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

[Wry Catcher]

Looking at the politcal spectrum as the face of a clock, the Democrats and Republicans might be placed on the top, D's to the left of '12', R's to the right. Moving further left one might find liberals and progressives; moving further right conservatives.
Liberals and Progressives seem to buy into Social Contract Theory, and believe in the power, synergy, of the many working towards change, in a hurry; Conservatives seem to believe in the power of the individual to make change slowly, methodically and with respect for tradition.
As we move left to the '7' we might place revolutionaries, those who hope to remake society/political institutions immediately, and by whatever means necessary. Going right, as we approach the '5' are the reactionaries, those who are resistent to change and/or hope to return the ways of the past.
Where would you place the Tea Party?

 

[Sherry]

Looking at the politcal spectrum as the face of a clock, the Democrats and Republicans might be placed on the top, D's to the left of '12', R's to the right. Moving further left one might find liberals and progressives; moving further right conservatives.
Liberals and Progressives seem to buy into Social Contract Theory, and believe in the power, synergy, of the many working towards change, in a hurry; Conservatives seem to believe in the power of the individual to make change slowly, methodically and with respect for tradition.
As we move left to the '7' we might place revolutionaries, those who hope to remake society/political institutions immediately, and by whatever means necessary. Going right, as we approach the '5' are the reactionaries, those who are resistent to change and/or hope to return the ways of the past.
Where would you place the Tea Party?

I don't think anyone expects society to stop evolving. However, people who recognize that our government has drifted off the path that the founders intended, are not advocates of resetting the clock.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Looking at the politcal spectrum as the face of a clock, the Democrats and Republicans might be placed on the top, D's to the left of '12', R's to the right. Moving further left one might find liberals and progressives; moving further right conservatives.
Liberals and Progressives seem to buy into Social Contract Theory, and believe in the power, synergy, of the many working towards change, in a hurry; Conservatives seem to believe in the power of the individual to make change slowly, methodically and with respect for tradition.
As we move left to the '7' we might place revolutionaries, those who hope to remake society/political institutions immediately, and by whatever means necessary. Going right, as we approach the '5' are the reactionaries, those who are resistent to change and/or hope to return the ways of the past.
Where would you place the Tea Party?

I'm not sure lets try a different way.

Say you have a straight line, on the far left of the straight line is complete government control on the far right of the straight line is complete anarcy.

The tea partiers are a few shades to the left of total anarchy, the minimal amount of government possible with very limited powers...just enough to protect us from foreign threats.

The Progressives are a few shades to the right of total government, basically the government will do everything for you and take care of any needs that might arise for one.


Maybe a picture?

See the progressives are up at the top with the likes of stalin and hitler (no im not calling progressives nazi's i'm just saying they like a government with a lot of authority and power over the citizens) You have the conservative progressives (hitler) and the liberal progressives (stalin) but both are facist in nature.

Tea partiers are in the lower right quadrant of the picture and would be down low but above total anarcy and slightly to the right of the center line.

Did I help you?

 

[syrenn]

Well since we have such shitty governance now anything the Tea Party did would be an improvement.

the danger with this kind of thinking is how we got obama, remember?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Well since we have such shitty governance now anything the Tea Party did would be an improvement.

the danger with this kind of thinking is how we got obama, remember?

That was an epic point syrenn.

Rep for you.

 

[syrenn]

That was an epic point syrenn.
Rep for you.

Thank you

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

That was an epic point syrenn.
Rep for you.

Thank you

Salutatio

 

[Coyote]

Part of my issues with Teaparty is the same as my issues with Libertarians - theory seldom survives reality.

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

What would a tea party govern like?


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.

How? What would replace them in areas of the country where there just plain aren't any jobs? How will families with children manage medical costs, food, etc.? What happens when temporary unemployment becomes a long term situation as has been happening over the past year and is still ongoing?

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.

I pretty much agree...that seems more doable but, there is a hidden reality to the military footprint - I believe what Eisenhower identified as the "military-industrial complex". The military fuels a huge sector of our economy both here and abroad. How will you deal with that loss, and the closure of industries and loss of employment in the towns supported by them and by subsidiary industries?

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)
[/LIST]

As someone who once worked for the federal government - I find much of that last clause to be political rhetoric over reality. I was paid less than comparable private sector jobs, for one thing. Slashing worker's pay is punative measure aimed at workers who have done nothing wrong to earn it.

Slashing government budgets is often easier said then done, as is slashing entitlement programs. Assuming you do that - where will the burden of cost be shifted - to the states?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Do you really think that is a good thing? That sounds much more like old style USSR border control.

The relative openness of our borders, despite it's disadvantages - has economical advantages.

Using the military to "seal" it would send a distinctly unfriendly and isolationist message to our neighbors and strongest trading partners. Is border control even part our military's mandate?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Part of my issues with Teaparty is the same as my issues with Libertarians - theory seldom survives reality.

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

What would a tea party govern like?


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.

How? What would replace them in areas of the country where there just plain aren't any jobs? How will families with children manage medical costs, food, etc.? What happens when temporary unemployment becomes a long term situation as has been happening over the past year and is still ongoing?

I did say "We would still keep programs in place to help people in emergencies, such as temporary unemployment benefits" If it becomes a long term problem then the community will have to care for itself through voluntary donations and charity. Or darwin kicks in

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.

I pretty much agree...that seems more doable but, there is a hidden reality to the military footprint - I believe what Eisenhower identified as the "military-industrial complex". The military fuels a huge sector of our economy both here and abroad. How will you deal with that loss, and the closure of industries and loss of employment in the towns supported by them and by subsidiary industries?

The internal military industrial complex would be ok as we would re-deploy the troops to the borders and they would still have to be run like they were before. It would hurt the foreign economies of the countries we leave but boost the economies of border states and towns. It would actually lead to increased employment by the US citizens who would now need to provide services to these military personell who used to be served by foreign citizens in the countries they are based in

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)
[/LIST]

As someone who once worked for the federal government - I find much of that last clause to be political rhetoric over reality. I was paid less than comparable private sector jobs, for one thing. Slashing worker's pay is punative measure aimed at workers who have done nothing wrong to earn it.

Slashing government budgets is often easier said then done, as is slashing entitlement programs. Assuming you do that - where will the burden of cost be shifted - to the states?No we will have to go through a very tough period of national sacrifice to kick the entitlement habit. Everyone will have a standard of living hit and be affected. It isn't pretty or ideal but I feel it is necessary and am willing to make time and financial sacrifices personally for the future of our nation and my fellow citizens.

As far as what you said about government employees making less here is something for you to look at http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/Careers/10/11/cb.government/index.html. That is just salaries and doesn't include all the benefits. Government workers get very good health care with VERY LOW co-payments and personal contributions. The list of benefits for public workers far exceeds the benefits received in private sector employment.

I propose that NO GOVERNMENT JOB gets paid more than the private sector average as a combination of salary and benefits

Ok there my responses in red

I hate it when people quote me like that because it ends up getting messy.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Ok i responded inside the quote.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thiry lashes with a wet noodle, five hours of listening to a Teabagger convention.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Thiry lashes with a wet noodle, five hours of listening to a Teabagger convention.

Yawn

 

[Granny]

My best guess would be that a tea party would be "governed" by a hostess who invites some friends over for some tea and a little chit-chat. It would be the responsibility of the hostess (governor) to provide the tea and offer lemons, sugar, or cream for said tea. It is also the responsibility of the hostess to provide little tea cakes, cookies or whatever. She also is in charge of pouring the tea for her guests.

Sounds kinda simple. Of course if I were the hostess I would only have to do it one time - I'd be spilling hot tea on everything in sight - including the guests.

 

[Coyote]

I did say "We would still keep programs in place to help people in emergencies, such as temporary unemployment benefits" If it becomes a long term problem then the community will have to care for itself through voluntary donations and charity. Or darwin kicks in

Yet if the community, as a whole is suffering....? Nah, this is one where you and I will have to agree to disagree becuase I think we disagree on what the role of the government is

The internal military industrial complex would be ok as we would re-deploy the troops to the borders and they would still have to be run like they were before. It would hurt the foreign economies of the countries we leave but boost the economies of border states and towns. It would actually lead to increased employment by the US citizens who would now need to provide services to these military personell who used to be served by foreign citizens in the countries they are based in

Would it be ok? If you put troops on the borders - you are talking for the most part manpower - not sophisticated weapons, planes etc. I think the increase in employment would be minor overall because the size of the military would be cut.

I also have very real concerns about using the military to close our borders.

No we will have to go through a very tough period of national sacrifice to kick the entitlement habit. Everyone will have a standard of living hit and be affected. It isn't pretty or ideal but I feel it is necessary and am willing to make time and financial sacrifices personally for the future of our nation and my fellow citizens.

It will hit some much much harder than others. We could, for the first time since the Depression face real malnutrition and starvation, poverty (think of the tenaments at the turn of the century), increase in crime associated with that poverty, increase in easily preventable diseases....when people live on the margin already, what financial sacrifices are they supposed to make? When there are no jobs...what sacrifices are they supposed to make?

As far as what you said about government employees making less here is something for you to look at Government salaries vs. private sector salaries - CNN.com. That is just salaries and doesn't include all the benefits. Government workers get very good health care with VERY LOW co-payments and personal contributions. The list of benefits for public workers far exceeds the benefits received in private sector employment.

In terms of salaries - some make more, some make less than in the private sector. It was over 20 years ago that I worked for NASA, and it was clerical, so things may well be different. For myself though - the pay was lower than the private sector.

I propose that NO GOVERNMENT JOB gets paid more than the private sector average as a combination of salary and benefits

Then would you also agree that is should be paid as high as the private sector?

ya...it does get messy...but I confess I find it easier to answer point by point

umh...next maybe bright red?

 

[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.

Actually I think you seem to not understand that the majority are not Far-Right truthers but are actually more middle of the road.

I've been to 3 different teaparties and that is my opinon from the people I met at actual rallies....now If I had only heard of them from the news I would have an opinion on the makeup of the teaparties that is similar to your own.



EDIT: Thanks for a good back and forth coyote, that was very refreshing to read. I'm answering you backwards

What you said on salaries....i think public sector, taxypayer funded, jobs should earn 5% less than the private sector as a general rule of thumb (with some rare exceptions). That is just me though.....I think the people being paid in the public by tax dollars from others working in the private sector should make just slightly below the average, and never above it. I'm not saying i'm right with my opinion, just telling you how I feel about it .

As far as the border I'm talking about doing it like mexico does with their souther borders, with flyovers and everything. I'm talking going all out and treating border violations as deadly threats to our nation. I'm a little crazy on this one....I scare article when we talk about it.

I dont have much else to say at the moment.

 

[Coyote]

As far as the border I'm talking about doing it like mexico does with their souther borders, with flyovers and everything. I'm talking going all out and treating border violations as deadly threats to our nation. I'm a little crazy on this one....I scare article when we talk about it.

I dont have much else to say at the moment.

I'm going to just take the border question here becuase, like I said - I have serious issues with it.

Mexico and Canada are our immediate neighbors and close trading partners. Mexico is a problem but not "the Enemy". Primarily because of economics as well as Mexico's inability to control corruption on even local levels - the U.S. is a very tempting to country to flee too and you can't blame the immigrants for trying. Any solution is going to require working with Mexico particularly to stem the rising drug-gang related violence that is threatening both sides of the border.

You're talking about treating it like a war zone. Is it? I don't think so. Again - most of the people committing "border violations" aren't committing "deadly threats" on us. They are just ordinary folks taking an enormous and often life threatening risk to come over here to work. They may also be fleeing violence from the drug trade. I may not agree with them but I can certainly emphasize with their desire to do better for themselves or their families because that is exactly the desire this country was built on. Does that make them "deadly threats to our nation"? Do they deserve to be killed?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Looking at the politcal spectrum as the face of a clock, the Democrats and Republicans might be placed on the top, D's to the left of '12', R's to the right. Moving further left one might find liberals and progressives; moving further right conservatives.
Liberals and Progressives seem to buy into Social Contract Theory, and believe in the power, synergy, of the many working towards change, in a hurry; Conservatives seem to believe in the power of the individual to make change slowly, methodically and with respect for tradition.
As we move left to the '7' we might place revolutionaries, those who hope to remake society/political institutions immediately, and by whatever means necessary. Going right, as we approach the '5' are the reactionaries, those who are resistent to change and/or hope to return the ways of the past.
Where would you place the Tea Party?

I'm not sure lets try a different way.

Say you have a straight line, on the far left of the straight line is complete government control on the far right of the straight line is complete anarcy.

The tea partiers are a few shades to the left of total anarchy, the minimal amount of government possible with very limited powers...just enough to protect us from foreign threats.

The Progressives are a few shades to the right of total government, basically the government will do everything for you and take care of any needs that might arise for one.


Maybe a picture?

See the progressives are up at the top with the likes of stalin and hitler (no im not calling progressives nazi's i'm just saying they like a government with a lot of authority and power over the citizens) You have the conservative progressives (hitler) and the liberal progressives (stalin) but both are facist in nature.

Tea partiers are in the lower right quadrant of the picture and would be down low but above total anarcy and slightly to the right of the center line.

Did I help you?

Well, you made me laugh. Seriously, your post was a joke. Correct?

 

[Wry Catcher]

It appears from the few answers provided a Tea Party White House and Congress would fortify our borders with armed troops, lay-off government workers in mass, cut government services and income taxes and engage in a neo-isolationism, bringing our troops home.
Each American citizen would be personally responsable for their health care and retirement, and with little government regulation would need to make sure their water was clean, their food safe and understand that caveat emptor was the only rule in the land.
[now, I know this is a straw man, but listening to the debate, I wonder why TBers would want us to become a large North Korea.]

 

[Coyote]

Looking at the politcal spectrum as the face of a clock, the Democrats and Republicans might be placed on the top, D's to the left of '12', R's to the right. Moving further left one might find liberals and progressives; moving further right conservatives.
Liberals and Progressives seem to buy into Social Contract Theory, and believe in the power, synergy, of the many working towards change, in a hurry; Conservatives seem to believe in the power of the individual to make change slowly, methodically and with respect for tradition.
As we move left to the '7' we might place revolutionaries, those who hope to remake society/political institutions immediately, and by whatever means necessary. Going right, as we approach the '5' are the reactionaries, those who are resistent to change and/or hope to return the ways of the past.
Where would you place the Tea Party?

I'm not sure lets try a different way.

Say you have a straight line, on the far left of the straight line is complete government control on the far right of the straight line is complete anarcy.

The tea partiers are a few shades to the left of total anarchy, the minimal amount of government possible with very limited powers...just enough to protect us from foreign threats.

The Progressives are a few shades to the right of total government, basically the government will do everything for you and take care of any needs that might arise for one.


Maybe a picture?

See the progressives are up at the top with the likes of stalin and hitler (no im not calling progressives nazi's i'm just saying they like a government with a lot of authority and power over the citizens) You have the conservative progressives (hitler) and the liberal progressives (stalin) but both are facist in nature.

Tea partiers are in the lower right quadrant of the picture and would be down low but above total anarcy and slightly to the right of the center line.

Did I help you?

That graph is far from accurate...

The political compass does not define the far right as "neo-liberal", nor does it define extremes as communism, fascism etc.

The far right would be "fascism" if anything and the far left "communism" with both having the potential to become authoritarian.

"Progressives" is so broadly used as to be meaningless here.

Tea Partiers seem below and further than slightly right of the center line with their fiscal views and conservative social views.