The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[WhoWee]

To get this back on track - over the summer, I spoke to quite a few Tea Party people and it seemed to me that they were just average people taking an interest in politics - some for the first time.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think posts following (and including) #850 should be split off into a separate thread. They have nothing to do with the Tea Party or any other grassroots movement.

 

[WhoWee]

In the best cases positive parental involvement is desirable. In some cases, it can be detrimental. It's my hope to keep public school as factual and free of biased input as possible.

I strongly believe parents have a responsibility to keep their children prepared and focused (and yes, it is easier said than done).

 

[Gokul43201]

To get this back on track - over the summer, I spoke to quite a few Tea Party people and it seemed to me that they were just average people taking an interest in politics - some for the first time.

I don't doubt that at all (despite having talked to very few TP folks). I also believe that if you haven't been thinking about issues of politics and government for a considerable time, and come in with a fairly clean slate, that you are much more susceptible to social pressures to conform to whatever your peers fancy. This is particularly true (IMO) with young voters in college, but just as true with older voters who have lived their entire lives in a small rural community.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't doubt that at all (despite having talked to very few TP folks). I also believe that if you haven't been thinking about issues of politics and government for a considerable time, and come in with a fairly clean slate, that you are much more susceptible to social pressures to conform to whatever your peers fancy. This is particularly true (IMO) with young voters in college, but just as true with older voters who have lived their entire lives in a small rural community.

In some cases it's not social pressure, it's common concern/needs/situations that loosely unite people.

As for the success of the Tea Party, it most likely stands on 3 legs.

1.) fear of tax increases due to massive spending (stimulus) and legislation (cap and trade)
2.) revolt against special treatment for select groups (unions and banks)
3.) exposure of/to the legislative process (many people got their first real look of how Washington works with the health care bill) and the attitude/response of the politicians when people voiced concern.

I don't think this started as a right wing or Republican group. I think this is a group of people who said "wait a minute" - let's talk about this - tell me what you're doing and why.

Then Nancy Pelosi and others made fun of them, called them Nazis, someone (perhaps Anderson Cooper?) labelled them "tea baggers", town hall meetings erupted into screaming matches, etc. A politician should never position themself as anti-voter, or project a superior attitude of "I know better than you". At that point, it was obvious incumbents were in trouble.

By the way, when it was revealed last week that some of the Government employees unions were the biggest spenders to protect incumbents - I think the Tea Party grew a little larger.

 

[turbo]

I don't know how common these ideas are, but the TP members in this state (or supporters, more fairly, since it's not an organized party) seem to have a poorly-focused rage regarding government programs that benefit others. If a single mother needs access to Medicaid to get health-care for her children or food-stamps, then she is a freeloader, regardless of her work-status, wages, and lack of benefits.

Governor-elect LePage played to this rage regarding government programs, despite the fact that his business benefits disproportionately from them. His company offers part-time jobs with low wages, and NO benefits - not even access to unemployment insurance coverage. His company makes plenty of money while foisting off all their low-wage workers onto public-assistance programs. Somehow the TP members never seem to understand the connection between sub-living wages and the need for public assistance.

 

[WhoWee]

IMO, welfare abuse is more likely to occur in a major metropolitan setting than a small community or rural setting.

 

[turbo]

IMO, welfare abuse is more likely to occur in a major metropolitan setting than a small community or rural setting.

Certainly, there is a lot less anonymity in rural settings, but I don't know that welfare abuse is more common in one setting or another.

 

[NobodySpecial]

IMO, welfare abuse is more likely to occur in a major metropolitan setting than a small community or rural setting.

Depends whether you count agricultural subsidies as 'welfare'

Or schools, roads, fire, police, hospitals that are vastly more expensive to run in areas with low population density. Government costs per person are normally a lot higher in rural areas than in a major metropolitan setting.

 

[WhoWee]

This will surely get me into trouble here but (IMO) abuse of food stamps and medicaid are less acceptable in a small community setting - more likely to be reported.

 

[lisab]

Depends whether you count agricultural subsidies as 'welfare'

Well if you're going include agricultural subsides as 'welfare', would you also include the mortgage interest deduction?

 

[turbo]

Well if you're going include agricultural subsides as 'welfare', would you also include the mortgage interest deduction?

I would include ethanol-production subsidies as "welfare", but only for the big agribusiness and chemical companies - not for citizens. About 20 years ago, I was invited to make a pitch to the company operating some ethanol/corn-product plants in Iowa. After-hours, I had a few beers with a CE from the plant, and asked him when that plant would make "break-even", and he said "Never". Basically, the plants were dropped into the middle of corn-country to suck up subsidies for "clean" fuel that uses more energy to produce than it returns.

The toll of ethanol on small engines is staggering, resulting in a hidden tax that is spread all around. I have to add expensive fuel-stabilizer to every jug of gas that I buy for my wood-splitter, small tiller, chain-saw, weed trimmer, outboard motor, lawn tractor, etc, and I have to perform lots of extra maintenance to keep them going. I paid over $75 a couple of years ago to get my Husqvarna chain-saw rebuilt after the ethanol practically dissolved the fuel-line and contaminated all the fuel-system downstream of the tank. That fuel-line was tacky to the touch and would stick together with no provocation.

The fuel systems on my neighbor's tiller and sawmill will both have to be torn down and rebuilt this winter. They are both in rough shape from the crappy ethanol-laden gas we have to buy here. We'd both pay a premium to buy gas that doesn't contain ethanol, but everything up here is now 10% ethanol.

 

[WhoWee]

I would include ethanol-production subsidies as "welfare", but only for the big agribusiness and chemical companies - not for citizens. About 20 years ago, I was invited to make a pitch to the company operating some ethanol/corn-product plants in Iowa. After-hours, I had a few beers with a CE from the plant, and asked him when that plant would make "break-even", and he said "Never". Basically, the plants were dropped into the middle of corn-country to suck up subsidies for "clean" fuel that uses more energy to produce than it returns. QUOTE]

How is this different than subsidizing wind and solar projects?

 

[mheslep]

Ethanol subsidies, as I understand them, differ from the mortgage deduction in that the former is a case of tax money taken from taxpayer A and given to ethanol producer B. The later, mortgage deductions, are a case of keeping more of your own money than you would have otherwise paid through taxes. I'd do away them both. Canada seems to avoid mass homelessness without a mortgage deduction. I think it certainly would have avoided the housing bubble, at least the worst of it.

 

[turbo]

How is this different than subsidizing wind and solar projects?

Well, for one, ethanol production takes valuable crop-land out of production for human food and livestock feed, and increases those costs to all of us, while sucking up our government's tax revenues. Ethanol is nowhere near break-even. I'd much rather subsidize wind-projects. Wind is usually there, and it doesn't result in profit windfalls to the putative producers of the wind (our planet).

 

[mheslep]

It might be difficult to run that tractor from the local wind turbine. Ethanol serves a purpose unique to transportation, for the moment.

 

[Evo]

Does anyone remember what the topic was?

 

[Char. Limit]

The Tea Party.

I don't like it how I keep getting referred to as a "Teabagger", when I'm not even conservative. I'm centrist, for God's sake! Conservatives call me a radical liberal, liberals call me a teabagger.

 

[NobodySpecial]

The Tea Party.

I don't like it how I keep getting referred to as a "Teabagger", when I'm not even conservative. I'm centrist, for God's sake! Conservatives call me a radical liberal, liberals call me a teabagger.

Is there a democrat equivalent of the tea party?
Would it be the Latte party?

 

[WhoWee]

Does anyone remember what the topic was?

It's not easy to stay on topic for some reason this weekend?

I'll try to get us back.

It should be obvious after this discussion that local issues are important to everyone.

The Tea Party doesn't seem to have a national organization because of that reason - there are a few (see my 3 legged post) things all members agree on - and everything apparently falls into a local category. Things important to a Maine Tea Party member may not be important to a group in Idaho.

Another thing that might be derived from this thread is that some programs are more effectively managed on a state level - VERY rarely does a one size fits all approach work for everyone. I think the Tea Party recognized that waste has become the norm - doesn't know what to actually do about it - and is looking for people who will address the problem. AGAIN IMO

 

[Evo]

It's not easy to stay on topic for some reason this weekend?

I'll try to get us back.

It should be obvious after this discussion that local issues are important to everyone.

The Tea Party doesn't seem to have a national organization because of that reason - there are a few (see my 3 legged post) things all members agree on - and everything apparently falls into a local category. Things important to a Maine Tea Party member may not be important to a group in Idaho.

Another thing that might be derived from this thread is that some programs are more effectively managed on a state level - VERY rarely does a one size fits all approach work for everyone. I think the Tea Party recognized that waste has become the norm - doesn't know what to actually do about it - and is looking for people who will address the problem. AGAIN IMO

I agree with what you've said. So, do you think that some "celebrity" politicians, such as Palin, tried to hijack the "movement" for their own personal gain, or do you think people like her were sought after to represent them?

 

[WhoWee]

I agree with what you've said. So, do you think that some "celebrity" politicians, such as Palin, tried to hijack the "movement" for their own personal gain, or do you think people like her were sought after to represent them?

I'm not sure either regarding Palin. At one point it looked like a national organization was forming (wasn't there a convention in the summer?) and she spoke. But I got the feeling that she distanced herself from the group's organizer (can't recall his name?).

I think Palin needs to keep herself available to the RNC if she wants a shot in 2012 or 2016.

I think Michele Bachman is more likely to be the Tea Party candidate - who knows?

 

[Evo]

I'm not sure either regarding Palin. At one point it looked like a national organization was forming (wasn't there a convention in the summer?) and she spoke. But I got the feeling that she distanced herself from the group's organizer (can't recall his name?).

I think Palin needs to keep herself available to the RNC if she wants a shot in 2012 or 2016.

I think Michele Bachman is more likely to be the Tea Party candidate - who knows?

Do you really think sane republicans would would back her? She lost the election for McCain, even hard core Republicans came out against her because she's a nut. Of course McCain had no clue that she was crazy, but now that people know her, can she really draw non-fringe backing? I can't imagine anyone thinking this woman is mentally capable.

 

[WhoWee]

Do you really think sane republicans would would back her? She lost the election for McCain, even hard core Republicans came out against her because she's a nut. Of course McCain had no clue that she was crazy, but now that people know her, can she really draw non-fringe backing? I can't imagine anyone thinking this woman is mentally capable.

Actually, I think McCain would have done worse without her (yes he was THAT bad of a choice - IMO). I'm thinking the 2012 ticket will feature either Rick Santorum or Mitch Daniels and possibly Bachman as vp?

 

[Evo]

Actually, I think McCain would have done worse without her (yes he was THAT bad of a choice - IMO). I'm thinking the 2012 ticket will feature either Rick Santorum or Mitch Daniels and possibly Bachman as vp?

I think McCain would have won if it wasn't for her. I was leaning toward him until he chose her.

 

[Char. Limit]

How about Angle-Bachmann for 2012? Any chance of that?

 

[WhoWee]

I think McCain would have won if it wasn't for her. I was leaning toward him until he chose her.

McCain was not effective in the debates. He made solid arguments, but Obama clearly had the advantage when it came to personality. Also, McCain tried not to be negative - he left that to Palin.

Just out of curiosity, would you have voted for McCain/Lieberman?

 

[WhoWee]

How about Angle-Bachmann for 2012? Any chance of that?

Interesting choice, both are probably more popular nationwide than in their own states.

 

[Char. Limit]

Interesting choice, both are probably more popular nationwide than in their own states.

Yeah, though I probably wouldn't vote for it...

They're too far to the right for me. Just like Obama is too far to the left for me. I stand in the very exact center.

 

[WhoWee]

Yeah, though I probably wouldn't vote for it...

They're too far to the right for me. Just like Obama is too far to the left for me. I stand in the very exact center.

I know the feeling. My facebook page declares me an "unrepresented angry independent".

Most of the Tea Party people that I know are either small business owners or managers of some type. Nearly to the person, they describe themselves the same way.