News Are the Core Beliefs of Republicans and the Tea Party Different?

[Gokul43201]

Whittle (youtube narrator) doesn't mention SS or Medicare in that part 1 video; he certainly doesn't say they are immoral. Did you have another reference in mind? About the most derogatory comment he makes (in P1) is 'horrible', about the notion that the government should be huge and can do anything it wants without restraint.

I believe he refers to government programs (going by memory) as inefficient, wasteful ... something along those lines? And he clearly describes them as forcing you to hand over your money at gunpoint (again, a paraphrase from memory). Based on those two characterizations - unless I've seriously misunderstood his argument - I believe he considers them wasteful and immoral.

Heck, I consider them wasteful and immoral.

PS: If you think I've misrepresented him, I'll go have another look at the video.

 

[ShawnD]

[At Shawn] If the average Tea Partier believes in a completely different set of ideas than the youtube person (I don't know his name), then why is the youtube version supposed to be representative of the group?
...
The Youtube person considers SS and Medicare to be wasteful and immoral - essentially government sanctioned robbery. Yet a huge majority of self-identified TP supporters approve of both these programs. So, whose word should we take for what the TP stands for?

I think it's fair to say most Americans disagree with their own party when it comes to almost every issue. As South Park elegantly put it, you're voting for the lesser of two evils every single time. With so many combinations of ideas, there's no way to clearly express all of them with just 2 main parties. Policy ideas often split into polar extremes and most people are somewhere in the middle. As an example of extremes, you might need to choose between a candidate who's ok with abortions right up to the delivery date and a candidate who thinks all abortions should be illegal. Even if both of those ideas sound horrible, you'll still say one is less horrible than the other.

Being on the dole doesn't mean you're automatically out of the tea party, and owning a gun doesn't automatically make you a republican.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think it's fair to say most Americans disagree with their own party when it comes to almost every issue.

You have to recognize that the arguments made about the D or R party can not apply to the TP, since they are completely different beasts. The TP is NOT a political party. It does not have a representative body. It does not have a stated set of positions. You can go to the DNC website and click the "what we stand for" tab, or go to the GOP site and click the "positions" tab to find out what either of these parties stands for. You can not do any such thing with the TP. Your only recourse is to poll the people who call themselves supporters, or perhaps poll the representatives they put in Congress.

When someone says this is what the Tea Party stands for and not that, or that, you have to wonder how he knows, and who exactly decided that he should speak for the lot of them.

 

[NobodySpecial]

You have to recognize that the arguments made about the D or R party can not apply to the TP, since they are completely different beasts.

Isn't the TP just the off-the-record wing of the RP?

Like the national front is to various conservative parties in europe, they allow R politicians to address TP meetings and basically say 'we can't publicly say we will ban foreigners/shoot hippies/outlaw democrats/...etc - but we see your point wink-wink'

When it comes to the actual election they vote republican.

 

[ShawnD]

I believe he refers to government programs (going by memory) as inefficient, wasteful ... something along those lines?... unless I've seriously misunderstood his argument - I believe he considers them wasteful and immoral.

I don't want to watch the video again, so I'll try to go from memory.

I think the key point of his ranting was that the government often puts a hard limit on the development or improvement of anything it touches. Even though I think the tea party is misguided and overly optimistic, there's no denying that what he's saying has some truth to it. I'll even use health care as the example. Right now I live a place that has free government health care, and a problem we're facing right now in this system is that there are laws stopping people from paying for medical services with their own money. Things like MRI scans can only be done through the government and they can only be paid by the government. If there's no money in the budget for MRI scans, then there are fewer scans and I can't just open my wallet and pay for it out of pocket. Liberals in my area think the government needs to increase the healthcare budget, conservatives think we need a two tier system where people with money can pay out of pocket and people without money can use the existing government services. A member of the tea party might argue that the government should stay out of healthcare because their involvement is the reason that law against paying for stuff out of pocket exists in the first place.


To summarize the differences:
liberals --> in-house big government
conservatives --> big government contracted out to private companies (I work for one of those companies)
tea party --> shrink the government

 

[Char. Limit]

Isn't the TP just the off-the-record wing of the RP?

Like the national front is to various conservative parties in europe, they allow R politicians to address TP meetings and basically say 'we can't publicly say we will ban foreigners/shoot hippies/outlaw democrats/...etc - but we see your point wink-wink'

When it comes to the actual election they vote republican.

You can't actually believe this... the whole point of this thread is that the Tea Party is not purely Republican, and will support anyone who goes for large social and economic freedoms.

 

[mheslep]

I believe he refers to government programs (going by memory) as inefficient, wasteful ... something along those lines? And he clearly describes them as forcing you to hand over your money at gunpoint (again, a paraphrase from memory). Based on those two characterizations - unless I've seriously misunderstood his argument - I believe he considers them wasteful and immoral.

Heck, I consider them wasteful and immoral.

PS: If you think I've misrepresented him, I'll go have another look at the video.

No that's fine, I see how you got there. Whittle would characterize these things as bad or failed ideas, which I base on this:
@~4:00

"The belief .. that you can get the government to take something by force and give it to you, like the money for your health care for example, has been tried many times before* and it has failed every time. There's only one really progressive idea, and that is the idea of legally limiting the power of the government - that one generally liberal, generally progressive idea. The why in 1776. They how in 1787. We need to conserve that fundamentally liberal idea."

* UK in 60/70s, Soviet Union, China prior to the 80s, Cuba since Castro, French Revolution.

 

[Char. Limit]

No that's fine, I see how you got there. Whittle would characterize these things as bad or failed ideas, which I base on this:
@~4:00

"The belief .. that you can get the government to take something by force and give it to you, like the money for your health care for example, has been tried many times before* and it has failed every time. There's only one really progressive idea, and that is the idea of legally limiting the power of the government - that one generally liberal, generally progressive idea. The why in 1776. They how in 1787. We need to conserve that fundamentally liberal idea."

* UK in 60/70s, Soviet Union, China prior to the 80s, Cuba since Castro, French Revolution.

Hey, the French Revolution worked pretty well until every other nation in Europe declared war on them.

 

[mheslep]

Isn't the TP just the off-the-record wing of the RP?

Like the national front is to various conservative parties in europe, they allow R politicians to address TP meetings and basically say 'we can't publicly say we will ban foreigners/shoot hippies/outlaw democrats/...etc - but we see your point wink-wink'

When it comes to the actual election they vote republican.

You can't actually believe this... the whole point of this thread is that the Tea Party is not purely Republican, and will support anyone who goes for large social and economic freedoms.

Yes, ask (soon to be former Gov Fla ) Charlie Crist if he thinks the TP is just another name for the RP.

 

[Gokul43201]

A member of the tea party might argue that the government should stay out of healthcare because their involvement is the reason that law against paying for stuff out of pocket exists in the first place.

But when you actually poll the tea partiers, you find out that most of them believe Medicare is a worthwhile program and think it's good that it receives as much money as it does.

 

[mheslep]

Hey, the French Revolution worked pretty well until every other nation in Europe declared war on them.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror" Completely unlike the American revolution, the Jacobins deliberately destroyed many (most?) societal institutions in pursuit of "the new man".

 

[Char. Limit]

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror" worked pretty well? They lopped off thousands of heads per week, including some of best of scientists of the age. Completely unlike the American revolution, the Jacobins destroyed many (most?) societal institutions in pursuit of "the new man".

The Reign of Terror was late in the revolution, and just showed what happens when someone slowly becomes crazy. (Namely, the leader of the Jacobins, whose name I don't recall)

EDIT: Oh, I also want to say that the Reign of Terror happened after every other nation in Europe declared war in France, so my statement still stands tall.

 

[Office_Shredder]

No that's fine, I see how you got there. Whittle would characterize these things as bad or failed ideas, which I base on this:
@~4:00

"The belief .. that you can get the government to take something by force and give it to you, like the money for your health care for example, has been tried many times before* and it has failed every time. There's only one really progressive idea, and that is the idea of legally limiting the power of the government - that one generally liberal, generally progressive idea. The why in 1776. They how in 1787. We need to conserve that fundamentally liberal idea."

* UK in 60/70s, Soviet Union, China prior to the 80s, Cuba since Castro, French Revolution.

So it's a statement of fact that the UK has failed to have government pay for healthcare?

 

[mheslep]

The Reign of Terror was late in the revolution, and just showed what happens when someone slowly becomes crazy. (Namely, the leader of the Jacobins, whose name I don't recall)

Robespiere was no more crazy than Rousseau or Lenin. He was ruthless, not crazy, as were many of the Jacobins.

EDIT: Oh, I also want to say that the Reign of Terror happened after every other nation in Europe declared war in France, so my statement still stands tall.

Not if you mean that the other countries caused the Terror (1793) which began one year after the revolution. And the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_Wars#1791.E2.80.931792" in 1792.

 

[Char. Limit]

Robespiere was no more crazy than Rousseau or Lenin. He was ruthless, not crazy, as were many of the Jacobins.

Not if you mean that the other countries caused the Terror (1793) which began one year after the revolution. And the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_Wars#1791.E2.80.931792" in 1792.

I don't mean that. I mean that before Robespierre went paranoid and started chopping people in two, it was working pretty well. I just chose the wars and the Terror because they happen to coincide chronologically.

 

[mheslep]

So it's a statement of fact that the UK has failed to have government pay for healthcare?

Nothing like that. Whittle refers to the failure (it was near collapse) of economic output in the UK in the 60s, early 70s from socialist policies, of which the NHS was only one of the many nationalized (at the time) industries. Heck, even the Soviets stopped trading with the UK back then - couldn't get delivery.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When someone says this is what the Tea Party stands for and not that, or that, you have to wonder how he knows, and who exactly decided that he should speak for the lot of them.

That's how I see it. The entire movement is "whatever makes you angry today". There is no formal logic or accountability, which is why they [whoever represents the tp that day] can take a stand against anything they want; as if their position was realistic or practical.

We all want lower taxes. We all want to reduce the debt. Most of us probably want the least government possible. We all want a thriving economy and good jobs. These goals are not exclusive to the right or the extreme right, but that is what the tp would have you believe. The problem comes in implementing steps to achieve these goals without making things worse.

 

[Gokul43201]

Robespiere was no more crazy than Rousseau or Lenin.

I think it's unfair to club Rousseau in with radical extremists like Robespierre and Lenin.

 

[mheslep]

I think it's unfair to club Rousseau in with radical extremists like Robespierre and Lenin.

That inclusion wasn't careless on my part. I do think it fair, brilliance not withstanding. Rousseau IMO was the proximate cause of both of the other two. He condemmed a society of laws in http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq.txt" :

Such was ... the origin of society and law, which bound new fetters on the poor, and gave new powers to the rich; which irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, eternally fixed the law of property and inequality, converted clever usurpation into unalterable right, and, for the advantage of a few ambitious individuals, subjected all mankind to perpetual labour, slavery and wretchedness.

Personally, Rousseau had a string mistresses, and fathered five children with one of them who he treated as a maid, abandoning all of the children to an abominable orphanage where they very likely died. So yes I think he gains entry to the club on grounds of ruthlessness as well, if he never actually dropped a guillotine blade or sent train loads to the gulags.

 

[Gokul43201]

Rousseau IMO was the proximate cause of both of the other two.

I think of Rousseau being a cause of Robespierre's actions in about the same vein that Christianity is the proximate cause for the actions of the Westboro Baptists.

He condemmed a society of laws in http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq.txt" :

I think you've misinterpreted that passage. See for instance:

I should have wished to live and die free: that is, so far subject to the laws that neither I, nor anybody else, should be able to cast off their honourable yoke: the easy and salutary yoke which the haughtiest necks bear with the greater docility, as they are made to bear no other.

I should have wished then that no one within the State should be able to say he was above the law; and that no one without should be able to dictate so that the State should be obliged to recognise his authority. For, be the constitution of a government what it may, if there be within its jurisdiction a single man who is not subject to the law, all the rest are necessarily at his discretion.[/color]​

Personally, Rousseau had a string mistresses, and fathered five children with one of them who he treated as a maid,

You could very nearly be talking about Jefferson here. I don't consider these comparable to actions of Lenin or Robe'.

... abandoning all of the children to an abominable orphanage where they very likely died.

Again, I don't know the background for these actions, but I don't consider sending 5 of your children to a horrible orphanage, even if it was for no good reason, to be similar to slaughtering thousands of people.

I believe it is generally accepted that some of Rousseau's work was basis (or at least influential) for parts of the US Constitution.

 

[WhoWee]

But when you actually poll the tea partiers, you find out that most of them believe Medicare is a worthwhile program and think it's good that it receives as much money as it does.

If you've worked for the past 30 years, paying into Medicare Part A, and your plan is to receive benefits when you retire - you might think it's a good program? On the other hand, if you dig a little deeper and inquire whether they plan to rely on Original Medicare A&B only (or with a Part D with Original) OR whether they plan to have a Medigap Supplement or a Part C Medicare Advantage plan (hospital, medical, and prescription) and you'll find most want something more than Original. Next, if you dig even further, you'll find that millions of people with Original only - also have Medicaid.

 

[Gokul43201]

If you've worked for the past 30 years, paying into Medicare Part A, and your plan is to receive benefits when you retire - you might think it's a good program?

I can't speak intelligently about your succeeding statements, nor even claim to understand the point you make in them, but I do have a problem with the above statement.

If I'm reading it correctly, it sounds to me like a person who refers to a program as robbery when s/he is being forced to pay into it, but after doing this for 30-odd years, deems it worthwhile when the time comes to partake of the spoils.

 

[WhoWee]

I can't speak intelligently about your succeeding statements, nor even claim to understand the point you make in them, but I do have a problem with the above statement.

If I'm reading it correctly, it sounds to me like a person who refers to a program as robbery when s/he is being forced to pay into it, but after doing this for 30-odd years, deems it worthwhile when the time comes to partake of the spoils.

Medicare Part A is a payroll deduction and an insurance premium. Retirees are vested in this program. Unfortunately, when they become eligible for Part A, they find it does not protect them from out of pocket exposure to catastrophic events.

The hospital benefit requires a deductible of $1,100 in 2010 (increasing in 2011) per benefit period - it's possible to pay this deductible 6 times per year. At day 61 in the hospital, the beneficiary pays $275 per day, and $550 per day at day 91 (the benefit from day 91 to day 150 can only be used once) at day 151, the beneficiary pays 100% of the cost.

Part A is for hospital expenses ONLY Part B (which has an additional premium) is designed to cover 80% of medical expenses with no limit to out of pocket expenses. Original Medicare (generally) does not cover prescriptions filled outsuide the hospital (Part B).

 

[turbo]

From an AP-GfK poll.

Tea party backers fashion themselves as "we the people," but polls show the Republican Party's most conservative and energized voters are hardly your average crowd.

According to an Associated Press-GfK Poll this month, 84 percent who call themselves tea party supporters don't like how President Barack Obama is handling his job – a view shared by just 35 percent of all other adults. Tea partiers are about four times likelier than others to back repealing Obama's health care overhaul and twice as likely to favor renewing tax cuts for the highest-earning Americans.

Exit polls of voters in this month's congressional elections reveal similar gulfs. Most tea party supporters – 86 percent – want less government intrusion on people and businesses, but only 35 percent of other voters said so. Tea party backers were about five times likelier to blame Obama for the country's economic ills, three times likelier to say Obama's policies will be harmful and twice as apt to see the country on the wrong track.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/tea-party-poll-elections-2012_n_787887.html

 

[ShawnD]

We all want lower taxes. We all want to reduce the debt. Most of us probably want the least government possible. We all want a thriving economy and good jobs. These goals are not exclusive to the right or the extreme right, but that is what the tp would have you believe. The problem comes in implementing steps to achieve these goals without making things worse.

It seems pretty obvious to me that most people really do want huge government. Even talking about cutting medicare will get you thrown out of office.
During the 2008 election, Ron Paul was up on stage talking about how his ultimate goal was to slash pretty much every government program and deregulate as much as possible. He wanted to end foreign entanglements, stop nation building, eliminate the welfare state, and start with the biggest wastes of money first. He sounded sensible when he said programs like homeless shelters should only be slashed after the bigger and more wasteful projects are slashed. Did he win the nomination? Not even close. He was beaten by republican candidates who flat out said they supported nation building and foreign entanglements like Iraq.

This is what makes tea baggers and libertarians a fringe minority. Most people really do support things like social security, medicaid, and medicare. Together those 3 programs make up something like 40% of the entire US federal budget, and it's about to get a lot bigger because the first baby boomers officially retire in 2011 (1946 + 65 years = 2011).

 

[mheslep]

...You could very nearly be talking about Jefferson here.

No I don't think so. 1) Jefferson apparently provided, at least basically, for Sally Hemmings and offspring; he did not throw them in the river. 2) Jefferson's moral blind spot for slavery certainly did not extend to the point of Rousseau's across the board hedonism that he applied to everyone including, as this episode shows, to those closest to him.

I don't consider these comparable to actions of Lenin or Robe'.

Again, I don't know the background for these actions, but I don't consider sending 5 of your children to a horrible orphanage, even if it was for no good reason, to be similar to slaughtering thousands of people.

A difference in opportunity, not in mindset, especially given his writings that go along with it.

I hope to get back to the R. quote later.

 

[mheslep]

During the 2008 election, Ron Paul ... Did he win the nomination? Not even close.

Paul came in second in five or six states and third in five or six more.

 

[Gokul43201]

Most people really do support things like social security, medicaid, and medicare. Together those 3 programs make up something like 40% of the entire US federal budget...

Make that 50% and you'd be close. Throw in military spending, which is also essentially impossible to touch, and you're at about 70% of the Fed budget.

Paul came in second in five or six states and third in five or six more.

Nevertheless, I think the "not even close" description is still pretty accurate.

One thing to recognize though, is that priorities of the electorate constantly change (pardon the ox'). Sometimes for good reason, other times, arbitrarily. Ron Paul may not have looked attractive to the Republican electorate in 2008, but now, he's got to be pretty close to their ideal representative. In 2000, McCain was deemed clearly inferior to Bush, but in 2008, he was going to be the one that saved the Republican Party from the Bush years.

 

[mheslep]

Liechtenstein, with a population of 35k, a little less than that of my zip code, also has the highest GDP per capita in the world at $122k. Liechtenstein now 'joins' the US Tea Party.

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=MDY5NWJhYzgxNDRmNDEyNmFhZWFjZmEzYjFiMGQ4M2Y="

Interviewer reading from the Prince's book:

The United States in Europe have to free the state from all the unnecessary tasks and burdens with which it has been loaded in the last one hundred years, which have distracted it from its two main tasks, the maintenance of the rule of law and foreign policy.

Interviewer: Your Highness ... if you were an American, you'd be a member of the Tea Party. Will you accept that?

Prince Hans-Adam: (amused) Well yes I have to accept that.

 

[Gokul43201]

That was interesting - thanks for the link. Any idea where to find the remaining 4 parts?