What do you think of...

[The Ratt]

the Tea Party Movement?

 

Wikipedia on the movement

Wikipedia on the Protests

Blog post making an interesting point about tea party

 

After reading this stuff and hearing about the Tea Party it really seems that it is a political movement directed at taxes that is drawing in the negative crowds of racism, anti-gay, and antisemitic. Either way though it is bringing two issues to the forefront of politics.

 

1. There is a significant class of people who are well off and either worked hard, or didn't work hard, to get where they are, who want it to stay that way. Possibly not considering what the government provides for them, or what other people are going through. This is nothing new and doesn't bug me this much.

 

2. There is a large undercurrent of racism/anti-gay/antisemitic in the population of America which is currently being ignored by popular culture. This is a large problem assuming that you support everyone in America having equal opportunity.

 

Thoughts?

[Lord Safey]

1. Your asking a large number of people to give up a way of life they have always know. Good luck with that.

 

2. Many of the racist people may view tea party as good way to push their agenda.

 

Ultimately I agree with the tea party one main thing and that is a government should not spend more then brings in.

 

I disagree with them on taxes a little bit. High taxes or low taxes are not necessarily good or bad. If government raises taxes above a certain point, businesses have less money to put back into expanding their businesses, people start hiding money from the IRS, and people just generally become less motivated to become better.

 

So as far as taxes its a balancing act keeping them high enough to pay for the a effective government and low enough it doesn't stifle the economy.

 

Also to legally protest with a firearm it must be unloaded and I have hear of incidents of successful peaceful protest done by black people with fire arms.

 

In conclusion the tea's party original motivations may have been pure but they have been corrupted by hate groups and politicians looking to woo potential voters.

[The Mystic]

I think I'll sit this one out, thank you very much; political discussions tend to get me into trouble around here.

[Acky]

From a political standpoint, I don't really agree with them. The core of their members are well off middle class families. From my understanding, the health care bill will help poor people primarily, while putting more stress on the upper and middle class families. Which is fine. I can understand them not wanting to loose money. But they seem to think that anyone can work hard and live the "American dream". This is not so. There is an alarmingly large percent of our population stuck in a cycle of poverty they cannot get out of. Still, I can't really hate them for trying to hold on to their money. I would certainly do the same if I was in their positions.

 

What I don't like is the constant, belligerent attacks they endure about their supposed racism. Its just flat out not true or accurate at all. Having actually been to a Tea Party rally, I didn't see anything hostile about it. It's a peaceful protest, if for reasons and means I don't agree with. Most of them were caucasian, true, but that's just because the majority of white people are better off financially, while black people are still integrating into "upper" society, (Of course, maybe if we didn't spend all our money on rims and liquor we'd actually have some money >_>) so it really isn't a racism problem.

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Lord Safey

1. Your asking a large number of people to give up a way of life they have always know. Good luck with that.

The top marginal income tax rate over time, including that proposed (but never enacted) for 2010
If you make more than $250,000 a year, but can't remember anything before 2000, then you may have to give up the life you've always known.

Originally Posted By: Ackrovan

What I don't like is the constant, belligerent attacks they endure about their supposed racism. . . . Most of them were caucasian, true, but that's just because the majority of white people are better off financially, while black people are still integrating into "upper" society, (Of course, maybe if we didn't spend all our money on rims and liquor we'd actually have some money >_>) so it really isn't a racism problem.

If most black people are lower-class and most white people are middle-class, then isn't a policy that favors the middle at the expense of the low racist?

[Cthulhu]

Aren't these the peoples complaining about rising taxes for themselves, when their own taxes have actually gone down?

[Acky]

But it hasn't gone down enough. Or so they claim.

[Cthulhu]

Enough? So their taxes go down, and they QQ about taxes not going down enough but they don't rejoice that they went down?

[Student of Trinity]

This is a potentially raucous thread, which will get locked if it gets out of hand, but should be able to live as long as it stays sane and civil.

 

Government spending is a big mystery. Nobody really knows what the rules are. It's not like a person or family or even a company running a deficit, because sovereign states contracting debts payable in their own currency can print the money if they need to. And collection agents aren't much help to a creditor when their debtor has a standing army. In fact, the only real leverage any creditors have on a sovereign debtor is refusing to lend more money in future. Even this is a pretty feeble threat; quite a few countries that have simply defaulted on their debts have really only had to wait a few years, maybe vote in a new governing party, before investors looking for good returns were lining up to buy their bonds again.

 

So, as much as one may like to say that 'we can't keep on borrowing money', in fact it's not easy to see why things can't just keep going on pretty much as they are, indefinitely. It's not a con if everybody on the planet is in on it. On the other hand, if everybody on the planet suddenly woke up with the conviction that greenbacks were worthless, they would be. So no-one really knows.

 

A scary aspect of this debate is the following. Suppose about a third of the people want to raise taxes, stop borrowing, and maintain government services (including the military as a major slice of services, in the US). Suppose another third want to lower taxes, stop borrowing, and cut services. And the remaining third want to lower taxes, borrow more, and maintain services. So what's the social consensus on the issues? Clear majorities favor lowering taxes, stopping borrowing, but maintaining services. That's impossible, and nobody is actually supporting it as a platform; everybody is offering a different workable compromise, instead. But with coalitions of opportunity voting together on each individual issue, every possible solution has two enemies, and the only common ground that emerges from the deadlock is a flat logical impossibility. That's the nasty, tightly knotted form of deadlock that can arise in a choose-two-of-three problem like this one.

[Lord Safey]

The borrowing will be forced to stop when the Chinese are no longer convinced we can pay them their money back. Being forced to stop in that manner could be potentially devastating to American and the world in general.

 

Found the video interesting

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: The Ratt

1. There is a significant class of people who are well off and either worked hard, or didn't work hard, to get where they are, who want it to stay that way. Possibly not considering what the government provides for them, or what other people are going through. This is nothing new and doesn't bug me this much.

2. There is a large undercurrent of racism/anti-gay/antisemitic in the population of America which is currently being ignored by popular culture. This is a large problem assuming that you support everyone in America having equal opportunity.

Really, neither one of these issues is new, or restricted to America, although the exact form they take depends on the time and place at which they appear. There has always been SOME kind of aristocracy, resources have never been equally distributed, and when people feel stressed they have always looked for somebody else, some other group, that they can blame.

[Ephesos]

This sums up my thoughts on the movement. Not to be taken seriously in the least, and likely to vanish as soon as one of their disciples does something incredibly stupid.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Sarachim

If most black people are lower-class and most white people are middle-class, then isn't a policy that favors the middle at the expense of the low racist?

In theory, it would just be classist. In practice, it is likely to intersect with some other element of society that is racist and then it will effect poor racial minorities more than it effects poor white people and the policy would end up being racist as well as classist.

Dikiyoba can't say anything about the Tea Party and racism definitely, but Dikiyoba is suspicious. As someone who currently lives in Arizona, Dikiyoba can tell you it's really, really easy to hide or justify racism behind economic arguments.

[Slawbug]

BRUTUS	Let 'em enter.
 

	[Exit LUCIUS]
 

	They are the faction. O conspiracy,

	Shamest thou to show thy dangerous brow by night,

	When evils are most free? O, then by day

	Where wilt thou find a cavern dark enough

	To mask thy monstrous visage? Seek none, conspiracy;

	Hide it in smiles and affability:

	For if thou path, thy native semblance on,

	Not Erebus itself were dim enough

	To hide thee from prevention.

[waterplant]

Originally Posted By: The Ratt

the Tea Party Movement?
Thoughts?

I bet they have nice cakes!

[cfgauss]

Tea party ideas are no more racist/classist/whateverist than democrats, republicans, libertarians, or whoever else. They're just new, and the media likes to focus on the crazy people.

 

The demographics of tea party people don't seem to be too unusual, either. IIRC, the last time I heard (a few months ago) it was like ~33% former republicans and ~%20 former democrats. Its members are apparently mostly middle-class, on average, but that's probably misleading since the media always report averages and not distributions. And the people in it seem to be generally more to the center than the republicans or democrats.

 

And it really doesn't have to do with taxes, although I guess that's how it started. It's really more about generically libertarian + economically conservative + socially moderate/liberal ideas. Although I don't think they really have an "official" ideology now, since they don't really like republicans or democrats, so they don't really have any "leaders" and don't seem to know what they really want yet.

 

But from what I've seen about the few tea party people who actually talk about their "ideals," they're nothing new. They're ideas that've been around since forever; it's just been a while since any specific group has had that particular combination of ideals (the democrats and republicans both used to, but not really anymore).

 

They just don't know it's new, it's new to them, I guess that's what matters?

 

So I'm not particularly impressed by what they're saying (well, I'm not impressed by the republicans or democrats, either!). But it would be nice to see it become an actual political group, since competition will at least have the potential to make politicians do a better job, regardless of what their ideas are.

[cfgauss]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

Government spending is a big mystery. Nobody really knows what the rules are. It's not like a person or family or even a company running a deficit, because sovereign states contracting debts payable in their own currency can print the money if they need to.

Right, but every dollar they print makes the dollars they use to pay it worth less. So printing money to pay off debts means your money is worth exponentially less relative to what it was worth before (aside from other factors that may influence the relative value of money).

Quote:

In fact, the only real leverage any creditors have on a sovereign debtor is refusing to lend more money in future.

Not true at all, there are serious economic problems in general. People will not trade with you if your money is worthless to them, and that's a big problem for countries who rely on lots of imports and exports. People also won't invest in your economy anymore, and foreign investors are a huge part of our economy, we'd be in big big trouble without them.

Quote:

Even this is a pretty feeble threat; quite a few countries that have simply defaulted on their debts have really only had to wait a few years, maybe vote in a new governing party, before investors looking for good returns were lining up to buy their bonds again.

Yeah, Russia only had to wait like a few months before oh what that totally didn't happen that way. But, hey, I'm sure at least Zimbabwe's going to do fine with its debt, printing more money to pay it off won't possibly cause hilarious levels of hyperinflation!

Quote:

So, as much as one may like to say that 'we can't keep on borrowing money', in fact it's not easy to see why things can't

Zimbabwe. Dozens of other hyperinflation filled countries. They are why.

Quote:

A scary aspect of this debate is the following.

Yeah, voting paradoxes are a problem, but in reality, no one starts with logical ideas anyway. So we start out with a bunch of groups with stupid ideas, and the compromise ends up being an idea that's just as stupid as its constituents .

This can of course be solved by electing intelligent people, who're capable of coming up with intelligent ideas and using the debate to actually improve their ideas, instead of just swapping out sub-ideas like nothing can possibly go wrong. (Like that's going to happen.)

[Rowen]

I only eat crumpets with my tea thank you very much.

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: cfgauss

Tea party ideas are no more racist/classist/whateverist than democrats, republicans, libertarians, or whoever else.

Nobody is more ever more racist than anybody else.

Quote:

The demographics of tea party people don't seem to be too unusual, either. IIRC, the last time I heard (a few months ago) it was like ~33% former republicans and ~%20 former democrats. Its members are apparently mostly middle-class, on average, but that's probably misleading since the media always report averages and not distributions. And the people in it seem to be generally more to the center than the republicans or democrats.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/...ml?ref=politics

The linked data, summarized: just over half Republicans, a third Independants, and a small number of Democrats. Compared to Americans in general, Tea Party supporters are more likely to self-identify as middle class but are in fact wealthier than average. They skew to the right of the American people on almost every issue, often far to the right, but believe that most Americans agree with their views.

It is obviously impossible to measure racism directly in a poll, but 52% say that too much has been made of the problems of black people, and 25% that the policies of the Obama administration favor blacks over whites. Both of these numbers are about double the national average.

Quote:

So I'm not particularly impressed by what they're saying (well, I'm not impressed by the republicans or democrats, either!). But it would be nice to see it become an actual political group, since competition will at least have the potential to make politicians do a better job, regardless of what their ideas are.

Or it could make politicians sink to their level.

[Alorael at Large]

The Tea Party is something of a lunatic fringe. Actually, it's just a fringe, but it itself has a fringe that is particularly loud and lunatic. In general, its biggest problem seems to be lack of unifying ideals. They want lower taxes and a smaller, more fiscally responsible government. They want to be left alone. They generally don't want to cut services. Two out of three problem.

 

—Alorael, who can see how printing money leads to economic catastrophe. The thing is, it's usually preceded by economic catastrophe too. He's seen many figures for safe borrowing in terms of percentage of GDP, and they're not even remotely similar. Some may be political grandstanding, but it seems like by and large the economists just don't know. International economies are complicated business. Maybe someone should try feeding all the world's economic data into an AI and see what happens.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Rowen

I only eat crumpets with my tea thank you very much.

No scones or biscuits?

You Americans sure know how to mess up tea, is all I'm saying.

[Enraged Slith]

[The Ninjas Doom]

Quote:

No scones or biscuits?

 

You Americans sure know how to mess up tea, is all I'm saying.

i know. and we dont make it good eather (in terms of brewing)

[Zummi]

How about The Iced Tea Party?

[grasshopper]

Is the Tea Party linked to Pat Buchanon?

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: cfgauss

But, hey, I'm sure at least Zimbabwe's going to do fine with its debt, printing more money to pay it off won't possibly cause hilarious levels of hyperinflation!

Zimbabwe had trouble printing more money because the company that was selling them the paper stock was told to stop by the European governments. That was the only fiscal restraint that they understood.

[Jerakeen]

Originally Posted By: cfgauss

...It's really more about generically libertarian + economically conservative + socially moderate/liberal ideas...

Faux libertarian. Real libertarians would be holding rallies to protest the new "papers please" law in Arizona. The Tea Party is quick to howl about imagined assaults on their liberty, but strangely silent about this real one.

They keep using that word. I don't think it means what they think it means.