Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What exactly is the Tea Party platform anyway?
- Thread starter manifold
- Start date
Mad Scientist
Feels Good!
- Sep 15, 2008
- 24,196
- 5,431
- 270
A little "Google" goes a long way. You guys have a computer right? Internet access?
From the Wikipedia that the the Left loves (just so you can't complain about the source):
Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From the Wikipedia that the the Left loves (just so you can't complain about the source):
Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't see anything about "Brown Skinned Presidents" there. Oh yeah, that's just more smears from the Left. It's what you do.1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03%).
2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%).
3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)
4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words -- the length of the original Constitution.(64.9%).
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%).
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%).
8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%).
9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%).
10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)
It doesn't seem to have a unified platform.
About all I can see is that it taps into the (quite understandable) disaffection most Americans seem to have for the government.
Why I have even spoken to TeaPartians who seem to make sense. Who seem to understand the game that's being played on them and the rest of America
Until, of course, you mention Obama, of course.
Then they sound every so much like very loyal Republicans.
About all I can see is that it taps into the (quite understandable) disaffection most Americans seem to have for the government.
Why I have even spoken to TeaPartians who seem to make sense. Who seem to understand the game that's being played on them and the rest of America
Until, of course, you mention Obama, of course.
Then they sound every so much like very loyal Republicans.
Some thoughts on those planks:
I dare say most significant bills already do this. For example, the text of the beginning of (what, seeing what some Tea Partiers have to say, I assume to be) the most hated part of the most hated bill signed into law this Congressional term (i.e. the individual mandate bit of the health care bill) begins with an explicit and detailed Constitutional, legislative, and policy justification for its inclusion.
That won't stop them from arguing it's unconstitutional.
Given that 66% of Tea Party sympathizers in the recent NY Times poll of Tea Partiers either thought climate change doesn't exist or won't have any serious impact, it makes sense that they'd reject something like cap and trade.
But their characterization of it as an administrative approach is exactly backwards. I'll let the CBO explain the two approaches one could take to this problem:
Cap-and-trade is a market-based approach aimed at shaping incentives. Not passing it and allowing the EPA to regulate carbon would be the administrative approach.
One of the primary reasons this hasn't been done before is that it's a terrible idea. Contractionary fiscal policy during good economic times (e.g. the '90s) is fine but during a recession it won't work. Tax revenues fall and spending rising automatically during recessions--this is true even without any sort of stimulus spending. Take away the automatic stabilizers and you'll merely deepen the recession. There are times to seek a balanced budget and there are times when running a deficit is necessary.
I think there's fairly wide agreement that it's time for a tax simplification. Here's a decent article on the Wyden-Gregg effort to do exactly that. There's no need to take the progressivity out of the federal income tax, however. The argument that this is "fairer" just doesn't hold up when you consider the tax burdens imposed by things like payroll taxes which, being capped, fall more heavily on 5-figure earners than 6-figure-and-above earners. Part of that inequity is corrected by the fact that the marginal tax rates for dollars earned in those higher categories is higher.
Sounds like another version of Clinton-Gore's National Performance Review (aside from the bit about assessing the constitutionality of the bureaucracy). Okay.
Where is the growth in federal spending going to happen? Let's break government spending down into two categories: 1) Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Net Interest, and 2) Everything else. Let's start with everything else:
Spending Other Than That for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Net Interest, 1962 to 2080 (Percentage of GDP)
Not really running away there. Most of the growth comes from system-wide rising health care costs:
But what does the NYT poll reveal about Tea Party attitudes toward the entitlement programs that drive spending increases?
That's somewhat perplexing.
Replace with what?
If we look back at the NYT poll, we see this:
The question doesn't ask which level of government should impose this requirement, although given this was one of the major tenets of the bill just signed law, it's not particularly far-fetched to read in the question the distinct possibility the feds would be doing the regulating. Regardless, then you get responses like these:
At which point, like most Americans, it becomes difficult to see how the mechanics of their world views are supposed to work.
Sounds like a pro-drilling, pro-nuclear stance. The President seems to be in their corner on this one.
I can't tell if this is supposed to be symbolic or if people really think earmarks play a significant part in creating the deficit.
Surprising this is the lowest of the ten priorities. But it leads back to the question that always has to come up. If you don't like those higher (but still historically low by the standards of most of the 20th century) tax rates and you don't like deficits, then what spending are you specifically going to cut? The only specific spending cut in this entire list is earmarks, or about 1% of the budget (and not a driver of spending increases). A generic "stop spending" plank is questionable without actual suggestions as to how one goes about doing this. Which makes the wisdom of extending deficit-financed tax cuts indefinitely questionable as well.
Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03%).
I dare say most significant bills already do this. For example, the text of the beginning of (what, seeing what some Tea Partiers have to say, I assume to be) the most hated part of the most hated bill signed into law this Congressional term (i.e. the individual mandate bit of the health care bill) begins with an explicit and detailed Constitutional, legislative, and policy justification for its inclusion.
That won't stop them from arguing it's unconstitutional.
Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%).
Given that 66% of Tea Party sympathizers in the recent NY Times poll of Tea Partiers either thought climate change doesn't exist or won't have any serious impact, it makes sense that they'd reject something like cap and trade.
But their characterization of it as an administrative approach is exactly backwards. I'll let the CBO explain the two approaches one could take to this problem:
The most fundamental choice facing policymakers is whether to adopt conventional regulatory approaches, such as standards for energy-using machinery and equipment, or to employ market-based approaches, such as taxes on emissions or cap-and-trade programs. Market-based approaches, most experts conclude, would generally limit emissions at a lower cost than command-and-control regulations would. Whereas conventional regulatory approaches would impose specific requirements that might not be the least costly means of reducing emissions, market-based approaches would provide more latitude for firms and households to determine the most cost-effective means of accomplishing that goal.
Cap-and-trade is a market-based approach aimed at shaping incentives. Not passing it and allowing the EPA to regulate carbon would be the administrative approach.
Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)
One of the primary reasons this hasn't been done before is that it's a terrible idea. Contractionary fiscal policy during good economic times (e.g. the '90s) is fine but during a recession it won't work. Tax revenues fall and spending rising automatically during recessions--this is true even without any sort of stimulus spending. Take away the automatic stabilizers and you'll merely deepen the recession. There are times to seek a balanced budget and there are times when running a deficit is necessary.
Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words -- the length of the original Constitution.(64.9%).
I think there's fairly wide agreement that it's time for a tax simplification. Here's a decent article on the Wyden-Gregg effort to do exactly that. There's no need to take the progressivity out of the federal income tax, however. The argument that this is "fairer" just doesn't hold up when you consider the tax burdens imposed by things like payroll taxes which, being capped, fall more heavily on 5-figure earners than 6-figure-and-above earners. Part of that inequity is corrected by the fact that the marginal tax rates for dollars earned in those higher categories is higher.
Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)
Sounds like another version of Clinton-Gore's National Performance Review (aside from the bit about assessing the constitutionality of the bureaucracy). Okay.
Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%).
Where is the growth in federal spending going to happen? Let's break government spending down into two categories: 1) Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Net Interest, and 2) Everything else. Let's start with everything else:
Spending Other Than That for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Net Interest, 1962 to 2080 (Percentage of GDP)
Not really running away there. Most of the growth comes from system-wide rising health care costs:
But what does the NYT poll reveal about Tea Party attitudes toward the entitlement programs that drive spending increases?
Overall, do you think the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs of those programs for taxpayers, or are they not worth the costs?
Worth it/Not worth it/DK
62/33/6
Worth it/Not worth it/DK
62/33/6
That's somewhat perplexing.
Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%).
Replace with what?
If we look back at the NYT poll, we see this:
Do you approve or disapprove of requiring health insurance companies to cover anyone who applies for health insurance regardless of whether or not they have an existing medical condition or a prior illness?
Approve/Disapprove/DK
59/32/9
Approve/Disapprove/DK
59/32/9
The question doesn't ask which level of government should impose this requirement, although given this was one of the major tenets of the bill just signed law, it's not particularly far-fetched to read in the question the distinct possibility the feds would be doing the regulating. Regardless, then you get responses like these:
As long as the federal government provides financial help to those who cannot afford health insurance, do you think the federal government should or should not require all Americans to have health insurance?
Should/Should not/DK
12/85/3
Should/Should not/DK
12/85/3
At which point, like most Americans, it becomes difficult to see how the mechanics of their world views are supposed to work.
Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%).
Sounds like a pro-drilling, pro-nuclear stance. The President seems to be in their corner on this one.
Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%).
I can't tell if this is supposed to be symbolic or if people really think earmarks play a significant part in creating the deficit.
Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)
Surprising this is the lowest of the ten priorities. But it leads back to the question that always has to come up. If you don't like those higher (but still historically low by the standards of most of the 20th century) tax rates and you don't like deficits, then what spending are you specifically going to cut? The only specific spending cut in this entire list is earmarks, or about 1% of the budget (and not a driver of spending increases). A generic "stop spending" plank is questionable without actual suggestions as to how one goes about doing this. Which makes the wisdom of extending deficit-financed tax cuts indefinitely questionable as well.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
I just saw some tea party chick interviewed on Foxnews; she said the tea party wants to return this country to fiscal responsibility,
like it was under Reagan in the 80's!!
too funny. Just proves though that the Reagan myth is alive and well to anyone who's too young and/or too ignorant to know the truth.
like it was under Reagan in the 80's!!
too funny. Just proves though that the Reagan myth is alive and well to anyone who's too young and/or too ignorant to know the truth.
2Parties
Senior Member
Which Tea Party? The corporate Republican one led by politicians and corporations (circa 2009) or the one with a strong libertarian anti-war anti-big brother anti-George Bush message (circa 2007)?
geauxtohell
Choose your weapon.
The morons bitch about spending and deficits but love their Medicare part D
hypocrites
Part of the brilliance of the GOP is getting people to vote against their financial best interests via use of wedge issues.
Zona
A guy in ariZONA
A little "Google" goes a long way. You guys have a computer right? Internet access?
From the Wikipedia that the the Left loves (just so you can't complain about the source):
Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't see anything about "Brown Skinned Presidents" there. Oh yeah, that's just more smears from the Left. It's what you do.1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03%).
2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%).
3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)
4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words -- the length of the original Constitution.(64.9%).
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%).
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%).
8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%).
9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%).
10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)
Google really is your friend. Google image tea party rally's and see how much brown you see in that crowd. Should be interesting.
Last edited:
geauxtohell
Choose your weapon.
Zona
A guy in ariZONA
I just saw some tea party chick interviewed on Foxnews; she said the tea party wants to return this country to fiscal responsibility,
like it was under Reagan in the 80's!!
too funny. Just proves though that the Reagan myth is alive and well to anyone who's too young and/or too ignorant to know the truth.
Interestingly enough Reagan and his ideologies would be kicked out of the rabid tea bag party now days.
Zona
A guy in ariZONA
"What do we want? Something! When do we want it? NOW!"
That pretty much sums it all up. They have no idea why they are there and if they did, where were they during Bush's spending spree's?
When they say "lets take back our country"...really. Take it back? Back to what, the administration that almost ran us into another depression? These people are amazing to me.
hipeter924
Not a zombie yet
Does the tea party actually believe in a free market? Or a market full of corporate monopolies without any kind of regulation.
"What do we want? Something! When do we want it? NOW!"
That pretty much sums it all up. They have no idea why they are there and if they did, where were they during Bush's spending spree's?
When they say "lets take back our country"...really. Take it back? Back to what, the administration that almost ran us into another depression? These people are amazing to me.
But overall I am more radical than the tea party, and that means voluntary taxation, tax cuts for all areas of society, banning of corporate monopolies, banning of advertising (to increase freedom of choice), putting any social welfare in the hands of non-government non for profit organizations like the red cross, and making the government small and efficient. Okay enough mumbling from me.... a world without poverty, low prices for goods and services, and low tax for everyone is a fantasy.
Well more coffee to bring me back to reality then.
geauxtohell
Choose your weapon.
Does the tea party actually believe in a free market? Or a market full of corporate monopolies without any kind of regulation.
"What do we want? Something! When do we want it? NOW!"
That pretty much sums it all up. They have no idea why they are there and if they did, where were they during Bush's spending spree's?
When they say "lets take back our country"...really. Take it back? Back to what, the administration that almost ran us into another depression? These people are amazing to me.
But overall I am more radical than the tea party, and that means voluntary taxation, tax cuts for all areas of society, banning of corporate monopolies, banning of advertising (to increase freedom of choice), putting any social welfare in the hands of non-government non for profit organizations like the red cross, and making the government small and efficient. Okay enough mumbling from me.... a world without poverty, low prices for goods and services, and low tax for everyone is a fantasy.
Well more coffee to bring me back to reality then.
I don't think the Tea Party knows what it wants. It's basically a collection of angry conservatives who are pissed off about a plethora of things.
Immanuel
Gold Member
- May 15, 2007
- 16,828
- 2,269
- 183
Apart from universal mistrust and fear of brown skinned presidents that is?
From my viewpoint there is only one platform and that is:
Elect as many Republicans as possible.
Immie
JBeukema
Rookie
- Banned
- #19
Does the tea party actually believe in a free market? Or a market full of corporate monopolies without any kind of regulation."What do we want? Something! When do we want it? NOW!"
That pretty much sums it all up. They have no idea why they are there and if they did, where were they during Bush's spending spree's?
When they say "lets take back our country"...really. Take it back? Back to what, the administration that almost ran us into another depression? These people are amazing to me.
But overall I am more radical than the tea party, and that means voluntary taxation, tax cuts for all areas of society, banning of corporate monopolies, banning of advertising (to increase freedom of choice), putting any social welfare in the hands of non-government non for profit organizations like the red cross, and making the government small and efficient. Okay enough mumbling from me.... a world without poverty, low prices for goods and services, and low tax for everyone is a fantasy.
Well more coffee to bring me back to reality then.
I don't think the Tea Party knows what it wants. It's basically a collection of angry conservatives who are pissed off about a plethora of things.
1) Get the ****** out of the white house
2) Stop the entitlement mentality
3)Don't touch their Medicare Part D- they're entitled to it
4) End the welfare state
5) Don't touch their Social Security
6) get the ****** pout of the WHITE MAN'S HOUSE
7) END SOCIALISM
8) Roll us back to 1844 and fuck the poor people
9) start caring for the poor people
10) Don't call them racists. They're not racists; they just want the ****** out of the WHITE MAN'S HOUSE
The TP platform in a nutshell
geauxtohell
Choose your weapon.
Apart from universal mistrust and fear of brown skinned presidents that is?
From my viewpoint there is only one platform and that is:
Elect as many Republicans as possible.
Immie
Which is fine. I just wish the TPers would stop telling us that they are a "nonpartisan, grassroots organization". It's bullshit.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 62
- Replies
- 144
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 91
- Views
- 912
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 51
- Views
- 980
- Replies
- 33
- Views
- 139
- Replies
- 175
- Views
- 975
- Replies
- 131
- Views
- 805
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8032
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-