Why It’s Time for the Tea Party

[Assured]

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.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Assured

[Matthitjah]

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?

[sue244]

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.

Yes i remember the governement shut down. And amazingly we all lived throught it. Looking at it from a historical point of view it could be spun either way, either Clinton for not signing the budget or Congress for not giving into the spending demands of the Clinton. They were both playing a political game of chicken and in this instance neither one flinched. I thought you liked politicians that played politics? You seem to defend it when its on your side of the isle.

[nebula]

I heard that the Republican party got started that way as well - an unorganized grass movement of sorts.

The Tea Party is the far right wing of the Republican Party. It is currently heavily influenced and funded by the Koch Brothers and their PAC's, such as Americans for Prosperity. These same people also have involvement in the lobbying organization ALEC, which stands for the American Legislative Exchange Council, which definitely would be a worthwhile Google search if you're not familiar with it.

Hi, Assured. would you please explain who you are talking about and support your accusations/assertions with evidence.

Most of us here don't have time to Google search and read whichever sites Google deems most popular, and then sort through propaganda to find the truth.

And what sources do you receive your information from?

It is very much the right wing of the Republican Party - they do not ever caucus with Democrats in Congress! In no way could this ever be considered to be a 3rd party.

Please explain what you are referring to here.

plus, I've heard there are Democrats and Independents who participate with the Tea Party. Are they inconsequential?

[Assured]

I heard that the Republican party got started that way as well - an unorganized grass movement of sorts.

The Tea Party is the far right wing of the Republican Party. It is currently heavily influenced and funded by the Koch Brothers and their PAC's, such as Americans for Prosperity. These same people also have involvement in the lobbying organization ALEC, which stands for the American Legislative Exchange Council, which definitely would be a worthwhile Google search if you're not familiar with it.

Hi, Assured. would you please explain who you are talking about and support your accusations/assertions with evidence.

Most of us here don't have time to Google search and read whichever sites Google deems most popular, and then sort through propaganda to find the truth.

And what sources do you receive your information from?

It is very much the right wing of the Republican Party - they do not ever caucus with Democrats in Congress! In no way could this ever be considered to be a 3rd party.

Please explain what you are referring to here.

plus, I've heard there are Democrats and Independents who participate with the Tea Party. Are they inconsequential?

I normally quote from sources when I've posted in other forums, but I'm not sure that would be frowned upon here, since they seem to have their own news-gathering. But sue244 accuses me of reading "liberal" sources, but it's usually either the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times that I have quoted from. Sometimes for breaking news on a new issue I will turn to "liberal" sources like Talking Points Memo (TPM) or Think Progress - but that's only because they are the first to report certain things. The followup info will always be available in a good local paper, and I really rely on the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times for 75% of my information.

What is your specific question, and maybe I can provide a link?

Edited October 17, 2011 by Assured

[nebula]

I heard that the Republican party got started that way as well - an unorganized grass movement of sorts.

The Tea Party is the far right wing of the Republican Party. It is currently heavily influenced and funded by the Koch Brothers and their PAC's, such as Americans for Prosperity. These same people also have involvement in the lobbying organization ALEC, which stands for the American Legislative Exchange Council, which definitely would be a worthwhile Google search if you're not familiar with it.

Hi, Assured. would you please explain who you are talking about and support your accusations/assertions with evidence.

Most of us here don't have time to Google search and read whichever sites Google deems most popular, and then sort through propaganda to find the truth.

And what sources do you receive your information from?

It is very much the right wing of the Republican Party - they do not ever caucus with Democrats in Congress! In no way could this ever be considered to be a 3rd party.

Please explain what you are referring to here.

plus, I've heard there are Democrats and Independents who participate with the Tea Party. Are they inconsequential?

I normally quote from sources when I've posted in other forums, but I'm not sure that would be frowned upon here, since they seem to have their own news-gathering. But sue244 accuses me of reading "liberal" sources, but it's usually either the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times that I have quoted from. Sometimes for breaking news on a new issue I will turn to "liberal" sources like Talking Points Memo (TPM) or Think Progress - but that's only because they are the first to report certain things. The followup info will always be available in a good local paper, and I really rely on the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times for 75% of my information.

What is your specific question, and maybe I can provide a link?

Who are the Koch Brothers?

What evidence do you have that the Tea Party is influenced and funded by them?

What is ALEC?

[Assured]

ALEC Link Washington Post link

I heard that the Republican party got started that way as well - an unorganized grass movement of sorts.

The Tea Party is the far right wing of the Republican Party. It is currently heavily influenced and funded by the Koch Brothers and their PAC's, such as Americans for Prosperity. These same people also have involvement in the lobbying organization ALEC, which stands for the American Legislative Exchange Council, which definitely would be a worthwhile Google search if you're not familiar with it.

Hi, Assured. would you please explain who you are talking about and support your accusations/assertions with evidence.

Most of us here don't have time to Google search and read whichever sites Google deems most popular, and then sort through propaganda to find the truth.

And what sources do you receive your information from?

It is very much the right wing of the Republican Party - they do not ever caucus with Democrats in Congress! In no way could this ever be considered to be a 3rd party.

Please explain what you are referring to here.

plus, I've heard there are Democrats and Independents who participate with the Tea Party. Are they inconsequential?

I normally quote from sources when I've posted in other forums, but I'm not sure that would be frowned upon here, since they seem to have their own news-gathering. But sue244 accuses me of reading "liberal" sources, but it's usually either the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times that I have quoted from. Sometimes for breaking news on a new issue I will turn to "liberal" sources like Talking Points Memo (TPM) or Think Progress - but that's only because they are the first to report certain things. The followup info will always be available in a good local paper, and I really rely on the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times for 75% of my information.

What is your specific question, and maybe I can provide a link?

Who are the Koch Brothers?

What evidence do you have that the Tea Party is influenced and funded by them?

What is ALEC?

See the Washington Post link above the quotes in my post. Quoting from it:

One of the most visible groups is Americans for Prosperity, an anti-tax and anti-regulation group known for opposing smoking restrictions and for trying to cast doubt on global warming. The group launched a project called "Patients First" in June and has been conducting bus tours around the country to drum up opposition to the health-care legislation.

Public records show that the group is heavily funded by the Koch Family Foundations, a major contributor to conservative causes headed by two brothers who control Koch Industries, a Kansas-based oil-and-gas conglomerate. David H. Koch serves as board chairman of the Americans for Prosperity foundation.

Quoting from the ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council, a lobbying group) link:

Hundreds of ALEC’s model bills and resolutions bear traces of Koch DNA: raw ideas that were once at the fringes but that have been carved into “mainstream” policy through the wealth and will of Charles and David Koch. Of all the Kochs’ investments in right-wing organizations, ALEC provides some of the best returns: it gives the Kochs a way to make their brand of free-market fundamentalism legally binding.

I can't quote more of it without violating Terms of Service on this site, but please read the links. They should fill you in on everything you are asking about.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Assured

[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?

[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.

[JustinM]

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.