Where Does the Tea Party Come From?

[noah way]

There are many things wrong with this concept, the largest problem being the Constitution. There is no authority for all this gov't largesse.

Got some evidence to back that up, other than a bunch of rich white guys and corporations that don't want to pay taxes ?

 

[mike114]

Got some evidence to back that up, other than a bunch of rich white guys and corporations that don't want to pay taxes ?

Yep, my evidence is the US Constitution itself. Other than defense on ROI's list, I challenge you to find anything else on that list addressed in the Constitution. And what do white guys and corporations have to do with it?

 

[LoyalServant]

There are a lot of things not in the constitution.
It is impractical to list everything because it cannot be done.

The constitution does not say that roads have to be built so let's tear those roads up and move on.

Look at what Warren Buffet said people.... he actually paid LESS taxes than i paid, and he makes more money than I do in an hour than I make in a year.

This 'just and fair' system that we have going here doesn't look so fair and just - unless your one of the mindless tea party supporters that have no fracking idea what they are supporting.

All of the tea people I have encountered have been neoconservative hateful little party line voters that think the US is the most powerful country on earth, not realizing that the Chinese can come in here and stomp the US out like a bug.

The glory days are over, mostly because of this imperialistic view people have instead of looking at domestic issues they want to conquer the world and enforce their neoconservative christian beliefs.

One way to solve all of these problems: Everyone mind their own business and stop enabling corporate interests to reign supreme.
Corporations love wars, they get to sell more stuff.

 

[mike114]

There are a lot of things not in the constitution.
It is impractical to list everything because it cannot be done.

So that it makes it ok with you? And did you ever think that the Founders made it impractical on purpose so that we wouldn't have this runaway gov't??

The constitution does not say that roads have to be built so let's tear those roads up and move on.

That's a whole other discussion, but post roads is at least covered in Article 1, Section 8.

Look at what Warren Buffet said people.... he actually paid LESS taxes than i paid, and he makes more money than I do in an hour than I make in a year.

And this surprises you?? Big business men have been in the pockets of politicians for decades. Repealing the 17th Amendment would be a good start in making needed changes.

This 'just and fair' system that we have going here doesn't look so fair and just - unless your one of the mindless tea party supporters that have no fracking idea what they are supporting.

They aren't protesting because they see things as being 'just and fair'. It's quite the opposite.

All of the tea people I have encountered have been neoconservative hateful little party line voters that think the US is the most powerful country on earth, not realizing that the Chinese can come in here and stomp the US out like a bug.

I agree most tea party folks tend to be more on the neo-con side who support all these endless wars. And liberals aren't party line voters? Please.

And once the Chinese stop funding our debts, this country will be in for quite the wake up call. We can only print money for so long without the dire consequences that will follow.

The glory days are over, mostly because of this imperialistic view people have instead of looking at domestic issues they want to conquer the world and enforce their neoconservative christian beliefs.

You are right, the glory days are over. Mostly because we live in a Keynesian society that has trashed our way of living. Again, fighting all these wars doesn't help either.

One way to solve all of these problems: Everyone mind their own business and stop enabling corporate interests to reign supreme.
Corporations love wars, they get to sell more stuff.

One sure fire way to begin solving these problems is to shrink the size and scope of gov't. Get back to a Constitutional republic. That's the only way to restore order in our country.

 

[keale18]

So that it makes it ok with you? And did you ever think that the Founders made it impractical on purpose so that we wouldn't have this runaway gov't??



That's a whole other discussion, but post roads is at least covered in Article 1, Section 8.



And this surprises you?? Big business men have been in the pockets of politicians for decades. Repealing the 17th Amendment would be a good start in making needed changes.



They aren't protesting because they see things as being 'just and fair'. It's quite the opposite.



I agree most tea party folks tend to be more on the neo-con side who support all these endless wars. And liberals aren't party line voters? Please.

And once the Chinese stop funding our debts, this country will be in for quite the wake up call. We can only print money for so long without the dire consequences that will follow.



You are right, the glory days are over. Mostly because we live in a Keynesian society that has trashed our way of living. Again, fighting all these wars doesn't help either.



One sure fire way to begin solving these problems is to shrink the size and scope of gov't. Get back to a Constitutional republic. That's the only way to restore order in our country.

I keep hearing this mantra of smaller government and I have yet to hear a clear explanation of what that means. As it is right now everywhere our public services are strained to the point of being ineffective mostly due to budget cuts. Cut any more and really whats the point if theres not enough funding for them to do their jobs. How small can you make the government with a population of 600mil+? Yeah we need budget cuts but that needs to be balanced with generating revenue. We need a multi prong approach

 

[OstrichSaK]

I keep hearing this mantra of smaller government and I have yet to hear a clear explanation of what that means. As it is right now everywhere our public services are strained to the point of being ineffective mostly due to budget cuts. Cut any more and really whats the point if theres not enough funding for them to do their jobs. How small can you make the government with a population of 600mil+? Yeah we need budget cuts but that needs to be balanced with generating revenue. We need a multi prong approach

The problem is these cuts you speak of come from programs that can't afford it as much as those that are the ones question. They cut money on schools and stuff like that when there are entire agencies that can be cut entirely w/o any foreseeable ill effect to citizens. FEMA & the ATF (BATFE) are just two examples of agencies that absorb a substantial sum of tax payer money with little to no reward on the other end. If we had enough time I'd make a list of acronyms that could fill a can of Campbell's Alphabet Soup and nobody here would experience any changes in their daily lives. Their pointless programs that were created to employ cronies and reward campaign workers & people who are not qualified to handle such a task. They look good on paper but in practice their vast holes in the middle of the ocean that our money gets thrown into in million dollar shovel fulls. Not only that but the more necessary programs are so horribly mismanaged that they could operate with half the budget they currently operate. It's just a mess and we're all suffering for it.

By the way, if you're broke, do you continue spending money? I doubt it. Why should our government be immune to this simple concept? Our federal government isn't just broke. It's $15 trillion in debt. I agree that we're so far in debt we need to take approaches from all angles but when Congress is asking for a raise as I type this I think the biggest focus needs to be made on the wildly out of control spending.

 

[keale18]

The problem is these cuts you speak of come from programs that can't afford it as much as those that are the ones question. They cut money on schools and stuff like that when there are entire agencies that can be cut entirely w/o any foreseeable ill effect to citizens. FEMA & the ATF (BATFE) are just two examples of agencies that absorb a substantial sum of tax payer money with little to no reward on the other end. If we had enough time I'd make a list of acronyms that could fill a can of Campbell's Alphabet Soup and nobody here would experience any changes in their daily lives. Their pointless programs that were created to employ cronies and reward campaign workers & people who are not qualified to handle such a task. They look good on paper but in practice their vast holes in the middle of the ocean that our money gets thrown into in million dollar shovel fulls. Not only that but the more necessary programs are so horribly mismanaged that they could operate with half the budget they currently operate. It's just a mess and we're all suffering for it.

By the way, if you're broke, do you continue spending money? I doubt it. Why should our government be immune to this simple concept? Our federal government isn't just broke. It's $15 trillion in debt. I agree that we're so far in debt we need to take approaches from all angles but when Congress is asking for a raise as I type this I think the biggest focus needs to be made on the wildly out of control spending.

Cite or support your assertion. Its a big claim that we would see no difference particularly since the east coast was just hit by a hurricane.

How does FEMA get involved in a State disaster?
Once a disaster has occurred, and the State has declared a state of emergency, the State will evaluate the recovery capabilities of the State and local governments. If it is determined that the damage is beyond their recovery capability, the governor will normally send a request letter to the President, directed through the Regional Director of the appropriate FEMA region. The President then makes the decision whether or not to declare a major disaster or emergency.
After a presidential declaration has been made, FEMA will designate the area eligible for assistance and announce the types of assistance available. FEMA provides supplemental assistance for State and local government recovery expenses, and the Federal share will always be at least 75 percent of the eligible costs.

So who fills the gap for this agency?

This is not to say we couldnt make things more effeicient but to throw the baby out with the bath water is a bit much

 

[OstrichSaK]

Cite or support your assertion. Its a big claim that we would see no difference particularly since the east coast was just hit by a hurricane.

How does FEMA get involved in a State disaster?
Once a disaster has occurred, and the State has declared a state of emergency, the State will evaluate the recovery capabilities of the State and local governments. If it is determined that the damage is beyond their recovery capability, the governor will normally send a request letter to the President, directed through the Regional Director of the appropriate FEMA region. The President then makes the decision whether or not to declare a major disaster or emergency.
After a presidential declaration has been made, FEMA will designate the area eligible for assistance and announce the types of assistance available. FEMA provides supplemental assistance for State and local government recovery expenses, and the Federal share will always be at least 75 percent of the eligible costs.

So who fills the gap for this agency?

This is not to say we couldnt make things more effeicient but to throw the baby out with the bath water is a bit much

Who fills the gap? How about citizens of this fine country who pay their premiums on time for their insurance which protects their home and belongings in the event of a natural disaster? Why do we need an agency that soaks up hundreds of billions every year running around the east cost looking for people who weren't responsible enough cover their belongings to throw our tax dollars at?

Don't forget, we did just fine as a nation before FEMA was created not all that long ago and so far other than soaking up obscene amounts of money they haven't really proven their worth. Instead they create yet another bureaucratic hoop that those in charge need to jump through before they apply their own resources to the problem.

FEMA is just one of dozens -if not hundreds- of agencies that can get cut drastically or eliminated all together and the country would continue to function just fine and we can recoup a chunk of the spending we currently do that we can no longer afford.

 

[batgeek]

but where am i gonna get my free sh!t from?

 

[OstrichSaK]

but where am i gonna get my free sh!t from?

Exactly. We just had a bit of a hail storm roll through here a month or so ago and it was declared a disaster. I personally had about $20k in damage to my house/property and I didn't expect a dime from the federal government. I pay my insurance premiums every month for just that reason. I've survived tornadoes, floods, hail storms, high wind, lightning and all sorts of disasters and I never once wondered when the federal government was going to swoop in to wipe my a$$ for me. This dependency we have on our federal government for EVERYTHING on our lives as a society is wrong and completely backwards from what our founding fathers had in mind.

We're getting a bit off track here focusing on FEMA though as ALL of them are a drain on our economy and ALL of them are partially to blame for where we are right now. None of them are necessities as our nation ran just fine before they existed and in a time when you're staring down bankruptcy you have to cut out the non-essential items. This is pretty simple yet our own government doesn't seem to understand that logic.

 

[keale18]

Who fills the gap? How about citizens of this fine country who pay their premiums on time for their insurance which protects their home and belongings in the event of a natural disaster? Why do we need an agency that soaks up hundreds of billions every year running around the east cost looking for people who weren't responsible enough cover their belongings to throw our tax dollars at?

Don't forget, we did just fine as a nation before FEMA was created not all that long ago and so far other than soaking up obscene amounts of money they haven't really proven their worth. Instead they create yet another bureaucratic hoop that those in charge need to jump through before they apply their own resources to the problem.

FEMA is just one of dozens -if not hundreds- of agencies that can get cut drastically or eliminated all together and the country would continue to function just fine and we can recoup a chunk of the spending we currently do that we can no longer afford.

Hundreds of billions??? Really? can you cite something to verify that?

So what happens to the people who dont have insurance? What about the people who the insurance company denies? Is your insurance going to pay to get supplies out to people and or emergency shelter? Is it going to assist with the cleanup? Not even super duper Aflac insurace bird can help you with those.

 

[OstrichSaK]

Hundreds of billions??? Really? can you cite something to verify that?

So what happens to the people who dont have insurance? What about the people who the insurance company denies? Is your insurance going to pay to get supplies out to people and or emergency shelter? Is it going to assist with the cleanup? Not even super duper Aflac insurace bird can help you with those.

Sure, it's nice to help others out when you have a little extra but when you're upside down 14 TRILLION dollars then maybe you should reevaluate the handouts.

How did we manage before FEMA if it's so critical?

 

[keale18]

Sure, it's nice to help others out when you have a little extra but when you're upside down 14 TRILLION dollars then maybe you should reevaluate the handouts.

How did we manage before FEMA if it's so critical?

Part of the problem is spending and the other part is the lowest tax rates in 50 years couple that with a recession triggered by and unregulated housing market the built the largest house of cards ever.



The 1960s and early 1970s brought massive disasters requiring major federal response and recovery operations by the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, established within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Hurricane Carla struck in 1962, Hurricane Betsy in 1965, Hurricane Camille in 1969 and Hurricane Agnes in 1972. The Alaskan Earthquake hit in 1964 and the San Fernando Earthquake rocked Southern California in 1971. These events served to focus attention on the issue of natural disasters and brought about increased legislation. In 1968, the National Flood Insurance Act offered new flood protection to homeowners, and in 1974 the Disaster Relief Act firmly established the process of Presidential disaster declarations.
However, emergency and disaster activities were still fragmented. When hazards associated with nuclear power plants and the transportation of hazardous substances were added to natural disasters, more than 100 federal agencies were involved in some aspect of disasters, hazards and emergencies. Many parallel programs and policies existed at the state and local level, compounding the complexity of federal disaster relief efforts. The National Governor's Association sought to decrease the many agencies with which state and local governments work with.

 

[OstrichSaK]

Part of the problem is spending and the other part is the lowest tax rates in 50 years couple that with a recession triggered by and unregulated housing market the built the largest house of cards ever.

I never said that the tax issue doesn't need to be addressed either. The current tax code is a joke at best. Don't think that my ONLY focus is cuts. As far as I'm concerned neither side (Dem or Repub) is right in their proposed approach to this massive problem because neither one is even a drop in the bucket. Drastic measures need to happen and they need to happen sooner than later and it may already be too late. What with the Pentagon announcing 20k US troops being deployed stateside and a dozen federal concentration-type camps being built nationwide this problem is MUCH larger than what the news currently reports on.

The 1960s and early 1970s brought massive disasters requiring major federal response and recovery operations by the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, established within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Hurricane Carla struck in 1962, Hurricane Betsy in 1965, Hurricane Camille in 1969 and Hurricane Agnes in 1972. The Alaskan Earthquake hit in 1964 and the San Fernando Earthquake rocked Southern California in 1971. These events served to focus attention on the issue of natural disasters and brought about increased legislation. In 1968, the National Flood Insurance Act offered new flood protection to homeowners, and in 1974 the Disaster Relief Act firmly established the process of Presidential disaster declarations.
However, emergency and disaster activities were still fragmented. When hazards associated with nuclear power plants and the transportation of hazardous substances were added to natural disasters, more than 100 federal agencies were involved in some aspect of disasters, hazards and emergencies. Many parallel programs and policies existed at the state and local level, compounding the complexity of federal disaster relief efforts. The National Governor's Association sought to decrease the many agencies with which state and local governments work with.

Great, so you make it 101 by creating FEMA and still nothing gets done. Adding MORE agencies is NOT the answer. Nothing you can say will convince me that FEMA is worth even 1/100th the budget it consumes.

Like I said, I really feel like you're focused on FEMA when the country is littered with worthless agencies. This is kind of a michrocosm of how the main problem still hasn't been addressed because both sides want to pick one small insignificant issue and then dig in & entrench themselves and not budge.

 

[keale18]

I never said that the tax issue doesn't need to be addressed either. The current tax code is a joke at best. Don't think that my ONLY focus is cuts. As far as I'm concerned neither side (Dem or Repub) is right in their proposed approach to this massive problem because neither one is even a drop in the bucket. Drastic measures need to happen and they need to happen sooner than later and it may already be too late. What with the Pentagon announcing 20k US troops being deployed stateside and a dozen federal concentration-type camps being built nationwide this problem is MUCH larger than what the news currently reports on.



Great, so you make it 101 by creating FEMA and still nothing gets done. Adding MORE agencies is NOT the answer. Nothing you can say will convince me that FEMA is worth even 1/100th the budget it consumes.

Like I said, I really feel like you're focused on FEMA when the country is littered with worthless agencies. This is kind of a michrocosm of how the main problem still hasn't been addressed because both sides want to pick one small insignificant issue and then dig in & entrench themselves and not budge.

Didnt want to cite anything to support the assertion of hundreds of billions?
Heres the thing. I can point randomly at just about anything and say they suck and their worthless whether its FEMA or anything else without specifying why and citing specific examples. Without some data or information to support your assertion you have nothing but your opinion. Whats their budget? How much is being wasted? Why?

 

[OstrichSaK]

Didnt want to cite anything to support the assertion of hundreds of billions?
Heres the thing. I can point randomly at just about anything and say they suck and their worthless whether its FEMA or anything else without specifying why and citing specific examples. Without some data or information to support your assertion you have nothing but your opinion. Whats their budget? How much is being wasted? Why?

The billion part was a typo, was supposed to be million. The government makes mistakes like that all the time so why can't I?

You need citations? Really?!? Tell you what, take a trip down to New Orleans and see if you still need citations or some sort of proof.

Bottom line is FEMA is a failure just like most other federal agencies that ignorant and weak people think we need in order to survive.

 

[keale18]

The billion part was a typo, was supposed to be million. The government makes mistakes like that all the time so why can't I?

You need citations? Really?!? Tell you what, take a trip down to New Orleans and see if you still need citations or some sort of proof.

Bottom line is FEMA is a failure just like most other federal agencies that ignorant and weak people think we need in order to survive.

Now having said that did you want to give us specifics? Or do you want to stay within current tea party talking points and just get rid of em all??

 

[OstrichSaK]

Now having said that did you want to give us specifics? Or do you want to stay within current tea party talking points and just get rid of em all??

I'm not going to get into an hour long dissertation with someone on a mobile phone forum so let's just go with all.

 

[Frisco]

..(please) cite anything to support the assertion of hundreds of millions.

Whats their budget? How much is being wasted? Why?

I'd be interested to see that.

When "fema budget" is entered into the Google text field, the political partisan battle about it is evident in the listed links. Some numbers are in there, but the actual budget and waste of the agency would take some digging, perhaps by someone on either side of the issue/discussion making assertions about it.

 

[keale18]

I'd be interested to see that.

When "fema budget" is entered into the Google text field, the political partisan battle about it is evident in the listed links. Some numbers are in there, but the actual budget and waste of the agency would take some digging, perhaps by someone on either side of the issue/discussion making assertions about it.

Exactly see without that the we are just playing political football which sometimes is fun but gets you nowhere

 

[PromptCritical]

As a tea party sympathizer, I don't see the Tea Party as an organized group, but something of an alignment between many individual groups and people. It really has no leaders or anything like that. Just a lot of people pointing in a somewhat general direction.

One of those directions is generally called "smaller government". Since neither I or anyone else can speak for such a group, I'll just describe what it means to me: Less federal government power at the least, and hopefully less government that acts to tell me what to do with my life. Is it really necessary to have dozens of agencies and a US Code and CFR that is literally thousands of pages long? Covering everything from airline maintenance records to the types of toilets and lightbulbs I can buy? We have gotten to the point that it is nearly impossible for everyone to know what is illegal and what isn't. One source I read said the average person commits three felonies a day without even knowing it. The only reason we aren't all rotting in jail is because we haven't been caught or there isn't a political will to enforce them. Is this really necessary?

Those old guys that wrote the constitution were on to something and it seems to make perfect sense to me: The Articles of Confederation wasn't working so well as a sort of alliance between colonies so set up a federal government and give it a list of specific duties and responsibilities and leave everything else up to the states. If something comes up that seems really important for the feds to do, we can amend the constitution to add it. If it's really that important, like abolishing slavery or something, it should have enough support to pass the process. There should be no need to sneak it in as "general welfare" or "interstate commerce" under some erroneous concept of a "living, breathing document". Making huge changes to the way the country operates shouldn't be left up to a simple majority of representatives and senators.

The phrase "All politics is local" should be taken more to heart. I trust the Oregon Legislature to know how to run things in Oregon better than some congress in DC (but not much even then). Local governments are closer to the people they serve. Geographically, it seems DC was located very nicely until we started pushing west. Maybe it should be moved to Nebraska or something.

Then you get to the taxes issue. The nice thing is, it fits with the smaller government issue very well. Smaller government requires less taxes. And the taxes paid are more likely to be spent more wisely and transparently if the budgets are shorter. But if you have to spend the taxes, better to do it locally. This also helps rid us of the dreaded pork. If Alaska wants to waste money on a "bridge to nowhere", fine. It's Alaska's money. Not money appropriated in a "you vote for mine, I'll vote for yours" situation like we seem to have now. As a side note, folks like Warren Buffett can pay more if they want to, either to charities to help people directly, or by cutting checks towards the national debt.

So, that's what I think about this.

 

[Frisco]

I don't see the Tea Party as an organized group, but something of an alignment between many individual groups and people. It really has no leaders or anything like that. Just a lot of people pointing in a somewhat general direction.

That sounds pretty close to what the Democrats and Republicans have fallen to in the past several years: just a lot of people pointing in a somewhat general direction.

No organization. <---- Not much gets done.

 

[RiverOfIce]

One of those directions is generally called &quot;smaller government&quot;. Since neither I or anyone else can speak for such a group, I'll just describe what it means to me: Less federal government power at the least, and hopefully less government that acts to tell me what to do with my life. Is it really necessary to have dozens of agencies and a US Code and CFR that is literally thousands of pages long?

I can say, I 100% agree with you. But what you are saying is 100% pointless. We can not have a small federal government. And here is why. Less then 100 years after your "set up (of) a federal government ", the United States of America FAILED as a country.

It split itself into two parts and created one of the most bloodiest and costly wars in the history of mankind. 640,000 Americans died in a war that was completely about " states rights." About 1 million United States citizens died about a war over "states rights." States rights has one simple and dramatic problem. If I want to own a slave in x state, I have to be able to move to y state and still own my property. Or are you saying that states have the right to strip you of your property?

The other problem with states right, and we see this today in Europe, is import exporting laws. The vast, greater then 80%, of all goods that come into this country come by boat. There is only about 30 major harbors in this country, but only about they are completely within the boundaries of 6 states. Those six states control the vast majority of goods. You think taxes are high now, wait until califorina starts to tax all the goods that go through LA. When you have strong state rights, you create competition between the states, which will lead to disputes, and then to war.

The European union was created, because the financial and trade restrictions between the land lock areas and the major ports started to strangle the countries, which led to acts of war. Strong state rights is a failed policy that will led this country back to another civil war. It has not worked in the United States, Europe, Africa, or the Middle East. In order to maintain the union, the states have to give up there rights, and in 1861, this country fought and lost those rights. I understand what you are saying. You want a smaller government, so do I. But allowing Ohio to dump toxic nuclear waste into the southern flowing rivers is going to create conflict.

Everyone of those laws that you talked about, was put into place, because if they where ignored, they would create intense hostility between the people in the state, and between the states themselves. I am with you on that fact, smaller government is better government, but republicans do not offer you smaller government.

In fact, republicans offer you larger and more expensive government.

Out of the 14 trillion dollars we have in debt, 10.5 trillion was spent by a republican president. Read this, it is 100% true. Republicans and Big Government - James Ostrowski - Mises Daily Bush jr, passed the medicare part d system. By itself is will be the third largest entitlement program, ever. Right behind the US military and Social Security.

 

[cjr72]

In fact, republicans offer you larger and more expensive government.

Out of the 14 trillion dollars we have in debt, 10.5 trillion was spent by a republican president. Read this, it is 100% true. Republicans and Big Government - James Ostrowski - Mises Daily Bush jr, passed the medicare part d system. By itself is will be the third largest entitlement program, ever. Right behind the US military and Social Security.

This helps answer the title of the thread "Where Does the Tea Party Come From?" In my opinion it comes from the dissatisfaction fiscal\free market\libertarian leaning conservatives have with a Republican party that all to often only pays lip service to their particular brand of conservatism.

 

[batgeek]

your opinion would be correct, sir.