I'm curious - explain how a 'tea party' would govern.

[Wry Catcher]

For all celebrating the election of Ron Paul, Jr. winning a primary race in Kentucky, what does this really mean in terms of governance?
If, in the unlikely event, Ron Paul represents what will be the majority in Congress come January 2011, what will be the consequences?
All rhetoric aside, beyond promises to cut taxes and shrink government help me understand what the angry voter expects?

 

[VaYank5150]

For all celebrating the election of Ron Paul, Jr. winning a primary race in Kentucky, what does this really mean in terms of governance?
If, in the unlikely event, Ron Paul represents what will be the majority in Congress come January 2011, what will be the consequences?
All rhetoric aside, beyond promises to cut taxes and shrink government help me understand what the angry voter expects?

NO GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE!!

well, except for MediCare...oh, and MediCaid. And, don't forget we need the defense budget to keep jobs in Alabama. Oh, and....

 

[xotoxi]

I'm curious - explain how a 'tea party' would govern.

If the teaparty were to govern, they would still create laws...

...with the only caveat being that the law could not hinder or hamper any individual, business, or corporation from doing anything and everything that they want to do.

 

[rightwinger]

For all celebrating the election of Ron Paul, Jr. winning a primary race in Kentucky, what does this really mean in terms of governance?
If, in the unlikely event, Ron Paul represents what will be the majority in Congress come January 2011, what will be the consequences?
All rhetoric aside, beyond promises to cut taxes and shrink government help me understand what the angry voter expects?

He will vote NO on every bill and accomplish nothing.....

Just like his dad

 

[Skull Pilot]

For all celebrating the election of Ron Paul, Jr. winning a primary race in Kentucky, what does this really mean in terms of governance?
If, in the unlikely event, Ron Paul represents what will be the majority in Congress come January 2011, what will be the consequences?
All rhetoric aside, beyond promises to cut taxes and shrink government help me understand what the angry voter expects?

He will vote NO on every bill and accomplish nothing.....

Just like his dad

If stopping the exponential growth of government is doing nothing then I'm all for doing nothing.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

For all celebrating the election of Ron Paul, Jr. winning a primary race in Kentucky, what does this really mean in terms of governance?
If, in the unlikely event, Ron Paul represents what will be the majority in Congress come January 2011, what will be the consequences?
All rhetoric aside, beyond promises to cut taxes and shrink government help me understand what the angry voter expects?

I'll ignore the ignorant responses you got and try to give you a representative one.

What would a tea party govern like?

1. Reducing the size and scope of government programs. This would mean cutting back all entitlement programs and eventually eliminating them. We would still keep programs in place to help people in emergencies, such as temporary unemployment benefits.
2. Reducing our global military footprint. This basically translates to no more foreign wars unless we are being directly and outwardly threatened. It also translates into removing many military bases from countries around the world that dont need our bases there, such as Germany.
3. Reducing the tax burden on americans of EVERY income level uniformly. This will be accomplished after slashing entitlement programs, government budgets, and government payrolls (read government workers will get a big benefits cut)

There are 3 changes you would see.

If you want more I can think up some for you.

 

[WillowTree]

For all celebrating the election of Ron Paul, Jr. winning a primary race in Kentucky, what does this really mean in terms of governance?
If, in the unlikely event, Ron Paul represents what will be the majority in Congress come January 2011, what will be the consequences?
All rhetoric aside, beyond promises to cut taxes and shrink government help me understand what the angry voter expects?

Well since we have such shitty governance now anything the Tea Party did would be an improvement. We've been through decades of administration ignoring the danger on the borders. I would hope that would be the very first project they tackle and solve.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

For all celebrating the election of Ron Paul, Jr. winning a primary race in Kentucky, what does this really mean in terms of governance?
If, in the unlikely event, Ron Paul represents what will be the majority in Congress come January 2011, what will be the consequences?
All rhetoric aside, beyond promises to cut taxes and shrink government help me understand what the angry voter expects?

He will vote NO on every bill and accomplish nothing.....

Just like his dad

If the senate/congress would actually propose bills that are BENEFICIAL to the american people instead of detrimental maybe he would start voting yes. However when every bill seeks to increase the size and scope of government, the budget, the defecit, and the tax burden it is our representatives duty to vote no.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

For all celebrating the election of Ron Paul, Jr. winning a primary race in Kentucky, what does this really mean in terms of governance?
If, in the unlikely event, Ron Paul represents what will be the majority in Congress come January 2011, what will be the consequences?
All rhetoric aside, beyond promises to cut taxes and shrink government help me understand what the angry voter expects?

Well since we have such shitty governance now anything the Tea Party did would be an improvement. We've been through decades of administration ignoring the danger on the borders. I would hope that would be the very first project they tackle and solve.

A tea party government would take the military from the bases I had mentioned we would close in the earlier post and move them to the north and south borders. We would then seal the borders using the military.

As far as the illegals in the country we would not actively seek them out. However, like the Arizona law, if they break a law and are found to be here illegally after they would get deported, and by deported I mean dropped on the other side of the border.

 

[Modbert]

As far as the illegals in the country we would not actively seek them out. However, like the Arizona law, if they break a law and are found to be here illegally after they would get deported, and by deported I mean dropped on the other side of the border.

You have no idea how many people you just pissed off with that first sentence.

 

[Truthmatters]

For all celebrating the election of Ron Paul, Jr. winning a primary race in Kentucky, what does this really mean in terms of governance?
If, in the unlikely event, Ron Paul represents what will be the majority in Congress come January 2011, what will be the consequences?
All rhetoric aside, beyond promises to cut taxes and shrink government help me understand what the angry voter expects?

He will vote NO on every bill and accomplish nothing.....

Just like his dad

No he wont because hes just won a primary and not an election.

He wont win the real election

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

As far as the illegals in the country we would not actively seek them out. However, like the Arizona law, if they break a law and are found to be here illegally after they would get deported, and by deported I mean dropped on the other side of the border.

You have no idea how many people you just pissed off with that first sentence.

Considering the very core of the tea party is to not increase the size, scope, and expense of government I believe most tea partiers would agree with that sentance. To seek them out actively would mean making a new government agency or vastly expanding an existing one then spending billions on the effort.

That is not a tea party value .

 

[boedicca]

The question itself belies an understanding of the purpose of the Tea Party Movement.

The purpose is to hold all of government accountable for fiscal conservative principles - it is not to replace the existing parties with yet another "Party Above Country" apparatus.

The emphasis is also very local, with independent (yet aligned on values) groups focusing on their communities' specific issues and elected officials. The goal is to drive the agenda for cities, counties, states, and national represenatives towards fiscal conservatism.

 

[Modbert]

Considering the very core of the tea party is to not increase the size, scope, and expense of government I believe most tea partiers would agree with that sentance. To seek them out actively would mean making a new government agency or vastly expanding an existing one then spending billions on the effort.

That is not a tea party value .

Thus the tea party are hypocrites because the majority of them would love such a thing.

You seem to not understand Pilgrim, they're not Libertarians for the most part.

 

[rdean]

On Morning Joe, when asked about the deficit, he said he would introduce a "term limit's" bill.

Tea Party Platform on Religion:

"Freedom of Religion doesn't mean Freedom FROM Religion."

So you better chose wisely.

 

[rightwinger]

For all celebrating the election of Ron Paul, Jr. winning a primary race in Kentucky, what does this really mean in terms of governance?
If, in the unlikely event, Ron Paul represents what will be the majority in Congress come January 2011, what will be the consequences?
All rhetoric aside, beyond promises to cut taxes and shrink government help me understand what the angry voter expects?

He will vote NO on every bill and accomplish nothing.....

Just like his dad

If stopping the exponential growth of government is doing nothing then I'm all for doing nothing.

TPs are not against growth. They love growth in the programs they benefit from.....Medicare, Social Security, Veterans programs.

They oppose growth in programs that they don't benefit from....Healthcare for other Americans, welfare, aid to dependent children

 

[peach174]

Basically tea party wants gov. to overhall it's self, get rid of depts that are not woking, putting several depts together instead of 4 or 5 depts that do not know what the left or right hand is doing. Streamling everything and more towards a constitutional form of gov. Getting back to the middle instead of far left or far right.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Considering the very core of the tea party is to not increase the size, scope, and expense of government I believe most tea partiers would agree with that sentance. To seek them out actively would mean making a new government agency or vastly expanding an existing one then spending billions on the effort.

That is not a tea party value .

Thus the tea party are hypocrites because the majority of them would love such a thing.

You seem to not understand Pilgrim, they're not Libertarians for the most part.

I've been to 2 tea party events here in MA and one in D.C......from my experience with them you are wrong in your assessment.

You are finding a minority position and trying to make it the majority one. That would be like me saying all progressives want to run the USA like Hitler's NAZI germany....sure some of the progressives would love that so I guess I could generalize and say all progressives are like NAZIs but now how honest is that? Its about as honest as your assesment in my opinion.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

He will vote NO on every bill and accomplish nothing.....

Just like his dad

If stopping the exponential growth of government is doing nothing then I'm all for doing nothing.

TPs are not against growth. They love growth in the programs they benefit from.....Medicare, Social Security, Veterans programs.
They oppose growth in programs that they don't benefit from....Healthcare for other Americans, welfare, aid to dependent children

That is a bold faced lie...especially the bolded part.

 

[DiamondDave]

He will vote NO on every bill and accomplish nothing.....

Just like his dad

If stopping the exponential growth of government is doing nothing then I'm all for doing nothing.

TPs are not against growth. They love growth in the programs they benefit from.....Medicare, Social Security, Veterans programs.

They oppose growth in programs that they don't benefit from....Healthcare for other Americans, welfare, aid to dependent children

And you liberals are not selective in what programs you 'support'???

And I'll give you a hint... all tea partiers are not inherently for things such as SS, Medicaid, medicare, etc.... and Veterans Benefits are an employment benefit, not an entitlement handout program for nothing....

But nice try