Is the Tea Party part of the GOP or not?

[SlackMaster]

Do the majority of Americans support the majority of Tea Party policies? Probably not, but that hardly makes us a bunch of religious fanatics who support the transfer of huge sums of money to the rich.

At the risk of sounding condescending, most of the Tea Party people I've spoken to don't really know what they support. They're mad about government and the fact that the economy sucks and they attribute it to too much spending. Some of them may not know that they're supporting policies that result in a transfer of huge sums of money to the rich.

I think Republicans globed onto the Tea Party movement as a way of co-opting a grass roots movement to serve their needs.

 

[mpg]

Their taxes? Nobody is trying to raise their taxes.

All of these history making spending increases increase the likelihood of our taxes being raised some time in the future.

 

[mpg]

Some of them may not know that they're supporting policies that result in a transfer of huge sums of money to the rich.

Which of their policies would have that result if enacted?

 

[SlackMaster]

Which of their policies would have that result if enacted?

Tax cuts for the rich.

 

[RiverDad]

Tax cuts for the rich.

Me taking your money and giving to someone else is a transfer of wealth.
Me not taking your money and not giving it to someone else doesn't mean that I've given you money.

What is so hard to understand about this. Allowing people to keep more of the money that they earn doesn't mean that you're transferring money to the rich.

 

[samsmart]

Even so, this has to be the only "populist" movement I am aware of that is focused on "more money for businessmen", no?

That may be but that's not how you make the argument against the Tea Party. You can't just say that the Tea Party is focused on more money for businessmen without rationally describing exactly how that is the case. Doing so actually makes you a bad spokesman for that position.

How you make the argument against the Tea Party is by pointing out that their policies may allow wealth to collect in the hands of those who already have it and therefore stifle entrepreneurship which actually stifles the opportunity for people to be mobile in their wealth.

Another argument against the Tea Party is by pointing out that taxes to the government that pay for services actually benefit businesses. Businesses benefit from commerce flowing via public roads and highways. Businesses benefit from public schools by having an educated populace from which they can recruit workers and employees. Businesses benefit from corporate regulations because businesses rely on other businesses too, so regulations on businesses protect other businesses that consume their products and services.

So there are other, more detailed ways to refute the tenets of the Tea Party platform. You may want to take the time and utilize those arguments next time.

 

[mpg]

Even so, this has to be the only "populist" movement I am aware of that is focused on "more money for businessmen", no?

You mean like opposing the bailouts? What about opposing Obamacare which was a big gift to the insurance industry?

 

[mpg]

Me taking your money and giving to someone else is a transfer of wealth.
Me not taking your money and not giving it to someone else doesn't mean that I've given you money.

What is so hard to understand about this. Allowing people to keep more of the money that they earn doesn't mean that you're transferring money to the rich.

plus the fact that the Tea Party merely opposes tax increases, rather than proposing a tax cut

 

[teamosil]

So there are other, more detailed ways to refute the tenets of the Tea Party platform. You may want to take the time and utilize those arguments next time.

I'm not like laying out all the reasons I think the tea party got it wrong. You're right there are boatloads of reasons, and you outline some good ones. I'm just saying it is bizzare to me that they managed to package an agenda focused on corporate interests as a "populist" movement.

 

[teamosil]

You mean like opposing the bailouts? What about opposing Obamacare which was a big gift to the insurance industry?

The health care package Obama proposed contained a public option. That was the worst nightmare for the insurance companies. It was the tea party that forced the Democrats to remove it... Honestly, you remember all that... I feel like you guys are already trying to re-write history that is less than a year old...

 

[mpg]

The health care package Obama proposed contained a public option. That was the worst nightmare for the insurance companies. It was the tea party that forced the Democrats to remove it... Honestly, you remember all that... I feel like you guys are already trying to re-write history that is less than a year old...

I remember that, but it doesn't change the fact that the Democrats handed a big gift to the insurance industry and the Tea Party opposed it. What about the bailouts?

 

[Jerry]

I don't mean to flame the Tea Party or "Teabaggers" or whatever they're supposed to be called these days. I hope this to be a rational discussion and definition of who they are.

I was under the impression that the Tea Party was a seperate organization from the Republicans. How often, though, have we seen Tea Partiers call someone a "RINO?" If you're not a Republican, what gives you the right to define what a Republican is or isn't? Shouldn't that be up to actual Republicans?

So to the Tea Partiers -- are you Republicans, or do you think the GOP isn't far enough to the right? If the latter, that's fine, but maybe you should admit it and let the Republicans define who is and isn't a Republican. If the former, then give up the charade. You're a Republican, and that's what you are.

It's not.

The "tea party" is not an actual political party. It is composed of people from both and neither sides of the isle.

 

[lpast]

When tea party candidates are interviewed, do they have a "D" next to their name or an "R"?

All the ones elected have an R

 

[teamosil]

I remember that, but it doesn't change the fact that the Democrats handed a big gift to the insurance industry and the Tea Party opposed it.

The Tea Party is who forced the Democrats to make the plan more insurance company friendly. That was when all the pressure from the tea party abated- when the Democrats dropped the public option that the insurance companies were so concerned about.

What about the bailouts?

I personally opposed all the bailouts, but I certainly opposed the Republican-driven bailouts for the finance sector a lot more than the Democrat-driven bailouts for the automobile sector. I oppose both, but at least the automobile ones had at least some focus on preserving people's pensions where the finance ones seem to have largely just gone into the pockets of already uberwealthy people in the form of million dollar bonuses and whatnot.

 

[teamosil]

It's not.

The "tea party" is not an actual political party. It is composed of people from both and neither sides of the isle.

You know... I know they say that about being from both parties, and there have even been some polls where people have said they are both a teabagger and a Democrat, but I'm very suspicious. That makes no sense whatsoever to be a Democrat and a teabagger... They're opposites. The tea party push a hard core right wing, foaming at the mouth, conspiracy nut, destroy the normal people, worship the rich agenda... Nobody could possibly support their agenda and the agenda of the Democratic party, so at most we'd be talking about crazies that just like being a part of things or something. I've certainly never run into anybody either in real life or online that was a Democratic teabagger.

 

[1Perry]

Even so, this has to be the only "populist" movement I am aware of that is focused on "more money for businessmen", no?

It's been noted over and over. I guess it doesn't matter to some. The Tea Party got their actual start because of their displeasure with TARP.

 

[1Perry]

That may be but that's not how you make the argument against the Tea Party. You can't just say that the Tea Party is focused on more money for businessmen without rationally describing exactly how that is the case. Doing so actually makes you a bad spokesman for that position.

How you make the argument against the Tea Party is by pointing out that their policies may allow wealth to collect in the hands of those who already have it and therefore stifle entrepreneurship which actually stifles the opportunity for people to be mobile in their wealth.

That is exactly what TARP did. The government took from the taxpayers to give to those who already had wealth and they have held onto it.

Another argument against the Tea Party is by pointing out that taxes to the government that pay for services actually benefit businesses. Businesses benefit from commerce flowing via public roads and highways. Businesses benefit from public schools by having an educated populace from which they can recruit workers and employees. Businesses benefit from corporate regulations because businesses rely on other businesses too, so regulations on businesses protect other businesses that consume their products and services.

Unenforced regulations might as well not be bothered with. No? Do you have a link that shows where the Tea Party is against roads and schools?

So there are other, more detailed ways to refute the tenets of the Tea Party platform. You may want to take the time and utilize those arguments next time.

Making up positions isn't the strongest position to argue from.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I don't mean to flame the Tea Party or "Teabaggers" or whatever they're supposed to be called these days. I hope this to be a rational discussion and definition of who they are.

You don't mean to flame tea party,you claim to want a rational discussion then casually throw in term "teabagger".:roll:

 

[teamosil]

You don't mean to flame tea party,you claim to want a rational discussion then casually throw in term "teabagger".:roll:

Honestly, there just isn't anything normal to call them... Obviously we're not going to call them "tea party patriots"... "tea party member" or "tea party supporter" are slightly more palatable, but still we're talking three words... They need a one word name like everybody else has, but so far "teabagger" is the only one anybody has come up with... I guess "teapartier" is one word, but it's SOOOOO dorky sounding... "Partier" just sounds so 80s or something and just doesn't remotely sound like something that would describe a "tea party member"... IMO if they came up with something reasonable that they did want to be called, I think you'd find "teabagger" dying out, but until they come up with something they DO want to be called, they can't really complain about being called by another name.

 

[1Perry]

Honestly, there just isn't anything normal to call them... Obviously we're not going to call them "tea party patriots"... "tea party member" or "tea party supporter" are slightly more palatable, but still we're talking three words... They need a one word name like everybody else has, but so far "teabagger" is the only one anybody has come up with... I guess "teapartier" is one word, but it's SOOOOO dorky sounding... "Partier" just sounds so 80s or something and just doesn't remotely sound like something that would describe a "tea party member"... IMO if they came up with something reasonable that they did want to be called, I think you'd find "teabagger" dying out, but until they come up with something they DO want to be called, they can't really complain about being called by another name.

Political parties all around the world go by more than one name. I'm not sure where the idea that they must have one name comes from.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Political parties all around the world go by more
than one name. I'm not sure where the idea that they must have one name comes from.

Might have something to do with Americans notoriously short attention span

 

[Henrin]

Honestly, there just isn't anything normal to call them... Obviously we're not going to call them "tea party patriots"... "tea party member" or "tea party supporter" are slightly more palatable, but still we're talking three words... They need a one word name like everybody else has, but so far "teabagger" is the only one anybody has come up with... I guess "teapartier" is one word, but it's SOOOOO dorky sounding... "Partier" just sounds so 80s or something and just doesn't remotely sound like something that would describe a "tea party member"... IMO if they came up with something reasonable that they did want to be called, I think you'd find "teabagger" dying out, but until they come up with something they DO want to be called, they can't really complain about being called by another name.

Everyone knows that the term teabagger was coined by liberals to insult tea party members. Your excuse isn't believable.

 

[1Perry]

Might have something to do with Americans notoriously short attention span

I think most are perfectly aware of what is being talked about when one says "The Tea Party".

 

[Risky Thicket]

Most of the country is still struggling with the fact that while the Tea Party claims that it only about lower taxes and government efficiency, while in action the Tea Party is also very much about extremist religious views. Tea Party = Christiban.

 

[Henrin]

Most of the country is still struggling with the fact that while the Tea Party claims that it only about lower taxes and government efficiency, while in action the Tea Party is also very much about extremist religious views. Tea Party = Christiban.

The religious people came years after the tea party was started. They always seem to come in to infect small government movements when they get going. I wish they could do their own thing once in a while but they insist on not figuring out they are not wanted.