Bio
I've been married to my wonderful husband for 8 years and have three beautiful girls, ages 4, 2, and 5 months. In my free time (what free time??) I w...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Recent Comments

6 myths about the Tea Party movement

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 2
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Myth #1:  Tea Partiers are “anti-tax activists” who are opposed to paying taxes.

 This is a deliberate oversimplification and distortion of the facts.   Tea Partiers are NOT opposed to paying taxes. 

Tea Partiers recognize the distinction between LOCAL government, STATE government, and FEDERAL government. Each has their proper role and place, and we are willing to pay taxes for those things which are within those governments’ proper spheres.

For instance: roads, police, firefighting, libraries and the like are largely funded through local or state taxes, and nobody is opposed to paying these taxes when the money is used locally, we aren’t digging ourselves into unsustainable levels of debt, and we get our money’s worth.  Citizens can more easily hold their elected officials accountable for wasteful spending at the local level than they can at the national level, which is why centralizing more taxation and power at the federal level is a dangerous trend. 

The constitution grants the federal government 17 enumerated powers, such as establishing a common currency and national defense. THOSE are services we are willing to pay federal taxes for, because they are legitimate, constitutional roles of the federal government – not all the unconstitutional pork, entitlements and other things they waste our money on.

Myth #2: Tea Partiers are misplacing their anger about the economy onto Obama, who inherited this mess, when they REALLY should be mad at the Bush administration and the big spending GOP!

It’s fair to say that many Republicans weren’t very concerned about deficit spending during the Bush years (though Libertarians and fiscal conservatives certainly were).   That was a mistake, which many are coming to regret. 

However, they have Obama to thank for waking them up to the danger of runaway spending.  In 2004, Bush’s deficit was $413 billion, 3.5 percent of the gross domestic product.  Fast forward to fiscal year 2010 — the deficit is over $1.8 trillion, more than 10 percent of GDP. 

Although it’s fair to say that we should have started objecting the minute politicians from either party started speeding on the spending highway, it’s also highly appropriate to aim the current protests at a sitting president who has gone from mere speeding to flooring it at an unsustainable pace

Republicans aren’t off the hook, either.  Big spending GOP incumbents are on their way to losing their seats in November, right alongside their Democrat co-conspirators, and there’s no love lost to Bush for his decision to bail out Wall Street before leaving office. 

As Geoff Ludt, former Democrat and organizer of the Oregon Tea Party states:

“The question isn’t ‘where was the Tea Party when GWB was in office.’  The question now is, if you thought these these [policies] were wrong under GWB, where are you?  Do you agree with them now?  Why?”

Myth #3: The Tea Partiers are racists who just can’t accept the fact that there is a black man in the white house. 

This one is downright laughable! 

The Tea Parties first launched from Rick Santelli’s famous rant on CNBC about taxpayers being forced to pay for their neighbor’s mortgages (“the guy with the extra bathroom who can’t pay his bills?”). 

It continued to grow from the outrage over an ever-growing list of bailouts, takeovers and runaway government spending on pork, unsustainable entitlements, and pet (unconstitutional) government programs and projects. 

It is, and always has been, completely about POLICIES and the proper role of government (especially federal government) in our lives.  Race has nothing to do with it.

Myth #4: The Tea Party movement claims to be against Socialism, but they wouldn’t want to lose programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment benefits! 

There may be disagreement among some Tea Partiers about whether or not we should try to completely abolish and/or privatize these “Socialist Lite” programs (some suggest “phasing” them out), but one thing everyone seems to agree on: government entitlements are unsustainable.  

It is cruel, not compassionate, to encourage dependency on corrupt government programs that eventually leave the payees holding the bag with nothing to show for it.  If any private sector company had run such a ponzi scheme, their CEO’s would be in jail by now! 

Myth #5: The Tea Party is an astroturf fringe movement of radicals that doesn’t represent mainstream American voters. 

According to the latest Rasmussen poll:

48% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.

That’s about as mainstream as

  • 2
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
oneloved 5 pts

Media girl,

First, if you want to be "taken seriously", try dropping the ridiculous sexual innuendo. Civil discussion begins with talking like mature adults, not with disgusting playground insults.

Secondly, try adding up all the debt left behind after Reagan and the Bushes, and it STILL pales in comparison to the amount this administration is spending.

When Bush left office, the national debt was $6 trillion. Only one year later, it was already $7.9 trillion. That's almost a 30% increase in ONE YEAR! This year it's projected to reach $9.4 trillion - another 18% jump. By 2019, it's projected to be $14.2 trillion - nearly DOUBLING the national debt in less than ONE DECADE. And no, you can't blame that phenomenon on Bush. He's long out of the picure.

Third, the Tea Party is a mix of people with different beliefs about social issues. These largely don't matter because most of these issues, constitutionally, aren't any of the federal government's business to begin with! Try finding health care, education, welfare, and dozens of other issues in our constitution. They're not there. Per the 10th Amendment, these are the jurisdiction of the states and the people. No matter where different Tea Partiers stand on these issuses, one thing we can all agree on: the federal government has NO CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION over them, and needs to stay out of it.

I don't like the wars anymore than you do, but like it or not, military expenditures ARE constitutional, and ARE the responsibility of the federal government.

Merrian-Webster dictionary defines Socialism as "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." There are varying degrees of Socialism, but one running theme: increasing state management of the economy, and the redistribution of wealth from one sector of the population to another.

Progressives claim that Obama isn't a socialist because he doesn't advocate redistributing ENOUGH to suit their definition of fairness. But once government gets in the business of redistributing wealth (going back to FDR and Keynes), it has already begun applying socialist economics. Obama wants to increase this process, not scale it back.

Lastly, nobody in the Tea Party will advocate people showing up with Obama=Hitler signs. Obama is a misguided socialist who thinks that government is the solution to every problem. That's enough reason to oppose his policies without comparing him to a mass murderer.

Still, I find it hypocritical for Leftists (especially in the media) to whine about a few rare instances at Tea Parties when entire anti-Bush protests revolved around the central Bush=Hitler theme, complete with professionally mass-produced signs. The Left has a short memory, after all: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2338739/p...

media girl 5 pts

When we look at the national debt overall, we see that the greatest bumps in the national debt happened under Reagan, Bush the elder and Bush the lesser. So trying to lay the national debt at Obama's feet is not only misplaced, but blind to history. If you're truly opposed to big spending, then it would help to oppose the spending, not Obama's spending.

Another thing to consider when it comes to Obama's deficit figures is that he ordered that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars be accounted for. George W. ran those wars off the books, so as high as W's deficit numbers are, they are even higher when you include the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on those wars.

You might measure W's accumulated debt at the end of 2008, rather than laying his last 4 years on Obama as well. Obama has spent enough on his own already. You really don't need to distort the statistics, don't you think?

But backing up a bit....

I'd take the tea baggers seriously if they took me seriously. But the wild claims that Obama is a socialist (which is a joke), a Hitler (which is an offensive joke), that he's out to kill people using "death panels", that he's not an American citizen, that he's going to take everyone's guns away (which is completely made up), and the rage, hate-filled rhetoric displayed at the rallies, all turn me off. And it tells me that this is less about issues and more about party politics.

In the end, however, the tea bagger party (if it could be called a party) has a bigger problem, which is the big question mark over what "conservative" means. Because it has me totally confused. Is a conservative for small government, civil rights, leave people alone, that kind of thing? Or is a conservative for the police state with laws regulating private lives everywhere, from listening in on everyone's phone calls (which seems like a complete waste of money to me) to state-sponsored religion to regulating who people can sleep with to restricting what medical advice doctors can tell their patients? Me, as long as the tea bagger line is presented along party lines, I won't trust it at all.

I feel America is suffering right now because conservatives lost their way. The old GOP of Barry Goldwater was a different party. Its opposition to the Democrats was on policy and spending. The leaders could not just debate but also get things done. Yes, party politics have always been a part of it. But if you look at today, the biggest talent seems to be demagoguery and grandstanding. On both sides. Barry Goldwater could not get elected dog catcher today. He would fail the litmus tests on abortion and gay marriage (as if those were the biggest "problems" vexing this country today).

You want fiscally conservative supporters? Then try reaching out to the socially liberal fiscal conservatives among progressives. You will find very strong, passionate support for not just reigning in spending but also protecting civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. It would take some convincing, though. There's not a lot of trust of the right, I can tell you that.

It's a shame, because individual rights are valued across party lines. But so far I don't see any effort by tea baggers to reach out to progressives at all. On the contrary, we feel attacked by tea baggers simply for being who we are.

I wish we were wrong about the tea bagger movement. But for me this post just reinforces my perceptions and doesn't dispel any "myths" at all.

Am I misreading?

--
media girl ( http://mediagirl.org )