It is an accepted truism that politicians will say anything to get elected. As such, when people started to appeal to the Tea Party folks, it should have been understood that they were saying what the Party folks wanted to hear rather than making sincere promises. That said, it is also an accepted truism that people expect politicians to follow up on their promises and the voters can sometimes retaliate for perceived betrayals.
As I recall, the Tea Party folks were mainly for reducing taxes, curbing spending and restoring the classic liberties as envisioned by the founders. Or maybe it was just about taxes. However, most Tea Party folks recognized that the government does have a legitimate role (defense and presumably entitlements that they like, such as medicare and social security). Certain politicians, such as Rick Scott, promised them these things and were elected. However, some of these folks seem to have gone way beyond their promises in ways that have angered the voters-even the Tea Party folks. Some of my more liberal friends have suggested that many of the Tea Party candidates are simply serving the interests of their corporate backers and have no interest in the common folks-including the majority of the Tea Party folks.
Since I am not a Tea Party person, I think I am obligated to make inquiries. So, for those who see yourself as a Tea Party sort of person, what do you think about folks like Rick Scott and the others who seem to be mainly interested in corporations and not the tax payers?
The Tea Party stands for:
1) Personal responsibility. If you bought more house than you can afford, why should somebody who lived within their means bail you out?
2) Rule of law. Why should immigrants who come here illegally be treated better than the ones who follow the law? Why should someone who cheats on his taxes be allowed to be Secretary of the Treasury?
3) Entrepreneurial, “can do” spirit. We will fix it ourselves, not wait around for somebody from the government to write a check.
4) Smaller government. People can self-organize to solve most problems. Generosity is actual giving. Voting to make somebody else pay is not the same thing.
Are immigrants who come here illegally treated better than those who follow the law? In what ways are they treated better?
Your #3 would benefit from some rewording. To wit:
“IF we can fix it ourselves, we won’t wait around for somebody from the government to write a check”
Are we(individuals or individual states) going to accomplish much running around in different directions trying to keep the interstate highway system functioning.
Are we (individuals or individual states) going to fix problems with foreign relations (wars? piracies?)
Are we (individuals or individual states) aren’t going to “fix (yeah, different meaning of the word) the standard of weights and measures.”?
Etc.
Give Article I, Section 8 its due.
And I’m not so sanguine about your assertion that “People can self-organize to solve most problems”. Just as a quick example Currently one party (choose your party) –represented by approx 50% of the electorate– claims that the other party –also represented by 50% of the electorate is incapable of dealing with our budget problems. Seems right now they’re both correct. How on God’s green earth could individuals or individual states solve the crisis?
One guess as to which Party she belongs to:
It’s notewothy that Mike says:
1) the Tea Party folks were mainly for reducing taxes, curbing spending and restoring the classic liberties as envisioned by the founders.
2) I am not a Tea Party person
DeMint: Tea Party misread as ‘right wing’
By Josiah Ryan – 07/01/11 11:08 AM ET
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) defended the Tea Party in an interview published Thursday, claiming it is often misunderstood as a “right wing” of the GOP.
“What is the most misunderstood fact about the Tea Party, in your opinion?” the Christian Post asked DeMint.
“That it is a right wing, manufactured by the Republican Party,” he responded. “The Tea Party doesn’t like politicians. They don’t like Republicans or Democrats. These are people who are independent.”
Tea Party members “are people of all walks of life and they are the best behaved group I’ve ever been in,” added DeMint.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/169415-demint-tea-party-misunderstood-as-a-right-wing-of-gop-?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/10/987728/-Tea-Party-Assortment?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29
TJ:
Check out this website. Very well done:
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/
Thanks, Magus. Looks interesting.
I think it obvious the TEA Party was co-opted by the Republican Party. What was once A GOOD, ANGRY PROTEST MOVEMENT is NOW the “TEA Party Caucus” on Capitol Hill. The TEA Party has officially DIED.
“I think it obvious the TEA Party was co-opted by the Republican Party.”
I think the jury is still out on this. The goal of the Tea Party is to remake the Republican party, and this was always going to take more than 2 years. The Tea Party has scored some victories and has suffered some defeats.
“What was once A GOOD, ANGRY PROTEST MOVEMENT…”
The anger is still there, but as Tea Party folks have jobs, kids, etc. they cannot spend all of their time protesting.
“The TEA Party has officially DIED.”
No, it hasn’t, because nothing has really changed. The election in 2012 will be pivotal.
“. . .as Tea Party folks have jobs, kids, etc. they cannot spend all of their time protesting”
OMG!ROFL! (Sorry, I just had to . . .!)
What, in the name of the porcelain god are your snippy little clauses supposed to imply? Others. . .those outside the TP, say. .. are without jobs and TPers are employed–so TPers are too tired and busy to protest all the time? That others, outside the TP, are celibate, gay, unfortunately unable to produce children while, by contrast TPers are fertile, vital, and out there breeding like bunnies–so TPers are too enervated to protest all the time?
ETC. Ah, the infamous ETC. TPers have large bank accounts, low IQ’s, nIce houses, community college educations, lifts in their shoes, comb-overs. And others don’t . So TPers don’t have time to protest all the time. And the others protest all the time. . .?
You’re starting to sound like one of the ever-growing field of Republican presidential candidates. Excuses, excuses. excuses. excuses Whine. Whine. Whine. “We can’t protest. We’ve just worn ourselves out succeeding. Everyone else has the time and energy to protest, you imply, because they’re lazy sods unfit to be citizens of this constitutional republic based on a representative democracy where protesting is so important and should be limited to those on the right side..
“And the others protest all the time. . .?”
Yes.
Yeah. . .Not sure I get your point, but. . .
. . . No TPers here. . . No one with jobs, kids, etc. here 🙂
“When dance is outlawed, only outlaws will dance.”. I can’t argue with that familiar “logic”, can you?
Actually, haven’t you and Mike used the fact that the TP protests to present them as crazy?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-elmendorf-rule/2011/07/07/gIQAPagk2H_story.html?hpid=z3
Some specificity please?
I suspect that some Tea Party folks will be more wary of voting for certain Republicans.
TJ your first post you wrote:
“1) Personal responsibility. If you bought more house than you can afford, why should somebody who lived within their means bail you out?”
I have several good friends in Florida, hard working folks. they bought a house they could afford, and they still can but the price of the house decreased so much that it is their only reasonable choice to foreclose. Obviously, they lost a lot of hard earned money. My question what is their responsability? It appears to me that the true responsible people for the house market debacle made a lot of money, because at the top earning end even if you go bankrupt you made money.
I am not a tea party but I am always interested in people that think differently than I do, but I have to say that this definition of personal responsability significantly dissapoints me. Why we keep blaming the hard working american and not the crooks that buy our politicians to earn more money? Why we focus on welfare when it is for the needy but not when it is for the rich? A lot of people made themselves very rich using coorporate welfare. Why don’t we focus on this? on the infinite loopholes they create?
I can not denny I am disappointed and if this represents the tea party I certainly do not want to be part of it.
While some folks got what they deserved from the housing bubble, many people were victims of the vastly inflated prices. To use a specific example, a friend of mine bought a house during this time, because he wanted his two kids to attend a good school and because he was tired of dumping money into rent. When the bubble burst, the value of his house declined. Fortunately, he had bought sensibly and did not lose the house. Perhaps it could be argued that he should have just kept renting and stuck with a worse school district in the hopes that prices would drop-after all, they did do so a few years after he bought his house. Of course, he had no way of knowing how long the bubble would go…
“I have several good friends in Florida, hard working folks. they bought a house they could afford, and they still can but the price of the house decreased so much that it is their only reasonable choice to foreclose.”
Why can’t they live in it and pay the mortgage?
Because they’re real people, TJ. Real people are not responsible for anything. Bad things happening are always the responsibility some institution run by automatons and/or rich people who must be held accountable. You know, suckers. If there is even the tiniest fault in the big guy’s case, the little guy has no accountability. Just ask the Casey Anthony jury. It’s the new meaning of equal justice or some such. Sigh…what can be done?
Has anyone on here read “Democracy in America” by Alexis de Tocqueville? I’m about half way through it now, and I’m astounded by this book. A must read. It was written around 1832.
Tocqueville talks about how democracies tend to attack the rich, because by definition, democracies are rule by majority, and the majority of people are not rich. The rich in turn begin to hate the laws, as any of the laws are meant to hold back the rich.
The rich often give people reason to hate them. Of course, so do the poor. And the middle class.
Exactly. That’s why we need to discontinue class warfare. We do want a meritocracy, right?
By the way, I am not attacking the rich, good bless them. I am placing the responsability on” the crooks that buy our politicians to earn more money”. It appears to me that you guys are making a great effort in hiding the responsibility of Wall Street on this mess. Good for you, and interesting turn in history. There are many rich people, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford father, etc, and there are other kind of rich people those who make money at the expense of the tax payer. No need to cite Democracy in America, just the need to bring justice. And America’s laws do not hold back the rich, not even the hateful goverment that consistently supports their business.. And Casy Anthony what’s that? It seems that anything counts.
Post note: No one bail out my friends as many of the people that lost their homes, but we the tax payer bailed out wall street with no pay back. Wow, “Democracy in America” attacking the rich?
And what kind of people run Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac? And who tells them what to do? And who puts those people in that position?
jjm,
You know why Fannie and Freddy were created, right?
jjm
You’ll get some support from this Wall Street Journal personal-finance columnist:
http://www.smartmoney.com/invest/markets/the-next-financial-crisis-will-be-even-worse-1309984020176/?cid=djem_sm_WeekontheStreet_h