Why It’s Time for the Tea Party

[nebula]

Why would it violate the TOS?

But also, is your claim that these things are the creators of the Tea Party, or simply that they jumped on Board with financial support after it got started?

That would be a matter of opinion. Arguably it may have started out as a grass roots movement, but the important thing is that it isn't ending up that way. What is good for Mr. Koch won't necessarily be good for people of more modest means. I'm sure he would love to get rid of Social Security, for example, because he doesn't need it. So as a voter I would be extremely cautious.

You are making it sound as if this man has taken over the Tea Party? That seems highly unlikely. He is just one of many who have put their weight into the field.

And frankly, I think you should be more concerned about the Occupy Wallstreet and who is in charge of the money for that right now. (Not to divert the topic, but to give a perspective comparison.)

[sue244]

All over the place on this one.

Media matters, Americans for Progress, Tides Foundation, etc. are funding the Wallstreet Protests and George Soros Funds them. So, why not mention it?

The moderates in our country have no principles or vision for what they want America to be in the future. They seem wishy-washy and are one of the main reasons why our government continues to grow. Moderates got us Obama, the Nancy Pelosi-Reed Congress, and look where that has brought us.

What does the TEA party represent? Well, we could start by breaking down TEA: "Taxed Enough Already"

Why do you think people organized under that objective? Apparently they believe that they have paid their fair share in taxes, hardly malevolent.

What else does it represent? Limited government, state's rights, balanced budget.

Limited government: If the government is returned to it's limitations under the Constitution's enumerated powers, there would never be budget deficits.

If the government is smaller and cheaper to operate, then everyone's taxes will go down and that is a great thing for everyone that pays taxes.

State's rights: California shouldn't dictate the economic and energy development and independence of Texas. That would be a violation of the State's sovereignty.

Here we go, the golden calf of "moderates and progressives": Social Security. I see no problem with a state coming up with it's own "social security" program. That is well within their 10th Amendment rights to do so.

The US has been practicing Communism in principle ever since SS was inacted. What is SS? Well, it is the coersive collection of privately acquired resources, distributed to the community. Some people "contributed" to it, but received none of it. Some people "contributed" nothing to it, but took from it.

Now, what have we learned from it? It doesn't work. Eventually there will be too many takers and not enough producers. Jamestown experimented with Communism and 80% of the residents starved to death. We are faced with a similar dilemma with SS. People that thought it would be there for them in their retired years are learning that it won't be and they are faced with working until they die, or being too feeble to work and relying on someone else to provide for them.

I love this post. I'm so glad I'm not the only one who thinks that "moderates" are wishy washy. Although I don't think Assured is a moderate, not considering she gives a pass to all things on the left while condeming all things on the right. Just like you noticed that she never mention all the money behind Occupy.

Having been to sevearl Tea Party I can assure you they are grass root. The only proffesionally made "sign" I saw was the Don't Tread on Me Flag, The rest were handwritten signs and it was made up of people I knew from all over the community that just wanted to make their voices heard in a constructive leagal way.

[Assured]

b

All over the place on this one.

Media matters, Americans for Progress, Tides Foundation, etc. are funding the Wallstreet Protests and George Soros Funds them. So, why not mention it?

The moderates in our country have no principles or vision for what they want America to be in the future. They seem wishy-washy and are one of the main reasons why our government continues to grow. Moderates got us Obama, the Nancy Pelosi-Reed Congress, and look where that has brought us.

What does the TEA party represent? Well, we could start by breaking down TEA: "Taxed Enough Already"

Why do you think people organized under that objective? Apparently they believe that they have paid their fair share in taxes, hardly malevolent.

What else does it represent? Limited government, state's rights, balanced budget.

Limited government: If the government is returned to it's limitations under the Constitution's enumerated powers, there would never be budget deficits.

If the government is smaller and cheaper to operate, then everyone's taxes will go down and that is a great thing for everyone that pays taxes.

State's rights: California shouldn't dictate the economic and energy development and independence of Texas. That would be a violation of the State's sovereignty.

Here we go, the golden calf of "moderates and progressives": Social Security. I see no problem with a state coming up with it's own "social security" program. That is well within their 10th Amendment rights to do so.

The US has been practicing Communism in principle ever since SS was inacted. What is SS? Well, it is the coersive collection of privately acquired resources, distributed to the community. Some people "contributed" to it, but received none of it. Some people "contributed" nothing to it, but took from it.

Now, what have we learned from it? It doesn't work. Eventually there will be too many takers and not enough producers. Jamestown experimented with Communism and 80% of the residents starved to death. We are faced with a similar dilemma with SS. People that thought it would be there for them in their retired years are learning that it won't be and they are faced with working until they die, or being too feeble to work and relying on someone else to provide for them.

Hi Justin,

Did you take a look at the 2 links I provided? I was just trying to alert people that they'd better understand what they are supporting, because it has the potential to make them regret having supported it, otherwise. That's all I'm saying. ALEC has been involved in a lot of things that people had better think twice about, and ALEC is also heavily funded and supported by the Koch brothers (as is the Tea Party). I encourage you to do a search on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), because I don't want to be accused of spreading propaganda. I just want people to educate themselves, instead of assuming that they can make the Tea Party whatever they want it to be. Mr. Koch has already done that, because he is a major funder of it. It would behoove us to make sure we understand something before we decide to continue to support it.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Assured

[Assured]

Jim Wallis Piece

Yes I will admit that Assured has told me that she voted a Republican, although, I think she knows this, I don't consider her a moderate espcially given the websites she likes to post from, they are all extream left wing blogs. I'm still not sure why she shifted radically to the left. Nor am I sure what stunt she is refering to with Newt. I was not old enought to vote back then and had yet to develope my insterest in politics.

Sorry sue - I need to be more specific. Newt Gingrich shut the government down when he was Speaker of the House in the 1990's. There wasn't just the threat of a government shutdown - the government actually shut down! He lost his seat and the Republicans lost their majority in the House, and it ended Newt's political career.

What's scary about the Tea Party, though is that they are to the right of Newt Gingrich. That's a dangerous place to be, when we see how unpopular Newt Gingrich became.

So....... How do you feel about Jim Wallis?

He did an interesting opinion piece in the Huffington Post recently. I've linked it above. I like the piece, but I am not sure how he has aligned himself politically.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Assured

[Assured]

Why would it violate the TOS?

But also, is your claim that these things are the creators of the Tea Party, or simply that they jumped on Board with financial support after it got started?

That would be a matter of opinion. Arguably it may have started out as a grass roots movement, but the important thing is that it isn't ending up that way. What is good for Mr. Koch won't necessarily be good for people of more modest means. I'm sure he would love to get rid of Social Security, for example, because he doesn't need it. So as a voter I would be extremely cautious.

You are making it sound as if this man has taken over the Tea Party? That seems highly unlikely. He is just one of many who have put their weight into the field.

And frankly, I think you should be more concerned about the Occupy Wallstreet and who is in charge of the money for that right now. (Not to divert the topic, but to give a perspective comparison.)

I am glad you are bringing up this point, sue, because it gives me an opportunity to clarify this a little more. I do not see a progressive version of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) making cookie-cutter laws all over the country that are doing the exact same thing, everywhere. If I did, I certainly would look at who is funding it. That's why I am urging people to take another look at the Tea Party - because legislators are beholden to people who expect them to cut Social Security and Medicare. Vote for these people or keep them in Congress, and you are likely to regret it unless you are independently wealthy and plan to live on your investments and not work for a paycheck. Seriously - it will get very bad very quickly, and people will be saying, "That Republican presidential candidate seemed like such a nice guy!" Who cares if people wouldn't want to have President Obama over for dinner? At least he won't cut their Social Security and Medicare! You don't have to like the President - you just have to trust him to do the right thing. The Tea Party rhetoric rings hollow for me, and I say this as a former Republican. (Former because I don't trust these rich people who want to create a flat income tax.)

[nebula]

Why would it violate the TOS?

But also, is your claim that these things are the creators of the Tea Party, or simply that they jumped on Board with financial support after it got started?

That would be a matter of opinion. Arguably it may have started out as a grass roots movement, but the important thing is that it isn't ending up that way. What is good for Mr. Koch won't necessarily be good for people of more modest means. I'm sure he would love to get rid of Social Security, for example, because he doesn't need it. So as a voter I would be extremely cautious.

You are making it sound as if this man has taken over the Tea Party? That seems highly unlikely. He is just one of many who have put their weight into the field.

And frankly, I think you should be more concerned about the Occupy Wallstreet and who is in charge of the money for that right now. (Not to divert the topic, but to give a perspective comparison.)

I am glad you are bringing up this point, sue, because it gives me an opportunity to clarify this a little more. I do not see a progressive version of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) making cookie-cutter laws all over the country that are doing the exact same thing, everywhere. If I did, I certainly would look at who is funding it. That's why I am urging people to take another look at the Tea Party - because legislators are beholden to people who expect them to cut Social Security and Medicare. Vote for these people or keep them in Congress, and you are likely to regret it unless you are independently wealthy and plan to live on your investments and not work for a paycheck. Seriously - it will get very bad very quickly, and people will be saying, "That Republican presidential candidate seemed like such a nice guy!" Who cares if people wouldn't want to have President Obama over for dinner? At least he won't cut their Social Security and Medicare! You don't have to like the President - you just have to trust him to do the right thing. The Tea Party rhetoric rings hollow for me, and I say this as a former Republican. (Former because I don't trust these rich people who want to create a flat income tax.)

My name isn't sue.

And I don't trust Obama.

And there's more at stake than Social Security and Medicare. Social Security is a broke system and needs an overhaul if it is to last.

And really, the Tea Party people I know are dissatisfied with all the politicians and candidates.

[Assured]

own legislation

Why would it violate the TOS?

But also, is your claim that these things are the creators of the Tea Party, or simply that they jumped on Board with financial support after it got started?

That would be a matter of opinion. Arguably it may have started out as a grass roots movement, but the important thing is that it isn't ending up that way. What is good for Mr. Koch won't necessarily be good for people of more modest means. I'm sure he would love to get rid of Social Security, for example, because he doesn't need it. So as a voter I would be extremely cautious.

You are making it sound as if this man has taken over the Tea Party? That seems highly unlikely. He is just one of many who have put their weight into the field.

And frankly, I think you should be more concerned about the Occupy Wallstreet and who is in charge of the money for that right now. (Not to divert the topic, but to give a perspective comparison.)

I am glad you are bringing up this point, sue, because it gives me an opportunity to clarify this a little more. I do not see a progressive version of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) making cookie-cutter laws all over the country that are doing the exact same thing, everywhere. If I did, I certainly would look at who is funding it. That's why I am urging people to take another look at the Tea Party - because legislators are beholden to people who expect them to cut Social Security and Medicare. Vote for these people or keep them in Congress, and you are likely to regret it unless you are independently wealthy and plan to live on your investments and not work for a paycheck. Seriously - it will get very bad very quickly, and people will be saying, "That Republican presidential candidate seemed like such a nice guy!" Who cares if people wouldn't want to have President Obama over for dinner? At least he won't cut their Social Security and Medicare! You don't have to like the President - you just have to trust him to do the right thing. The Tea Party rhetoric rings hollow for me, and I say this as a former Republican. (Former because I don't trust these rich people who want to create a flat income tax.)

My name isn't sue.

And I don't trust Obama.

And there's more at stake than Social Security and Medicare. Social Security is a broke system and needs an overhaul if it is to last.

And really, the Tea Party people I know are dissatisfied with all the politicians and candidates.

I am sorry, Nebula! Freudian slip -- sue is my old sparring partner from Crosswalk, and it is good to see her here. But you brought up a good point, anyway. Progressives just don't have the same documented track record for letting major donors (yes, like Soros) write their own legislation through a mechanism like ALEC. If the Progressives develop an ALEC then yes, I will look just as critically at what results from it. I don't like what Conservatives and now the Tea Party have done through ALEC. If you look at it and like it, fine - that's none of my business. But I feel that it is my duty to encourage you to look at what they have done. If you didn't know about the organization, then you have a search and some reading to do. Go to Google, type American Legislative Exchange Council and hit enter. You'll have hours of reading pleasure - but it won't take you that long to get an idea of what is going on.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Assured

[sue244]

Why would it violate the TOS?

But also, is your claim that these things are the creators of the Tea Party, or simply that they jumped on Board with financial support after it got started?

That would be a matter of opinion. Arguably it may have started out as a grass roots movement, but the important thing is that it isn't ending up that way. What is good for Mr. Koch won't necessarily be good for people of more modest means. I'm sure he would love to get rid of Social Security, for example, because he doesn't need it. So as a voter I would be extremely cautious.

You are making it sound as if this man has taken over the Tea Party? That seems highly unlikely. He is just one of many who have put their weight into the field.

And frankly, I think you should be more concerned about the Occupy Wallstreet and who is in charge of the money for that right now. (Not to divert the topic, but to give a perspective comparison.)

I am glad you are bringing up this point, sue, because it gives me an opportunity to clarify this a little more. I do not see a progressive version of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) making cookie-cutter laws all over the country that are doing the exact same thing, everywhere. If I did, I certainly would look at who is funding it. That's why I am urging people to take another look at the Tea Party - because legislators are beholden to people who expect them to cut Social Security and Medicare. Vote for these people or keep them in Congress, and you are likely to regret it unless you are independently wealthy and plan to live on your investments and not work for a paycheck. Seriously - it will get very bad very quickly, and people will be saying, "That Republican presidential candidate seemed like such a nice guy!" Who cares if people wouldn't want to have President Obama over for dinner? At least he won't cut their Social Security and Medicare! You don't have to like the President - you just have to trust him to do the right thing. The Tea Party rhetoric rings hollow for me, and I say this as a former Republican. (Former because I don't trust these rich people who want to create a flat income tax.)

I hate to break it to you Assured but President Obama DID cut medicare with his Obama Care legislation. I know becuase my moms entire job is to do the paper work requiered for the nursing home so they can get paid. And the hospital in my town closed down 2 floors and cut 30 nurses on Oct. 1st because of the Cuts to medicare.

We really need to get past the point where just because someone says there is a problem with the system, both medicare and SS, which there is, that it means they want to fix it. The longer the Democrats villify anyone that wants to fix the system the more out of wack its going to get and the harder it is to fix. I have already resigned myself to the fact that I will never see a Dime of anything I'm paying into Medicare of SS because I don't think the governement is ever going to fix the problem that it created.

[Assured]

Why would it violate the TOS?

But also, is your claim that these things are the creators of the Tea Party, or simply that they jumped on Board with financial support after it got started?

That would be a matter of opinion. Arguably it may have started out as a grass roots movement, but the important thing is that it isn't ending up that way. What is good for Mr. Koch won't necessarily be good for people of more modest means. I'm sure he would love to get rid of Social Security, for example, because he doesn't need it. So as a voter I would be extremely cautious.

You are making it sound as if this man has taken over the Tea Party? That seems highly unlikely. He is just one of many who have put their weight into the field.

And frankly, I think you should be more concerned about the Occupy Wallstreet and who is in charge of the money for that right now. (Not to divert the topic, but to give a perspective comparison.)

I am glad you are bringing up this point, sue, because it gives me an opportunity to clarify this a little more. I do not see a progressive version of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) making cookie-cutter laws all over the country that are doing the exact same thing, everywhere. If I did, I certainly would look at who is funding it. That's why I am urging people to take another look at the Tea Party - because legislators are beholden to people who expect them to cut Social Security and Medicare. Vote for these people or keep them in Congress, and you are likely to regret it unless you are independently wealthy and plan to live on your investments and not work for a paycheck. Seriously - it will get very bad very quickly, and people will be saying, "That Republican presidential candidate seemed like such a nice guy!" Who cares if people wouldn't want to have President Obama over for dinner? At least he won't cut their Social Security and Medicare! You don't have to like the President - you just have to trust him to do the right thing. The Tea Party rhetoric rings hollow for me, and I say this as a former Republican. (Former because I don't trust these rich people who want to create a flat income tax.)

I hate to break it to you Assured but President Obama DID cut medicare with his Obama Care legislation. I know becuase my moms entire job is to do the paper work requiered for the nursing home so they can get paid. And the hospital in my town closed down 2 floors and cut 30 nurses on Oct. 1st because of the Cuts to medicare.

We really need to get past the point where just because someone says there is a problem with the system, both medicare and SS, which there is, that it means they want to fix it. The longer the Democrats villify anyone that wants to fix the system the more out of wack its going to get and the harder it is to fix. I have already resigned myself to the fact that I will never see a Dime of anything I'm paying into Medicare of SS because I don't think the governement is ever going to fix the problem that it created.

He cut reimbursements to Medicare providers, rather than benefits, though. No, I am not saying it's "OK" to cut reimbursements - your mother's employer wouldn't have liked that, and I'm sorry. But cutting reimbursements will slightly erode the number of Medicare providers available, which isn't nearly as bad in the eyes of voters as cutting benefits. Also, he would be able to restore reimbursement levels if only the GOP would let him raise a little revenue, you know?

Edited October 19, 2011 by Assured

[sue244]

You can spin it however you want but its still a cut Assured. And it is affecting the care people are getting. Nursing homes have been underfunded for years and to cut that even more makes them even worse places for elderly people to be. Not to mention that in this economy it is also costing jobs. Nursing used to be a good proffession to get into but with all the cuts there are no jobs and the people that do keep their jobs are having to take paycuts.