I am a Tea Party Activist

[nickgreyden]

Yes I am.

There seems to be a lot of hate and mockery directed at the Tea Party right now. For those that do not know, the Tea Party is not a republican venture, nor is it democrat. Instead it is a non-partisan movement that anti-stimulus, anti-deficit, and anti-bailout. Though the movement does have very active and very vocal republican supporters, those three things are what bind the group together. You could say these are our tribal values.

Some republicans have tried to hijack the party and make it a hate group against democrats. While democrats (including the current administration) do draw a lot of opposition from the party, George W Bush has as well. One of the few republicans that does closely mirror the parties beliefs is Dr Ron Paul. While the movement varies drastically on his other polices, fiscal responsibility is the key factor of the great endorsement of Representative Paul, Gentleman from the 14th district of Texas who, fortunately for supporters, he sits on the Joint Economic Committee and the Committee on Financial Services. The latter of which he sits on the sub-commitees of Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, International Monetary Policy and Trade, and Oversight and Investigations.

1.) Anti-stimulus - There are better options at this point than handing out money that must be paid back later. While stimulus from tax cuts and breaks are fine and truly are within reason, pay-outs of cash to citizens hurts us in the long run and pushes debt off to a future time which brings up....

2.) Anti-deficit - Many do not know the difference between debt and deficit. Put simply, a debt is something you owe. If you buy a car on credit you have a debt. Deficit is the difference between money outgoing and money incoming. If you made $300 in a week and you spent $400 that week, you have a $100 deficit. The Tea Party demands the responsibility from the government that they wish from us. You don't spend what you don't have. If you do, you accumulate debt which is then past on to the future people. A balanced federal budget is the key to eliminating deficit which in turn could be used to reduce debts.

3.) Anti-bailout - Giving money to failing corporations and banking industries is a bad idea. I personally can see the reasons for banking industries, but lending organizations, corporations, etc can only lead to ruin and sends out the wrong message. The Tea Party is outraged that tax dollars are going to keep bankrupt businesses afloat.

There rundown for you. If you wish to debate this, I'm all ears. I stress once again that this is the short short SHORT version and meant to summarize. I'll answer questions to the best of my ability as well as I happily encourage open honest healthy debate..... FSM did I just sound like Dan!!

Anyway, the floor is yours

[deejjj]

I agree that stimulus is the wrong way to go, for it to be effective ALOT of money must be handed out, and all of it spent to increase confidence. But the problem is people think that they should save it, defeating the purpose of giving it to them.
Deficit is always a bad idea, but it's not as simple as " Don't spend what you don't have" cause this can possibly lead to never having anything.
Bailing out however is sometimes necessary. ALOT of jobs can be saved by it, especially with large scale employers like GM. Bailing out banks is also necessary, because if they go bankrupt, all the money they were borrowing from savings accounts is lost, potentially sending people into bankruptcy/poverty.

But I may be missing points that you did not state. As you stated, a simple version.

[RabbitWho]

Who are the leaders? Are they qualified economists?

Thanks so much for posting this, i'm delighted to finally have an opportunity to find something out about this party.

[IMAGINARYphilosophy]

The last statistical information I heard regarding the Tea Party is that it is 55% Ron Paul supporters and 45% Sarah Palin supporters.

Personally I support the efforts of informed fiscal conservatives like Ron Paul's group and think they should be applauded for trying to hold the federal government accountable. But the ridiculous, ignorant masses that clamor around Sarah Palin and allow themselves to be lead around by the nose to the point of protesting against their own interests are what give the entire movement a bad name.

[jmejia1187]

Apr 25, 2010 8:12:27 GMT -5 IMAGINARYphilosophy said:

The last statistical information I heard regarding the Tea Party is that it is 55% Ron Paul supporters and 45% Sarah Palin supporters.

Personally I support the efforts of informed fiscal conservatives like Ron Paul's group and think they should be applauded for trying to hold the federal government accountable. But the ridiculous, ignorant masses that clamor around Sarah Palin and allow themselves to be lead around by the nose to the point of protesting against their own interests are what give the entire movement a bad name.

This is true. The Tea Party is more than what was summarized above. They actually consist of 2 groups, outlined by the leaders in the post above mine. The first is civil libertarians, and the second are fiscal conservatives

[Silverrida]

Apr 25, 2010 2:01:26 GMT -5 nickgreyden said:

Yes I am.

There seems to be a lot of hate and mockery directed at the Tea Party right now. For those that do not know, the Tea Party is not a republican venture, nor is it democrat. Instead it is a non-partisan movement that anti-stimulus, anti-deficit, and anti-bailout. Though the movement does have very active and very vocal republican supporters, those three things are what bind the group together. You could say these are our tribal values.

Some republicans have tried to hijack the party and make it a hate group against democrats. While democrats (including the current administration) do draw a lot of opposition from the party, George W Bush has as well. One of the few republicans that does closely mirror the parties beliefs is Dr Ron Paul. While the movement varies drastically on his other polices, fiscal responsibility is the key factor of the great endorsement of Representative Paul, Gentleman from the 14th district of Texas who, fortunately for supporters, he sits on the Joint Economic Committee and the Committee on Financial Services. The latter of which he sits on the sub-commitees of Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, International Monetary Policy and Trade, and Oversight and Investigations.

1.) Anti-stimulus - There are better options at this point than handing out money that must be paid back later. While stimulus from tax cuts and breaks are fine and truly are within reason, pay-outs of cash to citizens hurts us in the long run and pushes debt off to a future time which brings up....

2.) Anti-deficit - Many do not know the difference between debt and deficit. Put simply, a debt is something you owe. If you buy a car on credit you have a debt. Deficit is the difference between money outgoing and money incoming. If you made $300 in a week and you spent $400 that week, you have a $100 deficit. The Tea Party demands the responsibility from the government that they wish from us. You don't spend what you don't have. If you do, you accumulate debt which is then past on to the future people. A balanced federal budget is the key to eliminating deficit which in turn could be used to reduce debts.

3.) Anti-bailout - Giving money to failing corporations and banking industries is a bad idea. I personally can see the reasons for banking industries, but lending organizations, corporations, etc can only lead to ruin and sends out the wrong message. The Tea Party is outraged that tax dollars are going to keep bankrupt businesses afloat.

There rundown for you. If you wish to debate this, I'm all ears. I stress once again that this is the short short SHORT version and meant to summarize. I'll answer questions to the best of my ability as well as I happily encourage open honest healthy debate..... FSM did I just sound like Dan!!

Anyway, the floor is yours

Anti-Stimulus: Could you please name these better options at this point in time? Handing out money in a depression that can e much more easily paid back in an inflation due to more money going into business's is a pretty decent idea. I admit that there might be better ones, but I do not know of them.

Anti-deficit: Although I agree with you on this one, there's only so much we can do. There are laws that require state budgets to be completely balanced (Which has its problems as if you aren't spending enough in can go into politician's hands as it MUST be $0). Generally, the federal government is allowed such leeway in case a national, or sometimes state, emergency comes up. It is, however, hard to keep the budget at 0 or higher, especially in the middle of a war, so I can't really expect much. Too bad Bush completely fucked that up for us fulfilling his daddy's dreams.

Anti-bailout: Now this is where I have to flat out say your wrong, based on history alone if not economic experience. Before the Great Depression, it was both Harding and Coolidge who were EXTREMELY laissez-faire with the economy. During this time, there were very few budding business's (like now), and the automobile industry was ruling the market. However, as soon as everyone had bought a car, nothing was leading the market. We swiftly fell into a depression that would end up resulting in the worst depression we have ever seen. Although we fell into the depression when Hoover was president, economic policies take about 4-10 years before they start to actually affect the national economy. During Hoover's time, he used many bailout methods and plans to help business quite a lot. Shortly after FDR was elected the economy began to rise (About 5 years after Hoover's time). During FDR's presidency he started the New Deal, which kept us up, and the worst parts of the Great Depression actually ended before we even entered WWII, as some believe that is how we got out of our depression.

Basically, sitting and doing nothing would be the WORST possible choice in this situation. We need to stimulate the economy through spending and plans to create work as well as to bailout specific business's.

[bombmaniac]

well, it IS the government's fault were in this mess in the first place. the only reason sub prime loans were given in the first place is because of massive "deregulation" by the government on the banking industry. i put deregulation in quotes, because in actuality it was more regulation. banks had to grant loans even if it wasnt worth it to them. many banks were compelled to loan to people with bad credit, improper collateral, or little or no steady income. had the government indeed adopted the laissez-faire policy on this one, they would never have HAD to interfere with the bailouts and such programs.

[deejjj]

Apr 25, 2010 10:26:57 GMT -5 bombmaniac said:

well, it IS the government's fault were in this mess in the first place. the only reason sub prime loans were given in the first place is because of massive "deregulation" by the government on the banking industry. i put deregulation in quotes, because in actuality it was more regulation. banks had to grant loans even if it wasnt worth it to them. many banks were compelled to loan to people with bad credit, improper collateral, or little or no steady income. had the government indeed adopted the laissez-faire policy on this one, they would never have HAD to interfere with the bailouts and such programs.

In summary, George Bush is a retard.

[bombmaniac]

actually that was clinton

[deejjj]

Clinton still left office without the whole, 1 trillion war deficit, or whatever number it was.

And forgive me if i'm abit out sometimes with my statements, I'm Australian, so I get nowhere near as much coverage...

[bombmaniac]

clinton created the means for this recession though...and i forgive you, just say 1000 hail marys and give the Church all your money and all the money you will ever make. and your firstborn son for good measure...you know how the priests like them so

[krzych32]

evets, Democrats were the one's pushing for this kind of policy.

deejjj, our saving are backed up by the federal reserve so if banks go bankrupt you will still get your money.

[nickgreyden]

As much as I dislike the man Clinton, he did do a great deal for the budget and nature preserves, all while people were throwing a fit over his affair which had nothing to do with his leadership skills.

FDR's new deal was a failure and would have completely destroyed what little economy we had left. WWII brought us out of the depression, not social reform and limited work programs. Things such as TVA did wonders, but only in small parts of the country and not enough to spread wealth further and push the economy upwards, especially with the amount of money thrown at the problem.

Bailing out banks might actually be better than allowing them to go bankrupt. FDIC insured banks (look for the logo kids) are insured by the fed and every person with an account is covered up to $100,000 (was $250,000 but that ended, not sure if it was extended though). I can see bailing them out even though the movement as a whole is against it. We need a solid banking system in America and one that can be backed up by the big bank o washington.

However, bailing out GM was a big boo boo. Yes it might save jobs, but it saves the jobs of a bunisness that should have failed. When the company goes under due to poor management decisions and ventures turned sour, it is not the role of the American people to say "Too bad. Here have this cash and try again! Don't worry if you lose it we have more" No no no. They took the gamble and they lost. Where is this bailout for any of the hundreds of other businesses. When a company as big as GM fails it creates a vacuum. A new group or multiple groups will come in to fill this void. Those skilled laborers will have a job either at another place, or in a new auto industry company. The unskilled are mostly part of the UAW and have many union options as well as federal options to sustain them until they find anothe way to make money. Yes, I will not lie. It will suck for a while, however recovery can and will happen as long as there is demand. If there is no demand, then bailouts really really really aren't a good idea :-( Bailouts are not only the wrong message, it is rewarding businesses for poor performance.


@ Silverrida

Other solutions. Tax free income for a set period of time. Of course this does not work if the government refuses to be fiscally responsible. Tax breaks for businesses. Of course this does not work unless businesses are fiscally responsible. Set yearly percentage increase for minimum wage. This avoid the price of cheaper goods jumping stupid high every 5-10 years. It also allows businesses to prepare and know what to expect. Tact on a mandate that it may be adjusted by amount and not percentage once every 10-15 years due to unknown variables and you suddenly don't have people in a cash crunch who are living pay check to pay check. This allows a smooth market and predictable increase in cost while also giving those with minimum wage salaries something to look forward to providing them with more money.

While I do agree the government does need leeway for emergencies and things that are unforeseeable, the sad fact is this is abused more that a red headed step child raised by a single drunken father. Pork on bills kills us. Almost every bill that passes has stupid, unrelated pork attached to it to win a vote in congress and it usually involves money spent on this idea or that idea or this state or that district. However, that is just a drop in the bucket. The government is currently on a stock market crash. Too many lawyers, not enough historians I guess. One of the major downfalls of the stock market crash was the fact you could buy stocks on credit. If the stock went down too fall, you got a call and you either had to pump more cash into the stock or sell some. It would get to the point where it was all imiginary money, IOUs and debt, almost a Ponzi scheme.

anti-bailout was covered above.

www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/will-palin-and-the-neocon_b_456824.html

This is about the best explanation on the subject of the hijacked party. It's too much information to summarize here, but in short, Palin is a moron and republicans can be just as big of douche bags as democrats. Thank God, there are some people with enough sense to be middle of the road.

[deejjj]

Apr 25, 2010 13:16:19 GMT -5 nickgreyden said:

However, bailing out GM was a big boo boo. Yes it might save jobs, but it saves the jobs of a bunisness that should have failed. When the company goes under due to poor management decisions and ventures turned sour, it is not the role of the American people to say "Too bad. Here have this cash and try again! Don't worry if you lose it we have more" No no no. They took the gamble and they lost. Where is this bailout for any of the hundreds of other businesses. When a company as big as GM fails it creates a vacuum. A new group or multiple groups will come in to fill this void. Those skilled laborers will have a job either at another place, or in a new auto industry company. The unskilled are mostly part of the UAW and have many union options as well as federal options to sustain them until they find anothe way to make money. Yes, I will not lie. It will suck for a while, however recovery can and will happen as long as there is demand. If there is no demand, then bailouts really really really aren't a good idea :-( Bailouts are not only the wrong message, it is rewarding businesses for poor performance.

I think another problem the government may have seen with not bailing them out is that it investors were all scared witless, noone was going to invest in anything, and they did something drastic. Also potentially a view they held is on GM being a long lasting American business, a leader in big business. To let a company like this go down, would surely make investors lose faith in business' all around.

[nickgreyden]

Investing is just short of legalized gambling, you at least get facts. You invest in a business because it looks promising, because of facts and figures. The figures for GM had been steadily declining over the past 10 years. Loyalty gains you nothing in the investing world except ruin, everyone should know this.

[IMAGINARYphilosophy]

Apr 25, 2010 13:35:31 GMT -5 deejjj said:

I think another problem the government may have seen with not bailing them out is that it investors were all scared witless, noone was going to invest in anything, and they did something drastic. Also potentially a view they held is on GM being a long lasting American business, a leader in big business. To let a company like this go down, would surely make investors lose faith in business' all around.

The fact that both parties are on the Wall Street payroll and the democrats are beholden to the unions don't help the situation either.

[nickgreyden]

Proof?

[low]

Apr 25, 2010 13:16:19 GMT -5 nickgreyden said:

FDR's new deal was a failure and would have completely destroyed what little economy we had left. WWII brought us out of the depression, not social reform and limited work programs. Things such as TVA did wonders, but only in small parts of the country and not enough to spread wealth further and push the economy upwards, especially with the amount of money thrown at the problem.

Okay that's just total nonsense. So the massive government spending of the New Deal was destroying America and the far greater massive government spending of WWII saved it? That's failing logic and what you say about how the New Deal "would have completely destroyed what little economy we had left" is an unknown unknown: You're assuming a hypothetical you can't possibly know. Here's what we DO know, though:


If you'll notice, there's a dip between 1937 and 1938. That's when FDR tried to gain support of the newly formed Conservative Coalition and cut spending.

How about unemployment? The graph is pretty damn similar:


Claims that The New Deal harmed the economy, harmed the American people, or prolonged the depression have everything but the facts. If you want to argue that it's irresponsible to spend money and that we don't know where it's going, how it will put people to work, or how it can be paid off in the future, then that's fair game to argue, but you're entitled to your own opinions not your own facts.

[GojuRyuKarateWolf]

Tea Party Movement is pure rebellion. Badass much? lol, It trully is an important moment in American History.

[IMAGINARYphilosophy]

Apr 25, 2010 23:26:56 GMT -5 nickgreyden said:

Proof?

From the Wall Street Journal: Senators Seek Cash as They Mull Rules

From Associated Content: Why Democrats Still Love the Unions