Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Understanding the Tea Party

  1. Aug 7, 2011 #1
    The Tea Party rather than a uniform group is a gathering of many people of numerous different ideological views.

    They all agree on one thing. They feel the domestic policies of the Obama administration are wrong.

    Though, there is a division in the Tea Party. Between libertarians and Republicans.

    There are libertarians which are atheists/agnostics and there are Republicans who are strongly Christian and strongly anti-Muslim. Many libertarians want complete separation of church and state; Many Republicans don't. Many Republicans feel it is important for the government to enforce laws to strengthen the moral fibers of our society (censorship, anti-drug laws, prostitution laws, etc.) while libertarians believe that government should not protect people from themselves.

    Many Tea Party members want a strong national defense and active involvement in foreign policy. Many members are non-interventionists.

    Republicans generally support Medicare while many libertarians see no need for it.

    Lastly, there is a disagreement of how much to cut the government. The Boehner bill in Congress was not enough for many people in the Tea Party.

    Notice that the Tea Party wasn't big when Bush was in power, as there was not enough people in unison for it to acheive a critical mass. Once a Republican gets elected, they divide.
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 7, 2011 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think you forgot the most important part - Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the rest of the right-wing media. It is a movement driven by smoke and mirrors that actually finds its roots in the Nixon administration!

    Consider for example Bachmanns claim that we didn't need to raise the debt ceiling. Frankly, the woman is nuts. We were downgraded in part simply for taking too long to raise the debt ceiling. What more proof does one need that this movememnt is essentially driven by nonsense? She absolutely opposes tax increases on the rich but has no problem with giving the entire country a defacto tax increase by ruining our credit and increasing the interest on existing debt. That way, instead of the US government having more more money to deal with our national challenges and reducing our debt, it goes to our overseas investors. In effect, she's working for China.

    The birth certificate fiasco would be another example of tea-driven delusions.

    They also want to take credit for driving the debt argument. Guess what; I didn't need the tea party to tell me we have too much debt. The only difference is that I seek solutions, not fantasy-driven revolution.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2011
  4. Aug 7, 2011 #3
    In part? Would a 'procedural extention' actually helped us at all?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...entitlement-reform-to-resolve-debt-downgrade/ (watch the video as well, it shows a lot)

    Various officials from S&P have been making the news circuit and they're all saying the same thing - political pressures prevented a plausable solution, but then they go on to really indict the excessive mandatory spending (entitlements). They don't say what political pressures are killing the solution, why couldn't it be the democrats refusing to reform the entitlements? (esspecially given S&P official's comments saying that spending is too high) They do say that taxes may be part of the solution, but always focus on the spending.

    Fundamentally - the TEA Party is a limited government group. It is a reaction to the neocon faction (think President Bush) of the Republican party which has become increasingly mainstream.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 26, 2017
  5. Aug 7, 2011 #4
    Care to support - or just want to retract as an emotional utterance?:wink:
  6. Aug 7, 2011 #5
    yes, and we have a war machine establishment press led by mainstream media giants like MSNBC/NBC, pushing us to get into debt up to our eyeballs supporting the military industrial complex, bailing out transnational banks, bailing out failed automakers and their pension, and creating new enemies at an alarming rate in the name of fighting "terrorism".

    how about you dig some of those peace-loving antiwar liberal democrats from the bottom drawer and dust them off before the republicrats destroy us all?
  7. Aug 7, 2011 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  8. Aug 7, 2011 #7
  9. Aug 7, 2011 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm just pointing out that the tea party is not as independent as it likes to claim. When one chases the money, one comes back to the GOP.
  10. Aug 7, 2011 #9
    Your link says "FreedomWorks is a non-profit organization heavily involved with the Tea Party movement". I ask HOW is it involved?

    Your report further says "In 2006, the Washington Post revealed that from 2001 - 2006 FreedomWorks engaged in a hidden deal with insurance brokers whereby the brokers would sell high-deductible insurance policies and tax-free medical savings plans to individuals at a group discount, and those who purchased the plans would automatically be added FreedomWorks membership list. "

    To this (as an insurance broker) I ask - so what(???) given the policies types are completely legal. To clarify - were the health plans of the "group" variety because of an association membership requirement (possibly a legal/contractual requirement) - it's a common practice? Further, what does any of this (2001 - 2006?) have to do with the TEA Party?
  11. Aug 7, 2011 #10
    There is a substantial number of voters who identify as conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues. One such label is "small-l" libertarian. That's how I identify. I support the Tea party when they stand for getting the government's fiscal house in order. But they say they want the government out of everyone's personal life, but they support the war on drugs. They say they want a smaller government, but they support the wars and the empire -- as long as it's run on credit.

    The left's no better. They say they want social justice, but they continue Bush's wars and start new wars of their own. They say they're for freedom, but they support massive government intervention into the private economy.

    So for us small-l libertarians, there's simply nowhere to go. If one is anti-war, pro-balanced budget, and has San Francisco social values, there is NOBODY in American politics that represents us.
  12. Aug 7, 2011 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  13. Aug 7, 2011 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The intellectual disconnect is jarring at times. At rallies drummed up to kill health-care reform, there were signs saying "no socialized medicine" right alongside signs saying "hands off my medicare". Not a lot of continuity of thought there.
  14. Aug 7, 2011 #13
    It's not hard to understand why anyone would be troubled by Van Jones - did President Obama try to defend his comments in public? Perhaps YOU would like to defend Van Jones now - I'll form a TEA Party group at my desk and nominate myself spokesperson.

    My daughter just volunteered to make me a hat.
  15. Aug 7, 2011 #14
    Sure there is turbo. On one hand the Medicare beneficiary knows their program is in trouble and hopes a solution can be found - probably an increase in payroll tax along with higher co-insurance and deductibles. On the other hand - the Medicare beneficiary doesn't want a new federal program that might jeopardize Medicare further - they don't trust the politicians who've been stealing money (treating it like a slush fund) from their other program (Social Security) for years.
  16. Aug 7, 2011 #15


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    So by "stealing" you mean investing the SS surplus in interest-paying Treasuries? I see another disconnect.
  17. Aug 7, 2011 #16
    When Social Security was designed - was the intent to loan the funds to a Government that plans to maintain a level of debt equal to GDP? Was the intent to allow politicians to spend the Socail Security funds on anything other than benefits?

    As for the US Treasuries held by the Fed and Social Security - WHY - do you think they are as valuable as the ones held by the public?

    Especially when you know the Fed just acquired a large amount of them from the banks with freshly printed money under Quantitative Easing. You also know the interest rates have been artificially held near zero. I hope I'm wrong - but I think the Treasuries held by the Fed and the Social Security Trust Fund are - kaput.
  18. Aug 7, 2011 #17
    from what little i know about the tea party, i have some interest to see how/if it progresses. i like much of what i hear. i have no idea to what degree that mirrors their real intentions.

    to respond to the op's post, i like complete separation of church and state. at heart, i tend to be a separationist, or one who likes to mind his own business. so to the extent possible, i want to stay out of foreign affairs.

    i want social security to be privatized, but with certain controls as to what the individuals can do with it. the idea is to make sure that people do not become a financial burden on society when they get older.

    i probably tend to agree with libertarians as opposed to republicans, from what the op posted. one area where i strongly disagree with them is on abortion - since this is certainly about protecting one life from another life.
  19. Aug 7, 2011 #18


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I hope to retire on social security and medicare, I paid an absolute fortune into them. I want my money back.
  20. Aug 7, 2011 #19
    good luck on that one - LOL
  21. Aug 8, 2011 #20
    Ivan what makes you think that libertarians want or believe anything Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck propose? Last time I checked, both of those individuals believe & stand behind anti-Muslim mentality, support Neo-Con views, support programs like The Patriot Act (which president Obama promised to distinguish), and so forth. Most importantly, we didn't support presidents Bush's decisions during his tenure.

    Bachmann? Really? What's next Palin?

    That's funny because none of my friends ever had issues that with the birth certificate issue. I never once saw libertarian institutes like CATO ever put forth such nonsense either. This is beginning to sound like the basic montage from liberal news outlets.

    Please give me a link from a non liberal source that states otherwise. All you state are constant tirades that libertarians are far right Republicans(which we are not) and are terrorist.

    By the way, libertarians don't support Democratic or Republican views. Our political spectrum is not 1-dimensional.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook