For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"

12thMan

So do you think Obama screwed up in all of this? Yes or no?

Or it's just not that clear?

CRedskinsRule

So we let this society grind away, the minions working the daily grind, while the politicos throw away our childrens future on utopian tax and spend policies? Or do we try to bring this country back to the federalist principles that allowed us to prosper. Do we ignore the fact that politicians are doing exactly what Tocqueville said would be the ruin of our society - writing checks that our government has no real backing for. Rome in 100AD looked awful good compared to the barbarians but their society quickly devolved as the populace sat and enjoyed their gladiator contests. But hey we can run around and criticize the government so its ok, actually if you yelled you love the KKK in Oakland you would probably be arrested for inciting a riot. The govt has a huge national security beauracracy that will eventually find a way to secure the internal debate even as it claims to be acting in the interest of security. In the end though there is not enough discontent to overcome the drug of public money and no amount of political discussion is going to overcome that.

JoeRedskin

Did I say we let it grind away? The only way we can change it is by continuing to work. The concept of smaller govt., fewer taxes is all good - you got any ideas on how to make it work? I mean real, practical means?

We ain't Rome, Rome wasn't a democracy and at its height the Roman Empire was approximately 1/10 of our population. As you said in one of your earlier posts, the need is not yet dire and we can change if we can find the political will. But I agree, I am not sure we will.

My only point with Oakland was a response to TTE assertion that our govt. is "shitty". To me, it's all a matter of perspective. Is it bad compared to the ideal? yup. Is it better than any of the alternatives currently out there? yup. Should we be satisfied with it? Nope. But you "Govt. is innately evil" types just don't get that.

Feeling a little paranoid? You may be right. I doubt it. In America, I suspect that the freedom of speech is greater than it has ever been.

Look, bottom line, as 12th said - I agree with the cut spending live w/in our means objective. As you say, the problem is finding the political wil to cut something. Attacking govt. for govt. sake, however, is simply wrong headed. Despite what the rhetoric from the Tea Party, govt. is not innately "bad" it simply is and it is what we let it be.

__________________
My Little Pony: Friendship is magic? or ... a repressive matriarchal society where individuals' roles are defined by their immutable physical characteristics and governance is reserved for those who demonstrate the genetic purity of the pony master race?

tryfuhl

Regardless of the outcome this reigns supreme right now. It's obvious that I lean to the left and not to discredit Obama because he had decent experience but at the same time he was a bit of a made for TV candidate. Once the administration settles in that has to leave.

GMScud

Well, I think it is on Obama, even if he didn't make the phone call himself. I mean, Gibbs in his presser today said that he had "no knowledge" of anyone in the administration pushing for Sherrod's resignation. Then in the same breath he apologized for the administration acting without all the facts. Ummmm....

Bottom line is, someone in the administration made her firing happen, otherwise they wouldn't be apologizing. Ultimately Obama is responsible for the people with whom he surrounds himself. So yeah, it's on him. Frankly I think it was a rash decision by an administration anxious to prove it stands equally on both sides of the racial fence. And chances are they probably do. But they've stumbled so much on the issue that they now just look dumb.

This presidency has really wet the bed on race in a few major instances, which surprises me considering the skin color of the POTUS. I figured on issues of race he'd be more unifying than polarizing. Guess I was wrong. I mean, didn't his campaign emphasize that it wouldn't get caught up in racial issues? Oops. The whole Gates thing, this Black Panther voter-intimidation case, Van Jones, now Sherrod...

Do I smell Beer Summit V2.0? LOL.

__________________
Insert witty signature here

GMScud

They are close to halfway through his first term, two years in which Obama has enjoyed a dominant majority in Congress. That won't be the case come November. So at what point are they "settled in?"

His mortgage plan is failing, his race relations are poor, many think he has mishandled Afghanistan, spending/debt/deficits are gigantic, he put jobs on the backburner while pushing healthcare, and he is hearing desperate pleas from House Dems to campaign for them with November looming.

So let me ask you, what constitutes "settling in?"

__________________
Insert witty signature here

dmek25

let me ask you something scud. do you think that racial issues are more in the fore front because we have a black president? not once during W's, or any other presidents term have i heard anyone refer to them as a "white" president. i guess because Obama is the first "non white", there will be some growing pains. i agree that Obama is walking a tight rope when dealing with this stuff. but not sure what he, or the administration, had to do with the voter intimidation thing. and i am always in the corner of getting the facts first

__________________
"It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan

CRedskinsRule

I know a lot of ideas have been thrown out, and discussed. Straightening out the tax code, along the lines of Slinging Sammy's comments. A moratorium for 3 years on new defense spending, a reduction in the Army recruiting by 3-5% per year, and a corresponding redefinition of Army goals, including reducing overseas commitments. A freeze, on social security/health care benefits, again for the next 3 years. All these simply take political will - therefore they won't happen. Further(and more pie in the sky), 12 year term limits for all of congress, - if a president can be up to snuff on all the intricacies and serve only 8 years, I believe new congressmen can manage as well. Re-affirm Article 10 of the bill of rights, by removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club to force States to implement "the good of all" type legislation.
Finally, some serious Constitutional changes - take Senators out of the public vote, and back to being appointed by the individual States. If a state chooses to hold elections fine, but the Senate was designed to be a check on pure democracy tendencies.


A brief, but good read on the Roman Republic from Wikipedia:
Roman Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I could easily change a few terms and make this fit for the US governmental structure. This form existed for 482 years, we are at almost half that. But, as you correctly pointed out, this form of government wasn't even managing 1/10 of the population, and I tend to believe the increased scale could possibly increase the speed of the decline to an imperial form of government. I bolded the one line because that strikes me as the phase we are entering, where the structure of society (healthcare, social engineering, and social security) are beginning to override legal principles of sound government.

So, no we are not Rome, but we could learn ALOT from their historic example.
Well fair enough, I just don't get that we should accept a poor gov't just because it is what we have. Yes it is better than the worst governments out there, truthfully, so was the English Monarchy when the founding fathers revolted against it. And more important, and what you "gov't is innately neutral" types don't get, is that there is an inertia within gov't which seeks to preserve its position within society and increase its own power. The founding fathers to some degree understood that, George Washington specifically understood that a permanent president was bad for the country. So is a Senate where a 94 year old can hold power and sway for 30+ years, and develop the necessary payouts to his/her constituents to ensure his/her continued re-election. NO ONE argues that gov't is not necessary, if anarchy were to arise, a central(and most likely bad) power would certainly and quickly fill that void. But likewise, gov't is not neutral. It is a power based position, and by definition, every person involved in it, wants the power to control what others do. Thus it should be limited, and restrained. Right now, we don't have that because the two parties have developed a natural block against anything that threatens their status quo.

I have and always will be paranoid , but as they say, just because I am paranoid doesn't mean someone's not looking at me.
I agree that at this moment in time freedom of speech is well guarded, but it also is something that can disappear fairly quickly if a gov't that has big guns decides it doesn't like it.

Well who is it that does not have the political will to cut "something"? I would argue it is the established politicians and government bureaucracy that so firmly believes in it's own pre-eminence that it thinks that States and people could not somehow manage without the Federal government dictating. Gov't is innately power motivated. Can power be used for good? obviously, but human history has shown that it just as often, or more often, is not.

Trample the Elderly

It really doesn't matter. Our Congress is ceremonial for the most part. The gang bankster bosses write the legislature and the Congressmen and Senators just add pork to get relected. Then they get in front of the cameras and tell the public they're sticking it to the insurance industry, the banking industry, to Wall Street, etc. The sad thing is that many people can't see through it. "Why those Dems are for the little guy. Those greedy Republicans are in the pockets of big business". Or Vice Versa "Why those Democrats are a bunch of Socialist pigs. The Republicans are pro-family, pro-gun, and for fiscal responsibility!" I say it's BS. Meanwhile our manufacturing got shipped to China.

__________________
A funny thing happened on the way to the temple. The moneychangers bought the priesthood.

Chico23231

1.We gotta get some federal guidlines for some term f*ing limits for both the house and the senate. 2.And it would be nice if some way to keep special interest/lobbist/corporations moneys out of and away from capitol hill. Its a damn crying shame our reps' interest and concerns can be bought and sold...the founding fathers rolling in their graves to see how poor of political system this has become.

__________________
Ready for the Draft.

saden1

I can't think of a single reason how term limits would help. It's s lipstick on a pig solution at best.

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

CRedskinsRule

Term limits force new thinking, and re-evaluation of what the special interests are selling. They reduce the likelihood of political cronyism by limiting how long one can expect to get favors from a particular candidate. They would ensure that the people coming into any given office don't think of it as a life long future, but instead a relatively short term stop in their path of life(this has both good and bad sub points).

Interestingly the Roman Republic article from Wiki that I mentioned earlier also said that about this time in their development they enacted a form of what we refer to as term limits.

342BC would be 167 years after the marked beginning, or 55 years earlier in their society's development. I just find it historically interesting, I am not using it as justification or proof

saden1

To me an uninformed and unsophisticated public coupled with lobbyist and special interest nullifies the value of term limits. Politicians will still get free trips while in office and cushy jobs after they leave office from/with some special intrest group. Term limits only limits how long they have to do whatever the people pulling the strings want them to do and then the next guy comes in and the cycle is repeated.

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!