How do you feel about the Tea Party Movement?

[TishaC]

Sav, I think things like this tend to make people wonder if the Tea Parties are working...

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...lls_tea_parties_idiotic_in_official_memo.html

When you read that, what do you think?

That the WH and administration have to "plan" behind the scenes on how to address/discuss organizations made up of American people means 1) they're noticing Tea Parties far more than they've let on; 2) they're sufficiently worried to the point that they have to aggressively discredit the Tea Parties; and, 3) WE ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK!! That is a good thing.

 

[ATF Consumer]

sorry for the slight thread jack... but unemployement is funded by taxes. taxes paid by employers to the government. I'm not making a distinction between state and federal government because I didn't think the tea parties were making such a distinction.

Policy Basics: Introduction to Unemployment Insurance — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


The unemployment insurance system is funded by taxes paid by employers on behalf of their employees. Most of these taxes are collected by state governments, but some are collected by the federal government. While both the federal and state taxes are technically paid by employers (although in a few states, the employee pays part of the state tax), economists generally regard the tax as falling on employees. The theory behind this is that the dollars employers use to pay the tax are part of overall compensation costs, and would otherwise have gone into employees’ paychecks.
The federal tax is set by the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), and is equal to 0.8 percent of the first $7,000 paid annually to each employee. This tax is regressive; since most workers earn more than $7,000 per year, most workers are effectively paying the same flat tax of $56 per year regardless of income. The percentage of overall wages paid in FUTA taxes on behalf of high-wage workers is therefore much lower than for low-wage workers.
...

Yes, I am quite aware of this as I am an employer myself...
But just recently, certain states have run out of this fund and have asked the federal government for additional funding in which Indiana is now taking part of, so this additional money IS coming from the tax payers.

Here is one article that explains it...

Feds rap Indiana jobless fund : courierpress.com

A quick quote...

"The report comes at a pivotal time for Indiana. Workforce Development distributes jobless benefits and coordinates retraining for unemployed Hoosiers, who numbered 324,000 in February, giving the state a 9.4 percent unemployment rate — the highest in 25 years.
At the same time, the state unemployment fund is paying out millions of dollars more in benefits than the employer taxes it takes in. The state has borrowed about $535 million from the federal government to keep the fund solvent, and fixing the fund has become a key issue in the General Assembly."

 

[SavageEagle]

That the WH and administration have to "plan" behind the scenes on how to address/discuss organizations made up of American people means 1) they're noticing Tea Parties far more than they've let on; 2) they're sufficiently worried to the point that they have to aggressively discredit the Tea Parties; and, 3) WE ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK!! That is a good thing.

and well said!

 

[Joe Williams]

Joe, you have to understand how frustrating it is to hear that something I'm involved in would suggest something so counter to what we're about.

Which TP post said you weren't worthy? Please provide details. Was it on the meetup site?
snip.

Hornadylnl is correct when he said I was referrencing his post saying only property owners should be allowed to vote. You think YOU are frustrated? Try being told you aren't worthy to be an American citizen... effectively being rendered a slave. Which is what the founding fathers did when they tried to limit the vote to landowners, who were by and large only the very wealthy in their day. Of course, being slaveowners, that may not have bothered the founding fathers in the least, but it bugs the heck out of me!

 

[ggglobert9]

I am just curious...wondering how many people on this site first voted for Obama? Then why are they on this site answering questions like this. Tea party is good idea in theory but twelve people doesn't make a big impact but you have to start somewhere

 

[ATF Consumer]

Hornadylnl is correct when he said I was referrencing his post saying only property owners should be allowed to vote. You think YOU are frustrated? Try being told you aren't worthy to be an American citizen... effectively being rendered a slave. Which is what the founding fathers did when they tried to limit the vote to landowners, who were by and large only the very wealthy in their day. Of course, being slaveowners, that may not have bothered the founding fathers in the least, but it bugs the heck out of me!

Yeah, especially when they wrote in the "all men are created equal" (unless you are a slave )

 

[gglass]

The Tea Party must become a political party. I for one, do not want to be affiliated with the Republican party, the Democratic party or even an Independent party. I would much rather belong to a small government, low taxation, and greater liberty party... Those are the ideals behind the Tea parties... Now it's time to make it a real PARTY!

 

[Joe Williams]

Let me start with an insult to you since you ended yours with an insult at me. I have studied quite a lot of world history. You may want to read up a little on your history, plus you may want to read a little Greek philosophy as well.
There is a huge difference between restricting ones right to vote and having a vetting process. If you are not willing to make a commitment to the country that you live in then why should you have the same rights as someone who has. There is a reason that the founders had a vetting process in the original language of The Constitution.

He didn't insult you, he made a factal statement. The govnerments who exercised the controls you espouse were tyranies with slavery and oppression as one of their calling cards. The United States of America included when they exercised such "vetting."

 

[SavageEagle]

I am just curious...wondering how many people on this site first voted for Obama? Then why are they on this site answering questions like this. Tea party is good idea in theory but twelve people doesn't make a big impact but you have to start somewhere

I have to scratch my head here. It's kinda like :wtf:

Where do you get 12 people? I saw well over 2K people at the 4th Tea Party. Also, there is a thread on here about who voted obamatard and who voted who. Use your search-fu in the politics forum.

 

[Joe Williams]

Spend less on what? How would the government continue to provide services? Which services?

How about education?

This is not a Constitutional function of the federal government.

How about social security?

This is not a Constitutional function of the federal government.

How about food stamps?

This is not a Constitutional function of the federal government.

How about section 8 renters?

This is not a Constitutional function of the federal government.

How about unemployeement?

This is not a Constitutional function of the federal government.

How about national security?

Out of your entire list, this is the only Constitutional function of the federal government.

How about highway construction?

This is not a Constitutional function of the federal government.

How about water quality?

This is not a Constitutional function of the federal government.

These are issues. "Spending too much", is not an issue that I can get on board against. Spending too much on education... maybe. Spending too much on food stamps... maybe. Just plain "spending too much" is far too broad a platform. It is like saying "demcrats are stupid" or "i hate liberals." Nobody fits 100% inside a political box, and to lay a blanket statement out there for an entire "movement" doesn't mean anything to me.

I do not believe that shutting down all government services would provide an improved society. If this is the goal of the "tea parties", then I hope it fails. If it is the goal of the tea parties to address specific issues in a manner that would result in lower spending, then I may find myself getting on board. I am still hoping to figure out what this is all about.

Every function you listed, save for one, is an overstepping of legal bounds by the federal government. There is NO Constitutional basis for the federal govnerment involving itself in such matters. As the people have surrendered more and more of their freedoms to a government that is exercising power it doesn't have, the government has become more and more contemptuous of those it RULES, not governs... remember, the word "rules" is how the Obama administration referred to it's term.

Free people are not ruled, and a United States government behaving within the bounds of the laws that give it it's only legitimacy would never have even considered uttering that term when referring to the government's relationship to citizens. Our government, though, because people have surrendered our freedoms and failed to stop the government from exercising powers it doesn't legally have, such as the ones in your list, now sees us as subjects instead of citizens.

 

[TishaC]

and well said!

Thank you, Savage. I'm glad to be here.

 

[henktermaat]

I am for it, but I don't see it doing much good. When "representatives" won't even listen to their constituents, there's no way they would even legitimize the TEA parties when it would mean even a slight loss of face.

Obama's "secret memo" leak seems to uphold my opinion.

 

[Fletch]

I am for it, but I don't see it doing much good. When "representatives" won't even listen to their constituents, there's no way they would even legitimize the TEA parties when it would mean even a slight loss of face.

This.

 

[bigus_D]

Every function you listed, save for one, is an overstepping of legal bounds by the federal government. There is NO Constitutional basis for the federal govnerment involving itself in such matters. As the people have surrendered more and more of their freedoms to a government that is exercising power it doesn't have, the government has become more and more contemptuous of those it RULES, not governs... remember, the word "rules" is how the Obama administration referred to it's term.

Free people are not ruled, and a United States government behaving within the bounds of the laws that give it it's only legitimacy would never have even considered uttering that term when referring to the government's relationship to citizens. Our government, though, because people have surrendered our freedoms and failed to stop the government from exercising powers it doesn't legally have, such as the ones in your list, now sees us as subjects instead of citizens.

I get the feeling that the Tea Parties are a protest only against the federal government based on the responses I'm getting... Is this correct?

Also... would it be the goal of the Tea Parties to limit the federal government to only those specific mandates of the constitution (national security for instance)? Thereby throwing out social security, all federal assistance, nasa, dept of labor, dept of eductation, etc etc etc?

 

[El Cazador]

I think the Tea Parties are a good idea. There is a general lethargy to attending them right now, at the beginning, because a lot of people are convinced it will do no good. But that will change as things worsen (and they will). This is an early time for the Tea Parties, and if they are kept up, there will be more and more get on board, and attend the rallies.

There will be plenty of people who will try and denigrate the movement, and either attempt to scare people off by marginalizing it, or by outright intimidation of members and sympathizers. The alleged memo from Obama posted in another thread here is a good example of them trying to marginalize and ridicule right now. The woman reporter in Chicago (I think) is another. Even given the lack of formal organization of the Tea Parties here in the beginning, the rallies obviously worry the collectivists in the media and the government, thus the first efforts to mischaracter and ridicule them.

As long as they are kept up, they will grow, from more and more regular folks being left behind as the mighty USS TitanicObama sails away from them. It just takes time to get them to realize they aren't important individually to the Maoist-in-Charge, and he didn't leave a pot of never-ending gold behind for each and every one. People are just that way. Until it affects them, they will not make the effort.

And, as the movement picks up credibility, and the media sharpens it's attacks, it will gain more of the people who always supported the idea, but like some of the freedom loving Iraqis who got left high and dry when the US left the first time, they were not anxious to stick their necks out, then have the rug yanked out from under them.

Now Ryan, I understand your irritation and frustration with the lack of active participation right now, here at the beginnings. I've been there, believe me, and not over something as large and distant as this still looks to many. But you need to temper your frustration, which comes out as criticism (and some pretty hard criticism, too), and re-direct your energies into positive support and basically, cheerleading.. Watch Reagan's speeches to the public. They were critical to his opponents ideas and policies, and supportive and full of positive urging to the public. He didn't criticize the public for not jumping up and joining him right then, he showed them the better way, and how it was so much better than what was being put forward by the Democrats then. The celebrated speech of Patton, right before the Battle of the Bulge, did the same. He didn't critize his men, he praised them (in his way) and urged them to the better way. Positive reinforcement is almost always the better way to lead. The carrot will move the mule faster and better than the stick will, every time.

You have to do this too. I understand your relative youth, and the fire in the belly that it gives you, and it's a good thing. But you must learn to direct that fire away from fueling your frustration at having to go slow right now, and into making steam to keep you going for the long term.

Patience, Grasshopper...

 

[Joe Williams]

I get the feeling that the Tea Parties are a protest only against the federal government based on the responses I'm getting... Is this correct?

Also... would it be the goal of the Tea Parties to limit the federal government to only those specific mandates of the constitution (national security for instance)? Thereby throwing out social security, all federal assistance, nasa, dept of labor, dept of eductation, etc etc etc?

Don't know about the official Tea Party folks, but it's certainly a goal of mine to limit the Federal government to only it's legal functions. If it's a goal of the Tea Party folks, it would certainly energize me to become an active supporter of them.

 

[Raoc]

A lot of people seem to be asking what the Tea Party's stance is on this or that. The Tea Parties are not a political party, and won't be. They are a rallying cry for people to take back the reigns of this nations political system, as system which has been on autopilot and is heading us for disaster. They are a means to bring together people of all different political and demographic persuasions to take responsibility for the mistakes we have all made that got us here, and for the course forward. They are a means to educate and share ideas.

The idea of forming yet another third party is sure to fail. The iCaucus movement has identified what the moneyed interests already know - party affiliation is meaningless as long as you can exert adequate influence over a representative's votes. We can play the same game.

I certainly don't agree with many of the policy ideas I hear people throw around at the events. I disagree with term limits. I disagree with many of the immigration solutions I hear. I disagree with those who want to put conditions on being able to vote. Despite these differences, we have a common goal of taking control out of the hands of lobbying groups and back in the hands of the people.

 

[SavageEagle]

Now Ryan, I understand your irritation and frustration with the lack of active participation right now, here at the beginnings. I've been there, believe me, and not over something as large and distant as this still looks to many. But you need to temper your frustration, which comes out as criticism (and some pretty hard criticism, too), and re-direct your energies into positive support and basically, cheerleading.. Watch Reagan's speeches to the public. They were critical to his opponents ideas and policies, and supportive and full of positive urging to the public. He didn't criticize the public for not jumping up and joining him right then, he showed them the better way, and how it was so much better than what was being put forward by the Democrats then. The celebrated speech of Patton, right before the Battle of the Bulge, did the same. He didn't critize his men, he praised them (in his way) and urged them to the better way. Positive reinforcement is almost always the better way to lead. The carrot will move the mule faster and better than the stick will, every time.

You have to do this too. I understand your relative youth, and the fire in the belly that it gives you, and it's a good thing. But you must learn to direct that fire away from fueling your frustration at having to go slow right now, and into making steam to keep you going for the long term.

Patience, Grasshopper...

I don't critisize for not joining the Tea Party. I do so to those who would rather sit and wait for SHTF to do anything. Sorry if my posts are too full of harshness. It just needs to be said and no one else dares do so. I'm trying very hard to contain myself. I think i've done a good job thus far...

Don't know about the official Tea Party folks, but it's certainly a goal of mine to limit the Federal government to only it's legal functions. If it's a goal of the Tea Party folks, it would certainly energize me to become an active supporter of them.

Welcome to the movement my friend. Look forward to seeing you around!

A lot of people seem to be asking what the Tea Party's stance is on this or that. The Tea Parties are not a political party, and won't be. They are a rallying cry for people to take back the reigns of this nations political system, as system which has been on autopilot and is heading us for disaster. They are a means to bring together people of all different political and demographic persuasions to take responsibility for the mistakes we have all made that got us here, and for the course forward. They are a means to educate and share ideas.

The idea of forming yet another third party is sure to fail. The iCaucus movement has identified what the moneyed interests already know - party affiliation is meaningless as long as you can exert adequate influence over a representative's votes. We can play the same game.

I certainly don't agree with many of the policy ideas I hear people throw around at the events. I disagree with term limits. I disagree with many of the immigration solutions I hear. I disagree with those who want to put conditions on being able to vote. Despite these differences, we have a common goal of taking control out of the hands of lobbying groups and back in the hands of the people.

Yep. That's about the sum of it right herre. Well said.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I get the feeling that the Tea Parties are a protest only against the federal government based on the responses I'm getting... Is this correct?
NO, all government from city council all the way to the top...

Also... would it be the goal of the Tea Parties to limit the federal government to only those specific mandates of the constitution (national security for instance)? Thereby throwing out social security, all federal assistance, nasa, dept of labor, dept of eductation, etc etc etc?

Yes is the short answer...would be better to start from scratch than to attempt to reform all of the current funding.

 

[El Cazador]

I get the feeling that the Tea Parties are a protest only against the federal government based on the responses I'm getting... Is this correct?

Also... would it be the goal of the Tea Parties to limit the federal government to only those specific mandates of the constitution (national security for instance)? Thereby throwing out social security, all federal assistance, nasa, dept of labor, dept of eductation, etc etc etc?

Most everything you've listed should be a state's responsibility, if at all. Social Security is a black hole, and a socialist construct, and an admitted failure. The Dept of Labor is a socialist construct, as is the Dept of "Eductation". How well did "federal assistance" work after Katrina? The ice storm in western Kentucky?

NASA I support, given it's national/global security, economic, and educational benefits. A good argument could be made for it's constitutional role.

But everything else should be run by the states. It gives the voters a huge amount of control over what happens to their tax money, and keeps the majority of it in the state.

When people worry about the loss of any of the non-Constitutional programs, policies, and offices, I ask them if they don't think they can manage their lives (including their money) better than a stranger can?