended.
Hate groups always fail in the end, because hatred isn't a viable long term force.

[Kyriani]

You just need to be patient now - recently, society has taken a huge step forwards, and while there'll still be some battles ahead as the crazies fight a doomed rearguard action, the actual war for marriage equality is already won - there's no going back now, and when the current generation of children who are now growing up in a fairer society become adults, to them the anti-equality brigade will be as influential and as relevant as their friends in the Klan were after segregation ended.
Hate groups always fail in the end, because hatred isn't a viable long term force.

I can only hope I'll see it in my lifetime.

[JaguarX]

You just need to be patient now - recently, society has taken a huge step forwards, and while there'll still be some battles ahead as the crazies fight a doomed rearguard action, the actual war for marriage equality is already won - there's no going back now, and when the current generation of children who are now growing up in a fairer society become adults, to them the anti-equality brigade will be as influential and as relevant as their friends in the Klan were after segregation ended.
Hate groups always fail in the end, because hatred isn't a viable long term force.

Yup. Eventually history will look back like we do on segregation, slavery, interracial marriage and stuff (most people) and say "Geesh, there were some hateful people and laws back then. What were they thinking and so afraid of?" and (politicians) want to brush it under the rug and then have movies come out trying to make it look like they were all for it and pure and righteous but had to battle the evil force of anarchy hate groups' money that was for and behind the hate. But even then the truth comes out like anything, especially in recorded media era.

[Segev]

Well, the Republicans had the votes to not pass funding for it. The Democrats could have avoided the shutdown by passing the CR as the House - the body Constitutionally empowered to originate spending bills - passed it. They chose not to, holding the entire budget hostage to Obamacare.

We have the two houses of Congress for a REASON, and that's specifically to ensure that there is plenty of room for this kind of thing to happen. That no one group gets to monolithically walk all over everybody.

The reason it takes both houses passing something is precisely because it's intended that things so controversial that even a majority of only one of them are against it can be held up, delayed, or stopped. Claiming that "they don't have the votes" is an obvious canard: they clearly had the votes to hold it up.

Claiming that the Democrats had nothing to do with the shutdown is simple fanboyishness for them, on par with saying that the team that loses the superbowl had nothing to do with winning: it's all the fault of the other team for preventing them from getting touchdowns. Only a silly-blind fan of the losing team would make such a ludicrous claim.

Either side could have arranged for the CR to pass with no shutdown. It is Constitutionally stated that the House is the body which is meant to originate revenue bills. One could argue that the Senate, by refusing to pass a revenue bill that DID NOT include their pet program, was actually the one standing in the way of proper constitutional process of government. I won't make that claim; I think it's very much in the rights and duties of the Senate to oppose the House if there's disagreement. But if one is going to place blame, the fact that the Senate would not pass any funding that DID NOT include Obamacare means they were the ones responsible for the shutdown. They could have passed the funding as presented and the government would not have shut down. (Well, assuming Obama signed it, but that would again be the choice of the one obstructing the funding for everything else unless he gets his way.)

The Republicans did have something to negotiate.

They passed funding for everything except Obamacare.

Now, of course, this is moot; Boehner and the so-called "leadership" caved. But we're talking theory and what the Tea Party wants, so it still matters.

But the point of THIS post is simply to drive home that, if you are going to insist that it's ONLY the Republicans' fault there was a shut-down, then you're basically claiming that the will of the majority of this nation as represented by the ratios of elected officials in both houses of Congress only counts when it agrees with you. Because like it or not, the Republicans control the house, and many of those seats are held due to the Tea Party.

And insisting the republicans shoudl never have refused Reid and Obama's ultimatum is to say that the Republicans basically are in the wrong if they ever oppose the Democrats. Which...well. If you can't see why that's a silly notion in a Republic, then I'm really not sure how to proceed.

[Segev]

I suppose, on reflection, this is drifting off topic, however.

What the Tea Party wants is to see their side of things represented. Men and women have been elected to do so. The Tea Party's side of things is very much against Obamacare and a lot of other spending. The Tea Party wants to see those they've elected fight for these things. Fight for smaller government. Fight for less intrusion. Fight for lower taxes and less spending and NOT CONTINUING ON THIS PATH TO DOUBLING OUR NATIONAL DEBT IN 8 YEARS. (we've added 6 or 7 trillion in 5 years. 3 more years at this rate means we'll easily hit 10 trillion. We were at 10 or 11 trillion TOTAL 6 years ago.)

We don't want to see our side continuously give up in the name of "compromise." We are sick of seeing "compromise" mean "agree to whatever the other side wants, and maybe get some pork barrel spending (which the tea party is also against) for the RINOs to make them able to claim there was compromise." We are sick of being treated like an underclass who needs to shut up and let the ruling class decide what we can and can't keep and siphoning up money to enrich themselves.

Most of all, we want to see those we send into office FIGHT for what we believe in, and insist that ground be given if any "compromise" is going to be reached.

Passing ALL OF THE SPENDING except for 1 thing sounds a lot like a compromise to me, when the Tea Party is not happy about far, far more spending than just that one thing. But that one thing was and is particularly odious to the Tea PArty, so in a gesture of compromise, it was offered to fund everything else in exchange for that.

That wasn't enough for Reid and Obama. They wanted Obamacare more than they wanted everythign else, it seems, since they were willing to chuck everything if they couldn't have Obamacare.

This is fine with the Tea Party; it gave us MORE of what we wanted. (Negotiating tip: If somebody is willing to let you have nearly everything, it isn't helping you to refuse to take ANY of it if you can't have it all. ...well, unless the supposed leadership of that 'other side' secretly wants you to have everything, too, and is terrified that they'll be called names for daring to oppose you in any little way.)

By the by: the biggest thing the Tea Party wants from its political representatives? Men and women who aren't afraid of being called names for daring to oppose the Leftist agenda in any way, shape, manner, or form. (Seriously: name a way in which the Leftist agenda can be opposed without the opposition being called names. "Bigot" being a favorite. I mean, I've seen it thrown around in here: daring to oppose the views of the Left, daring to think their causes are NOT the greatest thing since sliced bread and daring to think there might be anything other than exactly the full implementation of whatever they demand has already been called "hate." This kind of rhetoric - especially when believed by those spewing it - means there can be no discussion. You're either with them or you're not human enough to be worthy of consideration. Honestly, sounds like the justification for a religious war wherein heresy is to be punished more than a reasoned debate between human beings who care about each other as human beings.)

[JaguarX]

Well, the Republicans had the votes to not pass funding for it. The Democrats could have avoided the shutdown by passing the CR as the House - the body Constitutionally empowered to originate spending bills - passed it. They chose not to, holding the entire budget hostage to Obamacare.

We have the two houses of Congress for a REASON, and that's specifically to ensure that there is plenty of room for this kind of thing to happen. That no one group gets to monolithically walk all over everybody.

The reason it takes both houses passing something is precisely because it's intended that things so controversial that even a majority of only one of them are against it can be held up, delayed, or stopped. Claiming that "they don't have the votes" is an obvious canard: they clearly had the votes to hold it up.

Claiming that the Democrats had nothing to do with the shutdown is simple fanboyishness for them, on par with saying that the team that loses the superbowl had nothing to do with winning: it's all the fault of the other team for preventing them from getting touchdowns. Only a silly-blind fan of the losing team would make such a ludicrous claim.

Either side could have arranged for the CR to pass with no shutdown. It is Constitutionally stated that the House is the body which is meant to originate revenue bills. One could argue that the Senate, by refusing to pass a revenue bill that DID NOT include their pet program, was actually the one standing in the way of proper constitutional process of government. I won't make that claim; I think it's very much in the rights and duties of the Senate to oppose the House if there's disagreement. But if one is going to place blame, the fact that the Senate would not pass any funding that DID NOT include Obamacare means they were the ones responsible for the shutdown. They could have passed the funding as presented and the government would not have shut down. (Well, assuming Obama signed it, but that would again be the choice of the one obstructing the funding for everything else unless he gets his way.)

The Republicans did have something to negotiate.

They passed funding for everything except Obamacare.

Now, of course, this is moot; Boehner and the so-called "leadership" caved. But we're talking theory and what the Tea Party wants, so it still matters.

But the point of THIS post is simply to drive home that, if you are going to insist that it's ONLY the Republicans' fault there was a shut-down, then you're basically claiming that the will of the majority of this nation as represented by the ratios of elected officials in both houses of Congress only counts when it agrees with you. Because like it or not, the Republicans control the house, and many of those seats are held due to the Tea Party.

And insisting the republicans shoudl never have refused Reid and Obama's ultimatum is to say that the Republicans basically are in the wrong if they ever oppose the Democrats. Which...well. If you can't see why that's a silly notion in a Republic, then I'm really not sure how to proceed.

Truth.


Although when things like this happen the people and citizens are the ones that are affected. Whether a person is democrat or republican neither or Green Tree party, when the lay offs and furloughs come, they get it regardless of party affiliation. Thus for those that are laid off especially end up having to apply for gov. assistance and many start to realize that not everyone is taking advantage of of the system as they previously thought once they have to do it themselves.

The only ones who's life in a financial manner is not affected either way it goes are congress members, the senate, the white house. They get paid either way even if they shutdown for 3 years.

The average citizen probably have no idea what the fuss is about in the wording of what was trying to be passed and held up the process. It might have been some nonsense or it might have been a very good idea. WHat many people know is that the gov. shutdown affected their lives and the American way is that it means someone is right, someone is wrong, it's someone's fault and someone is faultless. This means usually that the opposite party is at fault and their own party they believe in are angels trying to do what is right. When in reality it's usually not so cut and dry. But unfortunately the way some people view stuff regardless the lack of information they know or don't know, what they perceive is proper and that is their reality of the situation, and their reality is right.