Exactly, he'd be a lame duck President on inauguration day forward. Getting rid of the Fed, eliminating Federal Education $, etc. are horrible ideas and would garner no support regardless of party affiliation.

I have a severe problem with Anarchists pretending to be Libertarians.

Libertarians are NOT against regulations to create a fair marketplace and to limit one's impediment on another. One of the first cases by the Supreme Court (appointed by Washington himself), was the rule on water usage. One is allowed to damn a river on his property (for milling and textile use) ONLY when it does not prevent the free flow of water to the people who own property down river. It set in the earliest (purest) precedents the right of the local, state, and federal governments to regulate industry to prevent damage to another individual's property, industry, etc.

A relatively inactive president sounds pretty damned good right about now.

why?

It's too bad that the the Conservatives don't have their own cable news network to voice their opinions, or own all the talk radio in the country, or run hundreds of think tanks and thousands of blogs for the Conservatives to express their voices. Oh wait, they do.

For the second part, welcome to being the minority party. Maybe you remember how the left's character was assassinated for 8 years. The attacks from the left are nothing compared to what the right gave out during the Bush years. It's a classic case of being able to dish it out but not being able to take it.

They were "unaware" of the scope of the spending and deficit during the Bush years. If they had "known" they would have been "protesting" just as much as they are now.

/At least I think that is the line I've heard a few times. :)

Well, you know, governance is a lot like the market: if you let it do its thing, it will correct itself. Because, you know, they'd be rational and efficient if only you'd let things be as they may.

Ah, yes, bitch when nothing is being done, then bitch when it is.

You don't have it right. The Tea Party is about fiscal conservatism. You are mixing many different splintered points of view held by different groups. But, like most people I feel strongly about some things i.e., I support Tea Party principles, NRA principles, some libertarian principles, Constitutionalists principles, etc., but some come to the Tea Party with a different mix, some of which I don't support - but what we all have in common is the understanding that governmental spending and taxation is out of control. Certainly you have some who want to use the power of the Tea Party to promote their agenda on issues outside of the core of the Tea Party, but that is a given in any new populist movement. This is not complicated, why you, others and the media make the Tea Party things it is not is beyond my understanding.

it's because the "core principals" of the movement have long been pushed aside by the various talking heads who have consumed the party

What could one (or a few) people do about that, truly? I agree with Ace's summation of the movement and his assessment of the actions of those who dislike the movement. I also completely agree with Derwood.

I ABHOR the fact that Sarah Palin has become some sort of figurehead for the Tea Party Movement. There is NO WAY (sorry ,for the caps) that Sarah Palin could be the vice presidential nominee for John McCain and could endorse his 753rd run for Senator AND ALSO embody the principles of the Tea Party Movement. Yet, every TEA event I see on TV now has her speaking. Why?

What could have been a true grassroots movement has been hijacked and rebranded by politicians and the media.

The Tea Party only stands for one thing--run the negro out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Once primaries are done, and the November election cycle gets into full swing, the Tea Party is going to have to run on what they stand FOR, and not what they stand AGAINST. And the truth is, they don't have a platform, other than being opposed to whatever the White House has to say. Rand Paul is just the first to be called out; come election time, the Tea Party house of cards will topple over when it's shown it has no substance, just a lot of huffing and puffing.

From the very start is was astroturf sponsered by FreedomWorks. Later on Fox News became involved.

Palin is just an opportunist. She's in it for the money and anyone who doesn't see it is blinded by her populism. I think her support for McCain might be sincere because she owes him for her appearance on the scene. They pick her to speak at events because she appeals to populists and doesn't say a lot of things they are hard to understand. Talking about real problems and real solutions to those problems doesn't go over well on a podium.

At it's core, there may be sincere people in the tea party who are smart and really want to change things in a way that they think would be good for the country. But like most political movements most of it is made up of people who are just mad at the other party and want to wharrgarbl. I'm sure the vast majority of them think we could just balance the budget if we stopped the 'pork' which is why so many of them pounded on earmarks, despite them being such an insignificant part of the budget.

If people really want to be deficit hawks there are only two things we can do, cut services or raise taxes. Pick one or combine them but either way we need to do a LOT of it.

This sums it up very well.

The problem with the fiscal conservative ideology, and one they, through the Tea Party, refuse to acknowledge is simple.

You simply cant cut taxes AND cut spending AND reduce the deficit or debt AND have a vibrant, growing economy AND ensure some degree of regulatory oversight.

Those on the far right, including the tea party supporters, need to accept tax increases, and those on the far left need to accept spending cuts in discretionary programs (and the hard line neo-cons needs to accept that cutting defense does not make one UnAmerican or a supporter of terrorists)....and all sides need to step up and address entitlements with reform that will more than likely require limiting benefits AND increasing taxes.

Rigid ideologues offer great talking points....they cannot govern.....governing is the art of compromise and consensus building. I dont sense that many Tea Party followers are interested in compromise or building consensus...ideologues rarely are.

---------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 PM ----------

Oh and I agree the Tea Party movement has become an astroturf, faux populist movement....the original intent may have been noble, but, because it was a movement w/o a leader, it has been co-opted.

This is getting old. There are racists in the Tea Party, Libertarian Party and Republican Party, and even in whatever party you belong to, but generally the US is not a nation of racists - nor is the memberships of the Tea Party, Libertarian Party and Republican Party. Today most people are focused on issues other than race. It is 2010, just because someone disagrees with Obama does not make them a racist.

---------- Post added at 11:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 PM ----------

I think you can have all of the above. First, the concept of "cut taxes" has more to do with the establishment of a fair tax code consistent with a clearly defined role for the federal government and then on down the line to all taxing entities. Reasonable people can disagree on this point - but I don't know of anyone who is not willing to pay their fair share of taxes. The few on the extreme end are rare.

Reduction of the deficit or debt comes from first having a vibrant and growing economy. A vibrant and growing economy can easily be achieved through government maintaining an environment consistent with economic growth and innovation. Reasonable regulation is not at odds with economic growth and innovation, in fact our economy requires regulation. However, it is important the regulation adds security and stability to markets. In many cases regulation favors some over others and this restricts competition and actually hurts the economy. An example is financial reform that will consolidate the banking industry at the expense of small and regional institutions - this is why many big firms are not really in the fight against what Congress is doing.

Show me 100 people and I'll show you 100 definitions of what "fair share of taxes" means

Correct. I would start by saying taxation should be correlated to the actual costs to society for activities that can not be assigned to specific people or groups. Hence, in my view taxes should not support things like PBS, or perhaps that the HS grad making $80,000 a year busting his a$$ spending weeks away from home driving a truck should not have his tax dollars used to support folks going to a university so they can graduate, get high paying white collar jobs and then look down on blue collar workers. Things like that is where I would start.

I'm sorry, ace, but that's not a very convincing argument against public support for universities. Then again, I'm not one to be won over by such emotional appeals (especially considering I know of several white-collar workers who bust their asses for well under $80,000 a year).

Are you saying, generally, that taxation should be à la carte?

But if it weren't for people going to university and getting high paying white collar jobs (a scenario that was probably more apt a few years ago) that truck driver wouldn't have a job.

And if taxation were correlated to actual costs to society, that truck driver might end up paying a bit more in taxes due to the pollution associated with a diesel truck for several house a day for weeks at a time.

Rand Paul reminds me of Ralph Wiggum.

It is interesting to note how Rand Paul is now complaining that the media is distorting his message whilst purposefully avoiding any situation where he might be obligated to clarify his message.

He'd deserve more respect if he were to just come out and say "Yes, I think businesses have the right to discriminate against anyone they choose and that includes white owned busineesses refusing to serve minorities." He knows that the more familiar people get with his actual positions the less likely it is that he gets elected. This kind of sums up the libertarian position in general: the less you know about the specifics, the better it seems.

This would be a more believable position if the Tea Party weren't willing to get in bed with anyone and everyone, as long as they oppose Obama. Or are all the racist signs that are so popular at Tea Party rallies plants by the left? I don't see the Tea Party trying very hard to purge the racists from their ranks, so I have to assume that a little racism is okay by them, so long as Obama fails.

Democrats found it extremely difficult to purge their ranks of 9/11 Truthers who swore Bush planned and executed the attacks to forge a phony war just a couple of years ago....

I'm no friend of the Tea Partiers... but kettle/pot.

i'm really confused by that seaver. who are these people you are talking about? i've spent most of my adult life involved with left politics well beyond what you think exists and i know no-one credible who ran that particular conspiracy theory line about 9/11. it sounds to me like a bit of ultra-right relativism the sort of thing that limbaugh's made a career of.

so what are you talking about?

Ron (as opposed to Rand) Paul and many of his supporters when he ran for president in 08?

Jesse Ventura, Alex Jones?

Look people look at the Tea Party movement as a large group of the Right... . Throughout most of Bush's years, poll after poll put out that while only 1/4 of all Americans believed there was a 9/11 conspiracy, upwards of 40-60% of Democrats believed there was.

That's not saying that Democrat leaders believed there was any truth in this bunk... but many of their supporters did. Maybe it is relativism to point out there's batshit insane people on both sides... the best we can do is keep them penned.

Unfortunately after the resounding defeat the Dems got in 02 and 04 their party fractured and the loonies took over. Right now we're seeing the same on the Right.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about. That, or you quoted the wrong post.

It's quite simple: inaction can be better than foolish action.

Or... he doesn't believe that the action is foolish.

I'm sure he doesn't, but that quote is still presumptuous and clumsy.

The problem is that the batshit crazy people are the ones the press loves to show us, it appeals to emotion and drags politics down to its lowest common denominator which bumps up the ratings. Sarah Palin is money, Birthers, Tea Partiers are money, 9/11 truthers are money, controversy, conspiracies and so forth. Level headed debate over tax policies, foreign affairs and education is "boring", relegated to the back pages and used as filler between the real stories. The sad thing is neither party seems to make any real attempt at purging themselves of the lunatic fringe which only assists in making them that much more valid in the publics eye and the vicious circle continues.

But what does that really mean? Has "crazy" politics become the norm because its the only way to stay visible as a politician once you've lost power and in turn all the public finds interesting? I suppose the real question is why we find it so interesting and why we aren't simply dismissing the loons en masse for more important and relevant issues. It is a troubling trend to say the least.

The truly dangerous people are those who are planning and scheming in the shadows while the public is being distracted by the non-stories (Karl Rove being the prime example)

seaver: i dont dispute that there were people who thought that way about the trade center. but that stuff was not used by the democratic party or any other political organization that i'm aware of to mobilize people, nor was it an aspect of anything like the tea party movement. i was pretty active in the anti-war movement, went to a ton of demos and it's not the case, no matter what you'd prefer to believe, that the conspiracy-theory set had anything like a public face within it. so there's no parallel. the right has gotten in bed with the lunatic fringe. personally, so long as they do not get into power i think it's funny.

but i worry about these lunatics getting power.

think early 30s germany.

I have to agree with Roachboy here, it doesn't seem like the Dems crawl into bed with the crazy, lunatic fringe quite as often or at least if they do it doesn't seem to garner as much press.

I do think we are heading in the general direction of putting the lunatic fringe in power though (Bush was pretty cozy with it in my opinion). As long as we as a nation continue validating "crazy" politics it will stay visible and relevant. How much of a step is that from the white house or a majority of congress?

Perhaps we should start another thread. It is not the best argument, I simply have a bias against "intellectual" types, and those who leach off of hard working people and then say stuff about how they cling to their guns and religion in a condescending manner.

No, I think people who use goods and services (even those provided by government) should pay for them. When costs to society can not be allocated to specific individuals or groups each tax payer should pay their fair share, for example national defense or on a local level police and fire. On the other-hand people who use universities for their betterment or national parks for enjoyment should pay for it to the degree that the benefit to the individual is greater than the benefit to society.

how very pol pot of you ace.

I can be honest, how about you?

{added} And, why did you copy only a portion of my statement, the entire statement was not very long?

All of this is still not a very good argument. (Not even close to the best.) It assumes that all university graduates are intellectuals and that all intellectuals suck the marrow out of the working class and spit them out like remnants, when it is such the case that university is the new high school.

Please do start a thread about it, as I think we've wandered off topic here.

because, ace, in a series of absurd statements that stood out.
if you want to play start another thread please.

I don't think it makes sense to divide up economic roles like that. Society can benefit collectively from a well educated workforce in many ways.

Ace, I just want to reiterate what Baraka said here - $80k is a considerable income. Median personal income in the US was under $32k in 2007. Most white-collar jobs in the US don't pay more than $80k.

Can you answer this question? What role should tax policy play in our nation?

I have libertarian and strict Constitutional leanings as I address the question. I think many are afraid to address the question honestly for some reason. If I supported the use of tax policy for the redistribution of wealth among other things, I would say that. I think Obama hold the view that among other things tax policy should be used for wealth redistribution, but he runs from that position. Why?

---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 PM ----------

In the example I gave (long haul truck driver) there are basically two type, those that are self-employed and those who drive for others as an employee. A self employed truck driver can make $80k gross, however the net would be less. This is a guy who work his a$$ off to put himself in a position to own his own rig, and he works his a$$ off to keep things going. He is away from home weeks at a time, he is generally going to be an NRA member, beer drinking, NASCAR fan, average Joe who spends a lot of time listening to talk radio and being insulted by latte drinking, highly educated, liberals. He is the guy who is the backbone of this country, he is the guy who wants a piece of the American dream. But he is also the target of liberals in the areas of tax policy, regulation, gun rights, he is often called racist, etc. He is very interested in the Tea Party. He simply want to keep more of what he works for, without people who he supports in many ways being condescending.

Well, if I were to try, it wouldn't be something you could sum up with facile folksy parables about the noble blue collar worker's suffering at the hands of the college educated.

Because Obama is a politician, and politicians are typically more concerned with maintaining and consolidating their own power than being honest.


I think it's awesome that you dismiss those "latte drinking, highly educated, liberals" for stereotyping long haul truck drivers in a paragraph where you very extensively stereotype long haul truck drivers. While you're entitled to your opinion here, I don't think it fits in a serious discussion- it's pointless to argue with you about things that only exist in your head.

Here's a little secret for you: conservatives go to college and drink lattes too. They also are frequently intellectual. Sometimes (read a lot of the time) they even create self serving narratives about people to bolster their own opinions (see: aceventura).