|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 19, 2013 11:32:44 GMT
There is an interesting op-ed piece that puts forward the proposition that the Tea Party has already accomplished it's primary goal.
The Tea Party Movement, since it's inception, has been an anti-tax and anti-establishment organization hell bent on the destruction of the "status quo" which is government based upon consensus and compromise. They are unwilling to back off even when the majority of the nation and the majority on Congress oppose them. They exhibited a willingness to plunge the United States into economic chaos in the past few weeks and in their actions they accomplished a much greater goal. They have shaken the very trust of the People in our government to do that which is both necessary and right for the American People.
If the destruction of the government in the United States is the goal of the Tea Party, and they've time and again said that the "political establishment" in Washington needs to be destroyed, then they are well on their way towards accomplishing that. Sadly that also means the destruction of America as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 19, 2013 17:04:29 GMT
OMG. Another liberal who believes that Obama's race should give him some kind of built-in defense from any and ALL criticism. That's baloney! Let me ask you this.....had Condoleeza Rice run for president and won.....would you consider her Off-limits for criticism because of her race? What about her gender? No, I think not. This defensive argument by some is really getting quite ridiculous and just might come back to bite some of you royally in the behind someday.
Sorry, Dems.....but this president has not got some kind of built-in shield against criticism. I agree totally with then Sen Hillary Clinton back when Bush was president when she believed that people were trying to silence her by hinting she wasn't really patriotic for voicing opposition against Bush on certain issues. Hillary screeched this in 2003:
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."
Change that now in 2013 to this:
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration you're a racist. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 19, 2013 21:30:11 GMT
Ever try addressing the topic? The Tea Party was an anti-establishment and anti-tax movement that came close to causing the worst economic disaster in the history of the United State and now more Americans "hate" the government than ever before. They can't even honestly say that they're against federal spending because their antics cost the US government over $20 billion in additional spending because of the partial shutdown they caused. They can't say they're for the American People or the US economy because their antics will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, trillions of dollars of GDP growth will be lost, and consumer and institutional confidence in the US has been driven deeply into negative territory after being at a five-year high in May.
The Tea Party leaders like Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz have clearly stated that destroying the "establishment in Washington" is their goal and they've done a damn find job of accomplishing that at the expense of the American People.
|
|
|
|
Post by donglock26 on Oct 19, 2013 22:49:32 GMT
Since when is being anti-establishment a bad thing? Oh wait, it's bad when the establishment is progressive.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 19, 2013 23:13:25 GMT
Ever try addressing the topic? The Tea Party was an anti-establishment and anti-tax movement that came close to causing the worst economic disaster in the history of the United State and now more Americans "hate" the government than ever before. They can't even honestly say that they're against federal spending because their antics cost the US government over $20 billion in additional spending because of the partial shutdown they caused. They can't say they're for the American People or the US economy because their antics will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, trillions of dollars of GDP growth will be lost, and consumer and institutional confidence in the US has been driven deeply into negative territory after being at a five-year high in May.
The Tea Party leaders like Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz have clearly stated that destroying the "establishment in Washington" is their goal and they've done a damn find job of accomplishing that at the expense of the American People.
IF any antics caused some spending it was our vindictive, mean-spirited president who wanted to ensure it hurt....by ordering the closing of outdoor venues, etc. Did you see the pictures of the gov't employees.....4 of them moving ONE guard gates in place? Now.......who was wasting tax dollars there? Never been done before in ANY shutdown before. What a waste of money; not to mention against the spirit of this country. Well, he wasn't able to close down the WWII memorial. Those old guys had a few things to say about that. They stormed beaches....they sure as heck weren't going to let Obama stop them from visiting their memorial.
Most people didn't even notice it was shutdown...and it was pretty much a non-event. Of course Obama and his liberal media buds tried really hard to claim it WAS hurting. Just like no one has noticed the sequester cuts either.
BTW, where are you and other Dem supporters so fearful of Sarah Palin? She's not even in any kind of office. What's the matter.....can't you stand for people in a FREE country to stand up and speak their minds?
As far as Senator Ted Cruz, he's got plenty of supporters and will have even more since all this. And yes, shaking up Washington D.C. would be a good thing. The old guard has been in their jobs WAY too long....as witnessed by all the PORK added to this bill supposedly for the purpose of keeping the gov't running. SHAME...shame....and more shame. So YES, we need new people. On both sides...,
And Ted Cruz is a breath of fresh air. The reason the Dems are demonizing him??? They are afraid of him. Otherwise, they would pay him no mind. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 19, 2013 23:20:46 GMT
Since when is being anti-establishment a bad thing? Oh wait, it's bad when the establishment is progressive.  |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 20, 2013 9:38:16 GMT
I wouldn't be placing my chips on Ted Cruz.
It gets worse for the GOP because of the showdown that directly cost the US government over $20 billion and indirectly is going to cost American workers hundreds of thousands of jobs and the GDP trillions of dollars.
While my distinguished friends that support the Tea Party on this forum continue to support Ted Cruz and the GOP fight against "Obamacare" (that can't be won so long as Democrats control the Senate and while President Obama is in office) they might be blowing their future out the window. It all depends on how long the voters memories will be come next November and then again in 2016 if Cruz decides to run for President.
As noted what was before unthinkable, that the Democrats could retake control of the House in 2014, is now a possibility. Think about how bad that was before when "Obamacare" was passed. Could we see a repeat of the Democrats controlling the House, Senate and White House again after next years elections? It is now a real, albeit remote, possibility but the Tea Party members of the Congress could assure that victory by Democrats if they're not careful.
As for Cruz's presidential hopes they've always been a pipe dream IMO. He's far to radical even for the Republican Party much less the nation. We had "Tea Party" presidential candidates last year and one by one they were eliminated during the Republican primaries because their agenda was too radical for the Republican Party. Since then the members of the Tea Party in Congress have shown themselves to be even more radical than most people realized.
I will leave my friends with one final thing to consider.
That's roughly 42% drop in popularity just among moderate and liberal Republicans that "Tea Party" Republicans would need to just get on the ballot. Many of these moderate and liberal Republicans would rather vote for a Democratic candidate than for someone from the "Tea Party" movement in a general election.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 20, 2013 19:45:33 GMT
I wouldn't be placing my chips on Ted Cruz.
Many people said the same thing about the Community Organizer who came out of nowhere and only had 1 term in the Senate.
It gets worse for the GOP because of the showdown that directly cost the US government over $20 billion and indirectly is going to cost American workers hundreds of thousands of jobs and the GDP trillions of dollars.
Ratings come...and rating go. I don't place all my chips on the current ratings of the day. Obama's got down to 37% recently....do you consider him "done for???" Probably not.
As far as trying to now blame the failing economy, and LOSS of job, no less, on this shutdown and Republicans....people are NOT that stupid. Nice try by Obama and his sycophants.....but most people didn't even notice the gov't was partially shut down for a while. What is it about this president that he always looks for someone to BLAME his failures on? Even many in his own party and more and more of the liberal pundits are realizing he is no leader.
I seriously doubt they could take 17 seats....even if they had candidates in place. Most objective people say it's VERY unlikely.
While my distinguished friends that support the Tea Party on this forum continue to support Ted Cruz and the GOP fight against "Obamacare" (that can't be won so long as Democrats control the Senate and while President Obama is in office) they might be blowing their future out the window. It all depends on how long the voters memories will be come next November and then again in 2016 if Cruz decides to run for President.
So, I guess you don't think that Democrat citizens are going to be contacting and complaining to their liberal representatives when they find out what Obamacare is going to mean to then personally? You don't that ANY of them will realize they have been sold a bill of goods and told a LOT of lies? You seem to think that Obamacare is going smoothly and getting accolades. I see nothing of that....even in the liberal press. So far.....the website they had 4 years to establish before it's opening is a disaster. Supposedly they used 10-yr old technology. And yet...YOU think they can handle everyone's healthcare? There's also the problem with the "navigators" and how much personal information of other Americans they are going to have at their fingertips. I guess as someone who professes to be a Libertarian, you like that? Will you also like it when the Republicans are overseeing your healthcare? Then there is the insurance companies who are complaining that even try to deal with all the errors and mistakes the Obama website is giving them is costing them more money. There's still the problem of the young and healthy need to enroll and make payments BEFORE Obamacare has even a chance of working. And yet......you think it's the Republicans doing all that? Please, get real.
As noted what was before unthinkable, that the Democrats could retake control of the House in 2014, is now a possibility. Think about how bad that was before when "Obamacare" was passed. Could we see a repeat of the Democrats controlling the House, Senate and White House again after next years elections? It is now a real, albeit remote, possibility but the Tea Party members of the Congress could assure that victory by Democrats if they're not careful.
As for Cruz's presidential hopes they've always been a pipe dream IMO. He's far to radical even for the Republican Party much less the nation. We had "Tea Party" presidential candidates last year and one by one they were eliminated during the Republican primaries because their agenda was too radical for the Republican Party. Since then the members of the Tea Party in Congress have shown themselves to be even more radical than most people realized.
I will leave my friends with one final thing to consider.
Now....let me see if I can get this straight. You have ALSO claimed that you don't like Obamacare. In fact, you've stated that several times now....even though, I see no evidence of it from you. Why do you call someone radical for standing up for what they believe in? Why is it you call Cruz "radical" when he is in a position to at least try and do something about Obamacare...and it's why he was sent to D.C.......while you just sit around and say, "I don't like it either," but don't stand up and support doing anything about it?
Why is it when liberals and Democrats fight hard for what they believe in....it's admirable and the right thing to do? But God forbid, Republicans do the same for what they believe in....and they are called names? I see nothing but politics here.
That's roughly 42% drop in popularity just among moderate and liberal Republicans that "Tea Party" Republicans would need to just get on the ballot. Many of these moderate and liberal Republicans would rather vote for a Democratic candidate than for someone from the "Tea Party" movement in a general election.
|
|
|
|
Post by dangermouse on Oct 21, 2013 1:32:51 GMT
The American people can distiguish between the rancid fiction that is "Obamacare" and the reality of the ACA, which polls show as proving popular.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 21, 2013 2:48:34 GMT
The American people can distiguish between the rancid fiction that is "Obamacare" and the reality of the ACA, which polls show as proving popular. Proof of such polls that you say proves ACA popular? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 21, 2013 10:10:45 GMT
Here is a fundamental question. Was the purpose of the Tea Party Republicans in Congress to get rid of "Obamacare" or was it to wreak havoc on the US economy and incur tens of billions of dollars in more government spending?
If it was to wreck havoc on the economy and incur billions of dollars in additiona
l government spending then they succeeded perhaps beyond their wildest dreams. The negative financial and economic impact of their showdown over "Obamacare" is literally going to last for years because once a financial loss is incurred that money is lost, period.
If it was about getting rid of "Obamacare" then they knew what they were doing wouldn't work at all and they knew what they needed to do about "Obamacare" because other more level-headed Republicans were telling them. In a recent news story former Florida Jeb Bush addressed his discussions with Ted Cruz before the shutdown.
Does that sound familiar? They need an ALTERNATIVE PLAN but don't have one. To create an alternative plan they need to address the problem and the problem isn't actually "Obamacare" because "Obamacare" is just a symptom of the actual problem.
The PROBLEM is tens of millions of Americans that require medical services but that can't afford them. "Obamacare" was the "Democratic" response to the problem but it is a crappy way to deal with it. Republicans, the Tea Party members more so than anyone else, need to address the Problem and provide a plan that would ensure that the health care needs of these tens of millions of people are taken care of. They need a plan better than "Obamacare" but they're offering no plan at all. As I've repeatedly said a bad plan is better than no plan at all.
I look at the expressed goals of the "Tea Party" and I agree with many of them but the problem is that they don't address the problems.
They want to reduce welfare spending but welfare spending isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the problem. The problem is poverty that requires welfare spending to mitigate the effects of poverty. If we want to reduce welfare spending then we need to reduce poverty which will in turn reduce the need for welfare assistance to mitigate it's effects. Address the problem that is poverty and that will reduce the necessity of welfare assistance that is merely a symptom of the problem.
How about Social Security and Medicare? They're not the problem but instead they're symptom of the problem. The problem was identified over 60 years ago and Congress didn't do anything about it and instead addressed a symptom of the problem. Instead in the 1930's and 1960's they created Social Security and Medicare respectively to address a symptom of the problem. The Problem was about 1/2 of the American people will not voluntarily invest and accumulate assets during their working career so that they will have the assets to generate income when they're too old to work. Congress created Social Security to provide the income but the lack of income was a symptom of the failure to accumulate personal wealth. If a person has personal wealth then they will derive income from it. Medicare addressed the identical symptom of the problem of a lack of personal wealth because about 1/2 of the people didn't have the income at retirement to purchase private health insurance. The problem was a lack of personal wealth accumulation at retirement age and the lack of health insurance was just a symptom of the problem.
FIXING THE PROBLEMS is what is required because addressing the symptoms never resolves the problems and generally leads to the problems becoming worse.
My friends here support the goals of the Tea Party but they fail to address the problems. If we fix the problems then we can accomplish something. I've made proposals that have been completely ignored by my "Tea Party" friends that address the problems. They fix the problems and in turn by fixing the problems it dramatically reduces government spending and would, over time, reduce the size and cost of the US government by at least half. All because I address the problems and provide solutions to those problems.
That is not what the "Tea Party" members of Congress are doing though. They're not addressing the problems, they're addressing the symptoms of the problems, and in doing so they're making matters far worse.
Tens of billions of dollars in additional federal spending and destroying consumer confidence that is going to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and trillions of dollars in GDP damage by shutting down the federal government and threatening to default on the US debt without addressing the problem of tens of millions of Americans not being able to obtain health services they need was not just unjustifiable but it was irresponsible and inexcusable.
Republican states that have refused to expand Medicaid leaving roughly 5.2 million Americans without the health services they might need is unjustifiable, irresponsible and inexcusable. Is it the best way to provide the health services needed to these 5.2 million people? No it is not but it's better than leaving them sick or dying on the street corner. It is up to the Republicans to produce a better plan to fix the problem as opposed to simply living in denial of the fact that the problem exists.
I have made proposals that would address the tens of millions of Americans that would need medical services but couldn't afford them while no one from the Tea Party has. I've made proposals to eliminate Social Security and Medicare but no one in the Tea Party has. I've made proposals to reduce the size of the federal government dramatically but no one in the Tea Party has. Simply cutting spending without addressing the problems that are driving the necessity to spend is not a solution to anything. If we address the problems then the necessity for the spending is reduced and/or goes away. That is how to reduce the size of government.
ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS and not the SYMPTOMS.
|
|
|
|
Post by dangermouse on Oct 21, 2013 13:51:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 21, 2013 16:17:21 GMT
I'm going to point out one fact for my "Tea Party" friends.
Obamacare is not the problem. It's only a symptom of the problem.
The problem is tens of thousands of people that die annually and millions that don't receive medical treatment for non-fatal illnesses because they can't afford insurance or the costs of the medical services.
The solution to the problem is self-evident. We can work to reduce "poverty" that in turn reduces the number of people that require medical services but can't afford them and then we need to address the remaining people that require medical services but can't afford them.
It's not like this is rocket science.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 22, 2013 0:32:11 GMT
The article that is the centerpiece of the OP--that brands Tea Part members as "nihilists" who (allegedly) "hate government," and their supporters as racists and ethnocentrists--is, at best, highly tendentious.
More to the point, it is highly inaccurate.
The overwhelming majority of those of us on the right do not "hate government"; rather, we reject the Hobbesian concept of government (i.e. the Leviatan state, that is authoritatively superior to the individual).
And many of us also reject the theory of federal supremacy (as embodied in the so-called "Supremacy Clause" of the US Constitution: Article VI, Clause 2), and instead favor states' rights and the attendant doctrine of nullification.
As for the charge of racism--well, that is almost laughable, considering that many of us supported Herman Cain in the primaries for a very long time. (Of course, the charge is not really meant to have any evidence in support of it; but it is merely intended to tar those who are targeted with the charge, and thereby diminish their moral authority...)
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 22, 2013 5:33:17 GMT
The American people can distiguish between the rancid fiction that is "Obamacare" and the reality of the ACA, which polls show as proving popular. This is the left's continual mantra: The widespread disdain for ObamaCare must simply be a matter of poor advertising; it could not possibly be...well, it could not possibly be that most Americans simply do not like this new law. According to a Fox News poll, more than two-thirds of all Americans are either "somewhat concerned" or "very concerned" about this new law. It is true that if the law is referred to by its official title ("the Affordable Care Act"), rather than according to its common name ("ObamaCare"), the numbers are a little better--but only marginally so: Only 39 percent of respondents have a favorable impression of "the Affordable Care Act" (including 18 percent at Very Favorable, plus another 21 percent at Somewhat Favorable); whereas 34 percent of respondents see "ObamaCare" in a favorable light (with 16 percent at Very Favorable, and another 18 percent at Somewhat Favorable). That is really not very much of a difference. Oh, here is the link: www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/09/17/fox-news-poll-68-percent-concerned-about-their-health-care-under-new-law/ And for the record, the pertinent information may be found under Question #34. |
|
