[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I like to think that the Tea Party stand for a specific direction people want the country to move towards, regardless of the party in power. [/quote]
And what direction is that?
I predict that if the Republicans take the Senate and significantly cut into the Dem majority in the house (especially if they take the majority), that the Tea Party will cease to exist (or return to the Ron Paul fringe).
And it will do this whether or not the Republicans go back to governing like they did under Bush, and make no changes to their platform or spending style. I suspect that simply having Republicans back in control of two branches of government will be “enough” for most Tea Partiers and they will take their signs and go home until the next Democratic majority rolls around.
It’s just a fact that eventually the Dems will be the minority again, and I predict that no matter when that is, that if the Tea Party is still around, it will rapidly cease to exist as it dose now as soon as the Dems are out of power.
There is no stated platform, and nothing in their demands that your typical Republican doesn’t at least pay lip-service to.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Maybe some study of the original Tea Party would help you with perspective on this topic.[/quote]
Perhaps you could be a little more specific. A name doesn’t create isomorphism, and there is very little between The Colonies in the 1770s and what’s happening today, so you’re going to have argue for, and support with evidence, similarities.
Just like saying Lincoln was a Republican, doesn’t translate what we know as Republicans in a contemporary context.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Maybe some study of the original Tea Party would help you with perspective on this topic.[/quote]
Perhaps you could be a little more specific. A name doesn’t create isomorphism, and there is very little between The Colonies in the 1770s and what’s happening today, so you’re going to have argue for, and support with evidence, similarities.
Just like saying Lincoln was a Republican, doesn’t translate what we know as Republicans in a contemporary context.[/quote]
Consider a couple of Jefferson’s grievances against George III found in our very own Declaration of Independence. If you require further explanation, which I am not assuming you do, but if you were to, then no further comment from me or anyone else would be very likely to help.
[quote]<<< He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.>>><<<
<<< For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments >>>[/quote]
Spartiates, I agree with you that the Dems will lose significantly. The direction that I meant, was one of less government, strong military, less spending, more freedoms, etc. I think where the Dems have failed, is there underestimation of the Tea Party. And the fact that they are downright dismissive about it, only adds fuel to that fire.
I really hope you guys are right and I’m not predicting you aren’t, but I am not so sure. I’ve never seen public engagement at his level which is good. However there is no denying that there is no unified direction where it counts in the tea party.
I think the message is pretty clear overall, but I have seen some utterly monumental lapses in political judgment. They are in a very difficult catch 22.
They crow over their lack of formal leadership as a grass roots feature which is understandable, but without some wise chiefs I fear the whole tribe will wind up on a reservation of their own making.
If they back many of the GOP candidates in the upcoming election they horribly dilute their own credibility and appear as a Republican movement all along. If they do anything else effectively they put these communists back in office. They need some top level politically savvy leadership to guide them through this minefield. I don’t know if they’ll get it or not.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Spartiates, I agree with you that the Dems will lose significantly. The direction that I meant, was one of less government, strong military, less spending, more freedoms, etc. I think where the Dems have failed, is there underestimation of the Tea Party. And the fact that they are downright dismissive about it, only adds fuel to that fire. [/quote]
Can I ask: How does a strong military = less government? Military expenditure is, even with all this massive entitlement programs, is still one of the biggest, if not the biggest, drain on the federal budget. We’ll never really even know how much is spent, because so much of the money that goes into the military is either classified, or is funneled through other agencies, like the DOE, where a lot of the military research takes place.
How can you talk about fiscal responsibility, and shrinking the overall size of the Fed, without talking about cutting the size and scope of our military?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Spartiates, I agree with you that the Dems will lose significantly. The direction that I meant, was one of less government, strong military, less spending, more freedoms, etc. I think where the Dems have failed, is there underestimation of the Tea Party. And the fact that they are downright dismissive about it, only adds fuel to that fire. [/quote]
Can I ask: How does a strong military = less government? Military expenditure is, even with all this massive entitlement programs, is still one of the biggest, if not the biggest, drain on the federal budget. We’ll never really even know how much is spent, because so much of the money that goes into the military is either classified, or is funneled through other agencies, like the DOE, where a lot of the military research takes place.
How can you talk about fiscal responsibility, and shrinking the overall size of the Fed, without talking about cutting the size and scope of our military?[/quote]
If you want a cut in the size of the military move to Europe. Most large civilizations of History fall because they cut spending on military or defense. Military is what gained our independence from Britian. Entitlement programs, and interest on the debt take up more than half the budget. Military is only about 20% if I am not mistaken.
I might be putting words into your mouth with my next statement, but what other reason would someone want to decrease spending on military? Can I see your point that if Military spending stays as high as it is and other spending decreases a Coup could take place if the Military decides they do not like what is going on? Yeah I can see that.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
My reference to less government was for fewer civilian programs, which are a total waste of money on many levels. [/quote]
They’re worse than a waste of money. They are self destructive.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
…Military expenditure is, even with all this massive entitlement programs, is still one of the biggest, if not the biggest, drain on the federal budget…[/quote]
Dead wrong.[/quote]
I hate to say you’re right Push, but in this case you pretty much are. “Dead wrong” might not be the best way to put, but “inaccurate” might be a better fit. The budget for 2010 allocates 19.6% of it toward Social Security. Although the military portion is barely less (18.7%), right behind that is another social program (16.1% for Medicare).
I’m not sure what kind of return we really get for SS or Medicare. Some will argue that we get a return, others argue that we don’t. But, are we getting a return on our military expenditures? What sort of return are we really getting spending a billion a week in Iraq (much less now, but that was roughly what we spent between 2003 and 2008). What sort of return can we expect on the war in Afghanistan? If you ask me, I don’t think we get much of a return on any of that shit, SS, medicare or military spending.
Don’t get me started, if you saw the extortion going on here because of it, you would be floored. What happens when you let a government run something like water and power, and don’t give them raises they are demanding in the midst of a bad recession? They hold out on giving the city it’s profits, to the tune of 73 million. The monthly payroll for city workers here in LA is 90 million. Win for big government.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
…Military expenditure is, even with all this massive entitlement programs, is still one of the biggest, if not the biggest, drain on the federal budget…[/quote]
Dead wrong.[/quote]
I hate to say you’re right Push, but in this case you pretty much are. “Dead wrong” might not be the best way to put, but “inaccurate” might be a better fit. The budget for 2010 allocates 19.6% of it toward Social Security. Although the military portion is barely less (18.7%), right behind that is another social program (16.1% for Medicare).
I’m not sure what kind of return we really get for SS or Medicare. Some will argue that we get a return, others argue that we don’t. But, are we getting a return on our military expenditures? What sort of return are we really getting spending a billion a week in Iraq (much less now, but that was roughly what we spent between 2003 and 2008). What sort of return can we expect on the war in Afghanistan? If you ask me, I don’t think we get much of a return on any of that shit, SS, medicare or military spending.[/quote]
However, the military is actually a constitutionally mandated expenditure. I’m not addressing either of the wars directly only that military spending is one of the few things wherein we are legally bound to spend money commensurate to the provision of the common defense which will obviously grow as the world marches on.
Jefferson specifically warned that general welfare not be understood to mean exactly as we have so understood it especially in recent decades. I contend that if we had never enacted social security, fannie and freddie or any of the great society programs we would have less poverty, less racial tension, less social decay, less overalll need and plenty of money for whatever we could possibly ever need it for.
Transformations of a society in the face of real or imagined crisis is shortsighted and dangerous. We are bankrupt not because of military spending, but in the wake of the all consuming bottomless pit of social welfare spending. It’s a simple rule. Whatever you finance will grow. Pay people who don’t produce and guess what you get. Offer to pay for anything for anybody and otherwise responsible and upright though very human people will find themselves not planning for their future and lining up for the handout. Carry on that way long enough and you wind up with entire segments of the population believing that they are “entitled” to the gain from another man’s hands. Get them to vote and it’s over. Welcome to the USA circa 2008.
"You know when I was a little boy, there was an old negro farmer that lived down the road from us, named Monroe. He was … (subtle laugh), I guess he was just a little more luckier than my daddy was. He bought himself a mule.
It was a big deal in round that town. Now my daddy hated that mule. Cause, his friends were always kidding him about, “They saw Monroe out plowing with his new mule and Monroe is going to rent another field now he had a mule.”
One morning that mule showed up dead. They poisoned the water. After that, there wasn’t any mention about that mule around my daddy. It just never came up. One time we were driving down that road and we passed Monroe’s place and we saw it was empty. He just packed up and left, I guess, he must of went up north or something.
I looked over at my daddy’s face, I knew he done it. He saw that I knew. He was ashamed. I guess he was ashamed. He looked at me and said, “If you ain’t better than a nigger son, who are you better than?”" - Agent Anderson, Mississippi Burning
[quote]ephrem wrote:
"You know when I was a little boy, there was an old negro farmer that lived down the road from us, named Monroe. He was … (subtle laugh), I guess he was just a little more luckier than my daddy was. He bought himself a mule.
It was a big deal in round that town. Now my daddy hated that mule. Cause, his friends were always kidding him about, “They saw Monroe out plowing with his new mule and Monroe is going to rent another field now he had a mule.”
One morning that mule showed up dead. They poisoned the water. After that, there wasn’t any mention about that mule around my daddy. It just never came up. One time we were driving down that road and we passed Monroe’s place and we saw it was empty. He just packed up and left, I guess, he must of went up north or something.
I looked over at my daddy’s face, I knew he done it. He saw that I knew. He was ashamed. I guess he was ashamed. He looked at me and said, “If you ain’t better than a nigger son, who are you better than?”" - Agent Anderson, Mississippi Burning
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
…Military expenditure is, even with all this massive entitlement programs, is still one of the biggest, if not the biggest, drain on the federal budget…[/quote]
Dead wrong.[/quote]
I hate to say you’re right Push, but in this case you pretty much are. “Dead wrong” might not be the best way to put, but “inaccurate” might be a better fit. The budget for 2010 allocates 19.6% of it toward Social Security. Although the military portion is barely less (18.7%), right behind that is another social program (16.1% for Medicare).
I’m not sure what kind of return we really get for SS or Medicare. Some will argue that we get a return, others argue that we don’t. But, are we getting a return on our military expenditures? What sort of return are we really getting spending a billion a week in Iraq (much less now, but that was roughly what we spent between 2003 and 2008). What sort of return can we expect on the war in Afghanistan? If you ask me, I don’t think we get much of a return on any of that shit, SS, medicare or military spending.[/quote]
Let me just throw this in here. Military spending put money directly into a LOT of US citizens hands. All the soldiers get paychecks and pensions and benefits etc… A lot or maybe ALL weapons contractors are US companies, they money stays here for people to spend. You can’t just drastically cut military spending overnight without very bad things happening at home. You will create even more jobless numbers, not to mention a lot of those without jobs are going to be soldiers. Another sector that will lose jobs is independant military contractors, the blackwaters of the world. It’s never good to have a lot of people trained to kill in a desparate situation with nothing to occupy thier time.
Reducing the military needs to be done slowly. And I’m not even sure if I would reduce it. I would probably freeze it and just let the country grow up around it. If we do it right, in 20 years the military could be 10% of the federal budget and no one lost a job, I’m sure the american people would agree that having the most expensive home security system in the world is a good thing if you can afford it. And we can, we just need to get some other spending in line, like Multi million dollar bridges to nowhere and hamers for $500 apeice.