Please help me understand the Tea Party's positions.

[Benraines]

Let me start off by saying that my intention here is not to provoke a heated response nor is it to disparage the Tea-Party movement. Instead I would really appreciate if someone could explain the specific reasons behind their support of the Tea-Party narrative. I have attended events and spoken briefly to members of the movement but have been unable to get past claims that the current administration is trampling the constitution and pushing the nation towards socialism.

For a little background I am a young conservative with multiple degrees in political science and national security policy. I have worked in DC for the last two years (not for the administration) and find that I agree with a significant portion of the ideology being presented by Tea-Party members. I believe in limited government, judicial restraint, low taxes, and a strong national defense. What I don't understand is exactly what has caused this sudden ground swell of discontent. I understand and agree with the outrage concerning the health care reform package, I understand the arguments against TARP and the auto bail-outs. It is one thing to disagree with these policies and the direction of the country, but I guess I don't see how these policies represent a clear and present danger to the Constitution or the Republic.

I would really appreciate any discussion seeking to explain these positions.

Thanks.

 

[Oddball]

What I don't understand is exactly what has caused this sudden ground swell of discontent. I understand and agree with the outrage concerning the health care reform package, I understand the arguments against TARP and the auto bail-outs. It is one thing to disagree with these policies and the direction of the country, but I guess I don't see how these policies represent a clear and present danger to the Constitution or the Republic.

First of all, the groundswell wasn't sudden...The discontent had been percolating as Chimpola McShrub (you know, the "far right-wing conservative") spent and expanded bureaucracy at a rate faster than his "liberal" predecessor, for the first six of his eight years. The '08 Wall Street/banking bailouts burned a lot of butts, only to have the subsequent regime double down on those policies and get a lot of people to a full rolling boil.

From what I've seen, the Tea Party crowd is primarily concerned about fiscal policy and the rapid encroachment of the federal bureaucratic Fedasaurus Rex into virtually every aspect of Americans' lives....They appear to only be peripherally concerned about foreign affairs and largely indifferent to culture war issues.

But that's just how I see it...YMMV.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Let me start off by saying that my intention here is not to provoke a heated response nor is it to disparage the Tea-Party movement. Instead I would really appreciate if someone could explain the specific reasons behind their support of the Tea-Party narrative. I have attended events and spoken briefly to members of the movement but have been unable to get past claims that the current administration is trampling the constitution and pushing the nation towards socialism.

For a little background I am a young conservative with multiple degrees in political science and national security policy. I have worked in DC for the last two years (not for the administration) and find that I agree with a significant portion of the ideology being presented by Tea-Party members. I believe in limited government, judicial restraint, low taxes, and a strong national defense. What I don't understand is exactly what has caused this sudden ground swell of discontent. I understand and agree with the outrage concerning the health care reform package, I understand the arguments against TARP and the auto bail-outs. It is one thing to disagree with these policies and the direction of the country, but I guess I don't see how these policies represent a clear and present danger to the Constitution or the Republic.

I would really appreciate any discussion seeking to explain these positions.

Thanks.

I would like to help. I've supported my local tea party events up here in Boston, MA so I feel i could help you with this. I would like you to maybe provide me some specific issues you are curious on after I give you a short list of what I think the tea parties stand for.

1) Fiscal conservatism. Dont confuse fiscal conservatism with what republicans up in washington and the last republican president did with the economy. I dont feel Bush was a fiscal conservative nor do I feel that his congress was while it was under republican control.

2) Balanced budgets. No more defecit spending. If we dont have the money for something we either dont do it or cut spending some where else. You will see why I didn't offer up raising taxes on #4

3) Reducing the national debt. We need to stop spending money on all non-essential projects. For example, not spending millions on roadsigns to announce that the construction is part of the stimulus..just do the construction. Or spending 2 million on a new firehouse in nevada when they dont have the budget to hire the firefighters to staff it. Stuff like that and other things such as reducing (not eliminating) our military presence around the world.

4) Lowering the tax burden on all Americans. This obviously can't be done until after we get 1, 2, and 3 under control.

5) Keeping the federal government in check. This basically means not allowing them to gain additional powers (such as forcing people to buy health insurance from a private company or face a federal fee/fine for not doing so) which were not specifically given to them in the constitution.

For me that is basically what the tea parties are about. They are economic in nature and I dont feel that they really are out there pushing any kind of social agenda.


Feel free to ask me any questions about my personal positions or my opinion of what the tea party's position may be on any specific issue.

 

[Benraines]

First I want to thank you for your willingness to have the discussion.

I want to start by saying that I am well aware of what true fiscal conservatism means and am under no illusions concerning the previous administration and republican congress. However I do feel that a large part of that spending was a direct result of national security demands.

I agree with each point that you have laid out, wasteful spending is at pandemic levels throughout the federal government. This issue needs to be central to the Tea-Party's platform, and I believe that it is.

My specific question, as best as I can phrase it, is exactly what the constitutional questions are within these issues. When I have spoken to self labeled Tea-Party members they speak often about the current administration ignoring or circumventing the constitution. However examples of this have been hard to come by. I am not suggesting that these claims are without merit I am simply trying to understand their foundation.

Thanks again, I really appreciate your time.

 

[Oddball]

The current administration has been exceeding its constitutional authority, by building on the progressive circumventions and usurpations of its predecessors over roughly the last 100 years.

Getting to recent history, there is no federal authority to bail out banks, brokerages, airlines, corporations, state and union pension funds, etcetera. There's no constitutional authority to force people, by virtue of their mere existence, to buy any product or service.

Going further back, America got sold down the river by the domestic spendaholic pig in a poke that Dubya was, his old man's reneging on "read my lips", the phony "Republican Revolution" of 1995, Nixon's wage and price controls followed by Ford's sheer ineptitude....

Like I said earlier, this has been on a slow burn for a loooooong time.

 

[Granny]

Let me start off by saying that my intention here is not to provoke a heated response nor is it to disparage the Tea-Party movement. Instead I would really appreciate if someone could explain the specific reasons behind their support of the Tea-Party narrative. I have attended events and spoken briefly to members of the movement but have been unable to get past claims that the current administration is trampling the constitution and pushing the nation towards socialism.

For a little background I am a young conservative with multiple degrees in political science and national security policy. I have worked in DC for the last two years (not for the administration) and find that I agree with a significant portion of the ideology being presented by Tea-Party members. I believe in limited government, judicial restraint, low taxes, and a strong national defense. What I don't understand is exactly what has caused this sudden ground swell of discontent. I understand and agree with the outrage concerning the health care reform package, I understand the arguments against TARP and the auto bail-outs. It is one thing to disagree with these policies and the direction of the country, but I guess I don't see how these policies represent a clear and present danger to the Constitution or the Republic.

I would really appreciate any discussion seeking to explain these positions.

Thanks.

I would like to help. I've supported my local tea party events up here in Boston, MA so I feel i could help you with this. I would like you to maybe provide me some specific issues you are curious on after I give you a short list of what I think the tea parties stand for.

1) Fiscal conservatism. Dont confuse fiscal conservatism with what republicans up in washington and the last republican president did with the economy. I dont feel Bush was a fiscal conservative nor do I feel that his congress was while it was under republican control.

2) Balanced budgets. No more defecit spending. If we dont have the money for something we either dont do it or cut spending some where else. You will see why I didn't offer up raising taxes on #4

3) Reducing the national debt. We need to stop spending money on all non-essential projects. For example, not spending millions on roadsigns to announce that the construction is part of the stimulus..just do the construction. Or spending 2 million on a new firehouse in nevada when they dont have the budget to hire the firefighters to staff it. Stuff like that and other things such as reducing (not eliminating) our military presence around the world.

4) Lowering the tax burden on all Americans. This obviously can't be done until after we get 1, 2, and 3 under control.

5) Keeping the federal government in check. This basically means not allowing them to gain additional powers (such as forcing people to buy health insurance from a private company or face a federal fee/fine for not doing so) which were not specifically given to them in the constitution.

For me that is basically what the tea parties are about. They are economic in nature and I dont feel that they really are out there pushing any kind of social agenda.


Feel free to ask me any questions about my personal positions or my opinion of what the tea party's position may be on any specific issue.

I would add that they also back a return to living by/ruling by the US Constitution as envisioned by and written by the Founding Fathers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What is Constitutional at all about requiring people to buy Health Insurance? Why is that so hard to grasp?

 

[Benraines]

I believe the health care mandate is unconstitutional, this is the one example that I believe is a clear indication of the current administration's circumvention of inherent constitutional authority. As for the bailouts and TARP, the authority to spend taxpayer money to prevent the failure of business is that of the Legislative Branch. While I completely disagree with the decision of Congress, there was a vote which resulted in the passage of TARP. Therefore claims of "non-delegation" seem unfounded. I may be missing something and will think on it tonight and post new questions or comments in the morning. Thanks again to everyone who has thrown in their 2 cents.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

First I want to thank you for your willingness to have the discussion.

I want to start by saying that I am well aware of what true fiscal conservatism means and am under no illusions concerning the previous administration and republican congress. However I do feel that a large part of that spending was a direct result of national security demands.

I agree with each point that you have laid out, wasteful spending is at pandemic levels throughout the federal government. This issue needs to be central to the Tea-Party's platform, and I believe that it is.

My specific question, as best as I can phrase it, is exactly what the constitutional questions are within these issues. When I have spoken to self labeled Tea-Party members they speak often about the current administration ignoring or circumventing the constitution. However examples of this have been hard to come by. I am not suggesting that these claims are without merit I am simply trying to understand their foundation.

Thanks again, I really appreciate your time.

Sorry about the delay I ended up doing some hurricane prep to my property last night.

I'm more about the financial side than the constitution side but as far as the constitution and tea partiers go I think I can sum it up pretty concisely for you.

Tea Partiers do not beleive the constitution is a living document. Tea Partiers are committed to the "First Principles" in the constiution and not to the living constitution mantra.

Here is an excellent article which explains it A 'Living Constitution' for a Dying Republic - Alexander's Essays - PatriotPost.US

Or a video (there are many but this one is really good) if you like watching more than reading.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7SpA2Qe3FM]YouTube - Constitution: Original Intent Vs Living Document - Ed Vieira[/ame]

 

[California Girl]

From the Tea Party:

We, the citizens of the United States of America, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items and advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

Protect the Constitution
Reject Cap & Trade
Demand a Balanced Budget
Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
End Runaway Government Spending
Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
Stop the Pork
Stop the Tax Hikes

Contract FROM America

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

From the Tea Party:

We, the citizens of the United States of America, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items and advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

Protect the Constitution
Reject Cap & Trade
Demand a Balanced Budget
Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
End Runaway Government Spending
Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
Stop the Pork
Stop the Tax Hikes

Contract FROM America

I see Jeff Perry signed that. I wasn't sure who to vote for but I'll be giving perry a 2nd look now.