Taking The Tea Party For Granted

I admit it and am actually proud to be called a Tea Party member. I remember the times of 2009, as the movement began to grow and why it grew. Attending the rally of 912 was a magnificent experience. It was also a peaceful one as compared to some of the things being witnessed lately. One arrest according to my recollection and that was a left wing loon who took it upon herself to slap a Tea Partier. Why do I say it was magnificent? Awesome would be a better word because here were hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of my fellow Americans who gathered in the nation's Capitol to let our elected officials know that enough is enough. It was pooh-poohed by The Lame Stream Media and mocked by the President of our nation.

At end of the clip below, Dennis Miller gives an appropriate commentrary concerning Smirksalot's statement about tea bags. He pissed me off immensely when he took it upon himself to spout off since he didn't have the gonads to stick around that weekend in September and face the crowd that assembled. Instead he took it upon himself to fly off to Minnesota to have another pep rally. We saw him fly away in his fancy helicopter and waved bye-bye to him.

What is interesting is that we are accused of being racists, fascists, far right wing goons and every other epitaph the left wingers and Lame Stream Media can possibly heap upon us. But one thing should now be perfectly clear after the November 2010 elections when we waved our tea bags at the polls and shellacked the idiots in Washington - we're not going away. Here's what Harry Reid had to say about the disappearance of The Tea Party. Was he paying he attention then? Is he paying attention now? I'll get to the Republicans in a minute. But Harry needs to know that we aren't going to just disappear.

Wishful Thinking

Why, Frog, why won't ya'll just go away and let the rest of us continue down the path of destroying the best nation on earth to live in without all the commotion? What most people who oppose the movement don't understand is the mix of the movement. It is comprised of what is affectionately known as The Silent Majority (TSM). Harry, TSM is just getting revved up good after watching this circus you are conducting in Foggy Bottom and we sent a rather loud message which appears to have fallen on deaf ears, including the Republican Party's leadership. Rather than disappear, we continue to gain strength and will continue on our course of action and the agenda of righting the USS Constitution. The Tea Party is all about the adherence to running the ship of state according to that document - that is the primary agenda. If this was to have been done in the past, we wouldn't find ourselves in the mess we are in now. If we all demand - left to right and all those in between - that our elected officials ensure that the nation's business is conducted using that document as their guide then we just may have a solid chance of turning this thing around.

Here's the rub. The Democrats took TPM for granted, and we turned many of them out. The far left loons who are from far left loon lands were safe. They didn't get any of the message that was sent. They, like old Harry, think it's just a passing fad. It isn't my fellow Americans. This Hub will now swing over to discuss the Republican Party and the attitude that seems to be prevalent. The mandate sent to Washington when 63 TPM backed candidates were sent to Washington was rather specific and those candidates were sent with an agenda. Up there at the top was repealing, or defunding, Obamacare. Next up is to cut all this excessive spending that very soon will have the wheels falling off of our nation as we rush headlong into financial disaster. It's coming if we don't do something about it and do something about it now rather than kicking the can down the road expecting things to just get better.

Imagine this scenario. You're out in the middle of the desert and you're dying of thirst. Off in the distance you see a cloud of dust approaching you. As it nears you, you see that Chief RINO Boehner is at the wheel of a water truck but are aghast that he has his war bonnet on backwards. All over the rig, like ants, are his "yes men." On the side of the truck's tank is stenciled in bright red letters - POLITICAL WATER CARRIERS, INC. Now you're dying of thirst mind you. The truck rumbles to a halt and Chiefy Boehner grins at you and asks, "You called?" You reply, "Thank God you're here." He looks sternly at you, with tears in his eyes, and says this: "I'd like to help you out but you don't understand. You don't know how things work up here in Foggy Bottom," to which his merry band of RINOs chuckles and throw elbows into each other ribs as they hee haw at you. With that, he slams the truck into gear and roars off into the distance, leaving you thirstier than you were in the first place and now extremely pissed off.

My thesis here is about the Republican Party leadership themselves taking The Tea Party Movement for granted. I would suggest to them that they don't do that. The shellacking that they took this past November might appear mild to the shelling that could occur in 2012. It is appearing that in all likelihood that it is occurring. We very well might not know "how things work up there." One thing is for sure though. We know how things aren't working up there and want the business as usual crap to stop. We sent the water carriers to Washington to switch drivers, not to have the same old, same old shoved down our throats. One might expect that from Democrats. But we called for real change and not a bunch of fancy rhetoric. Many were bamboozled in 2008 and now many have taken the blinders off and are scratching their noggins and uttering, "This isn't the kind of change we either wanted nor expected." You see folks, in the political arena the more things seem to change, the more they stay the same. We just don't "understand?" Many of us do and don't like what we continue to see.

RINOs should beware. We have you in our sights. The assumption is being made that Tea Party members loyalty is to the Republican Party and that they won't vote for a Democrat. Now I don't know if that is true or not, I have met some concerned Democrats at Tea Party events. I, being a registered Independent, sure don't have that mindset. What these Democrat-Lite types may find is that in the coming elections they are faced with being challenged by actual conservatives, versus faux ones like themselves, with fiscally conservative values if they don't pluck their heads out of their third point of contact. Start walking the walk if you're going to talk the talk. We have let it be known that Chiefy Boehner's job itself may be on the chopping block, as are the likes of Senators Lugar and McConnell. Boehner needs to at this time be charged with reckless driving.

The mandate was to either real or defund Obamacare, cut spending and cut it as deeply as needed to get us out of this fiscal quagmire, cut the federal bureaucracy (that's where the majority of our tax dollars are being gobbled up), limit the size of the government and return to the principles of individual freedom and responsibility, insure this nation remains a sovereign nation and above all run things IAW the US Constitution. Those are all conservative values and the reality of the situation is that the majority of the populace of this country considers themselves to be of this flavor. I will now back link to my previous article called "Being A Conservative" in case you missed it.

Common sense tells people we obviously can't continue to sustain what we have been doing for decades - spending money we don't have. Eventually the ink runs dry. There is no free lunch. You aren't really entitled to anything except that which you are willing to work for. Being a conservative isn't a bad thing atall. Try it. You might find you like it. If one reads what I wrote in the conservative article, carefully and with an open mind, you just might find that is how you run your household on a daily basis, be you a lefty or a righty or somewhere in between on the political spectrum of life, especially in the fiscal arena. Is it really too much to ask that our government operate under the same principles that we have to adhere to?

Personally, I think not.

Have an awesome weekend.

The Frog

More by this Author

  • "Ineptocracy" Is A Word
    18

    Ineptocracy is the new system of government that Obama-Biden ushered in. It is a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society...


Comments 89 comments

dahoglund profile image

dahoglund 5 years ago from Wisconsin Rapids

I have not had the opportunity to go to one of the big rallies, but I am all for the tea party.The Republican party has become,I think, complacent. As far as being attacked by the liberal, take it as a positive. They attack because they are afraid.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

dahogklund - They shouldn't be afraid. What they should be is grateful that the majority of Americans are willing to extend their hand and offer to help them out of the mess that has been created.

If their fear is that the goodie basket is going to disappear then that might have some merit. We can no longer sustain the path we've been on for so long.

The Frog


Hmrjmr1 profile image

Hmrjmr1 5 years ago from Georgia, USA

Frog - Well done though I think the labeling of the other Repubs all RINO's is a stretch at this point. The Tea Party Caucus constitutes 22% of the current majority in the house, but has to get things through the Senate and the Pres who are firmly not in their (or Our) camp. Gotta be a bit of give and take on this year and then move forward with next years, which by all accounts they will be happier with. But in the world of politics I'm sure they will find reasons to be unhappy, as will the dems and libs.

See how it rolls out its getting more and more 'interesting' (are we blessed or cursed with interesting times?) Have a great weekend.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

FP -Up and Awesome on this one. We are in the biggest mess this country has ever seen, and it is only getting worse. The loudest screams of protest seem to be coming from the entitlement crowd. Even some fairly hard left Democrats have taken note of where we are headed and don't like it. In my mind many of these entitlements are nothing more than hush money. If you sit back and say nothing, your monthly check will continue to arrive in the mail right on schedule. If you start making noise about what is going on in government, your monthly check might just disappear. Then you would have to find a job and work for a living. But wait, there are no jobs to be had.

I learned the other day that Foreign Aid is all lumped together in one package. In other words, we can't drop a country off this list just because they hate us, and are doing their level best to destroy us. Nope, they are on the gimmie list and they get their Foreign Aid money right on schedule. Now what idiot came up with this plan? Knowing how wrong this is and how much waste is involved, should we not be working to change this policy? In plain English we borrow money to GIVE to our worst enemies. But then we spend months looking at a budget wondering where we can cut some expenses.

For those who don't understand, Social Security is not an entitlement. Working people pay into this system, and employers are required to match their contribution dollar for dollar.

Medicare fraud is blooming better than ever, yet rarely is anything investigated or prosecuted. Gee, if we tightened up controls on Medicare fraud and saved some billions of dollars it might help our budget.

The department of education has been doing such a fine job the US is now ranked #25 in the world for educational standards. Yet they want more money TO NOT DO THEIR JOB. Fact is they ought to be held accountable and people fired if results don't improve. But the current solution is to give them MORE money and HOPE things improve.

I could go on for days about different issues, but won't. The sad thing is all of these are fixable once someone is willing to admit we have a problem. Our elected representatives are not doing their job and looking out for the citizens of this country. They are only concerned with their own welfare and getting re-elected. A new kid on the block is quickly spoiled when he/she is thrown into a barrel full of rotten apples.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Poolman - Days of writing could occur and will I am sure.

Want to make some cuts? Try abolishing these departments and let the states handle it when, or if, they need to:

Department of Education

Department of Energy

Department of Labor

HUD

Department of Commerce

Of course the "Jobs For Friends" people would be rolling around and howling.

Hmrjmr - I didn't label all Republicans as RINOs, but it is becoming very apparent who they are. They can only hide for so long.


mslizzee profile image

mslizzee 5 years ago from Buncombe County, NC

Tea partiers, (like you and me) are not over our anger, and we are not going away and there are a lot of us. It may take awhile but we will turn this country around. Thank you for your comments, and ditto.

Lizzee


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 5 years ago from Rural Arizona

It seems like once a department is formed, it only grows is size, and cost, as time goes on. Performance or need is not part of the equation. Once it exists it is there forever.


rkhyclak profile image

rkhyclak 5 years ago from Ohio

Nice hub, Frog.I made the comment on my hub last night that as millions of Americans are working themselves to the bone to try to get out of personal debt, it's a shame our government can't channel that hard work and self-control to work to get us out of the insane national debt we're strapped with.

In the past I've labeled myself as a Republican, simply because I knew I didn't like what (most) Democrats stood for and wasn't sure what was left. The more I learn about the TPM and see the majority of the type of people that are involved, the more I can identify. I, like you, believe the Constitution needs to protected and upheld. It is the way our country is meant to be governed. I so hope that significant changes can be made in 2012, it's certainly time for it. I think it's safe to say, "We The People of The United States Are Sick of The Shenanigans!"


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

rkhclak - As we toil, they seem to want to fiddle. A politician will always be a politician and it is past time that we look at any, and all, of them closely.

The common man has more common sense then a basket full of the idiots sitting up there. They obviously don't believe in leading by example. Welcome to The Tea Party Movement.


Carpefriggingdiem profile image

Carpefriggingdiem 5 years ago

"RINOs should beware. We have you in our sights."

Stifle yourself, FP. That will be taken as a threat of some kind by the loons. Haaaa. But it's true, symbolically . . . for now.

I called our rep yesterday. My message---shut 'er down. The public is a lot more aware right now of why the feds SHOULD BE shut down than they were when Clinton was president. I told the person I talked to that there are a lot of us who are a whole lot happier when nobody---Repubs or Dems---are "getting things done." For our money, we'd rather have complete frigging deadlock.


Pegasis 5 years ago

For every nickel that is on the cutting block there are thousands of screams about why this particular entitlement must continue or dire consequenses will follow. Horribly sad stories abound.

Houston TX is currently in the throes of state cuts to education. Schools are to be closed. Teachers fired. Horrible things will happen. But no one mentions that a part of that budget is for free school breakfasts and lunches. And during breaks such as "Winter Break", "Spring Break", and in the summer--that free food not only is continued, but is increased. It is packaged and driven to the home of each student. And because many students have siblings, enough is sent to the home that the siblings also receive free food.

I don't want little kids to go hungry either. Most of the recipients are 'minorities', probably the majority of these are illegal aliens. I would bet that more than ninety per cent of these homes are already subsidized by the taxpayers--at the least they receive food stamps. So why is this not enough to provide their children with food?

According to NumbersUSA, research has shown that on average each illegal alien family in the US receives $19,500 per year of taxpayer subsidies. In 2008, the remittances from Mexican illegal aliens provided a whopping seventeen per cent of the total budget of Mexico--and then there were all the other American dollars for this and that our government sends to Mexico. Yet it is now being said that the best way to curb the inflow of illegal aliens from Mexico is to send them more money, so they don't feel the need to come here to "persue the American dream." Oh, and we can't afford to build the fence along ghe Southern Border.

This is just one comparatively tiny instance of the insanity we endure over the disperal of our tax dollars. Our wealth is being redstributed at an ever growing pace.

I had to laugh recently at the whine of a WI teacher who was upset that now she and her husband will now need to spend %600.00 per month at their income level to pay that small percentage now required toward their own health care. Seems the libs don't like redistribution one whit better than conservatives when it affects their pocketbooks.

It has got to stop. And the Tea Party is so far the most effective force to slow them down. Let's keep booting them out of office and replacing them until they finally get the message. If we can survive financially for that long.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Carpe - The Right Righteous James Clyburn is my rep unfortunately. I sent the "shut er down" to him and as usual I got back a letter telling me how great Obama is doing.

Pegasis - Now you know me. I belong to NumbersUSA too and I'm following along waiting to pounce. Numbers is good at spotting the stuff they try to fly under the radar. But the fact is that il;legal immigrsation is a serious problem to the federal and state budgets in this nation.

I have an idea for budget cuts. Deport all of them. What a nice dent that would make in the bloated fiasco they call budgeting.

The Frog


junkseller profile image

junkseller 5 years ago from Michigan

I don't see the problem with the Tea Party being about their fiscal responsibility policy or calls to cut spending. They get into trouble when they start talking about HOW to cut the budget (such as deporting all illegal immigrants). And I'm not really arguing either way on that but it does put them on a particular side.

I'm curious if for instance a fiscally responsible democrat who wanted to cut defense spending in half would be accepted at a Tea party rally. I tend to think they would get beat up.

When they start with a platform of fiscal responsibility and then end up with fiscally questionable social policy recommendations I think they taint the purity of their (alleged) purpose.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

junkseller - What has to be done to right the ship is going to cause some pain, not really some but a whole lotta pain in certain instances. In the illegal immigrant arena, I would rather someone here illegally soaking up the bennies feel the pain before my fellow Americans.

Sides are going to have to be taken and dealt with in this country, rather than kicking the can down the road in a pattern of what I term "political football."

Again social policies enter into fiscal restraint. It's all part of the mix. We can't afford to keep supporting the freeloaders found within our society and they are there my friend.

If one bothers to read the US Constitution closely, the primary role of the federal government is the defense of our nation . It's right there in black and white. Wasteful defense spending, and believe me I can tell you stories that are pathetically telling in that arena, needs to be cut.

But I can also tell you that Bill Clinton's reduction of 50% troop strength was an unwise decision. I'm not a war monger, but I am also realistic in facing the fact that the world isn't a safe place. I don't see it being all hold hands and everyone singing Kumbaya in our life times either. But I know what the founding fathers intended when they penned to role of the fed in national defense into that document. They meant it to be the primary role, not secondary.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Frog,

A great piece, and one I wholeheartedly agree with. The TPM is a revolution. Not a physical one in the sense of 230 years ago, but one born of the same spirit. We are fighting to eradicate central tyranny, one that theatens to destroy our nation financially and ideologically, just as in the days of the Founding Fathers.

The GOP ignores the TPM to its own peril. As grassroots TPM membership grows, more and more GOP centrists will be replaced with constitutional constructionists like Marco Rubio and Mike Lee. Further, the slate of state boards of electors (the citizens who sign up to approve party supported candidates and members of the RNC upper ranks) are only 50% occupied nationwide. As this fact becomes more widely known, I have no doubt that TPM activists will apply to fill many of the vacancies, denying RINO's the opportunity to even run on the GOP ticket or make RNC decisions to support centrists over conservatives.

Stu


Pegasis 5 years ago

junksellar: My comment above was intended to demonstrate a miniscule portion of the whacky mandates of our government which are small leaks that when multiplied lead to huge amounts off money lost by taxpayers.

I do not support the deprotation of all illegal aliens. I think we must change idiotic programs and thinking processes so that they self deport. Cut off the goodies they receive here, and they will leave. Mandate e-verify and keep the jobs for legal immigrants and US citizens. The pay would then be appropriately taxed and spent in employee communities rather than sent out of the country. Stop any form of subsidy to any other than US citizens. Ditto drivers licenses and any form of identification other than a green card. No more in-state rates for college tuition. Change the law regarding free public education and charge tuition for any child not a citizen. No more ESL. While some of these children do well in school, most do not. Their drop out rate is 75% in some areas, and the effort to educate them with the No Child Left Behind program is dumbing down our schools to the point where our choldren are falling behind other countries, including those that only provide education up the the age of sixteen years old.

No more free health care, either. When an illegal alien shows up at an ER, stabilize and repatriate. Today we have many illmesses that had previously been eradicated in this country back , and in a form that does not respond well to current tretments.

Finally, secure the border. If Mexico wants yhe continuation of US dollars, make certain THEY secure their side of the border, and do make sure they do a damned good job of it,too, or no more US cash. They want to blame Americans for the drug cartels and the number of guns entering the country, this would be the front line for both countries.

That leaves the criminals and gangs. Prosecute, lock them up, then deport after their sentence is served. No parole. And while they are locked up, they earn their keep. Miminimal health care, just the basics.

Curtailing expenditures on illegal aliens will not solve our budget problems. There is plenty more we could do. Think Octomom and the amount of cash we spent on her fertility treatments, peri-natal hospital bills and the ongoing support she receives because some of her children were born damaged due to her and the state's stupidity.

Cut the salaries, health care and retirement of congress and other government workers. And their perks. Who can forget Pelosi's private jet paid for by taxpayers?

There are myriad other small (by comparison) places where money is wasted and we need to stop those leaks and dramatically cut more and more from the budget. Otherwise we will be unable to continue to exist. Just today I learned that China is determinedly buying up our aviation companies inside our borders.

We had all better open our eyes and do what we must. The recent demonstrations in WI are small potatos; today 250,000 people are demonstrating in London due to budget and goverment job cuts. In Germany, 200,000 thousand are today demonstrating against nuclear power plants. We Americans cannot escape the money crunch, but we can begin some sensible ways to save wasted money and look for other places to cut the budget.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Junkseller,

We are now spending over $100 billion per year to support illegals (social benefits, incarceration costs, etc.). They are also taking jobs away from legal residents during a major jobs recession. The reality is that they ALL need to be expelled.

Cutting defense spending is necessary. Apart from pure waste (admittedly, much of which has been remediated), we must refocus our military objectives to tactical ones (deterrance) from strategic (toppling governments). This would permit far greater relative reliance on automation, air power, and sea power, and far less reliance on ground troops. The cost savings would be enormous. Yes, it would leave us more vulernable to a major attack, but we are so deep in the financial hole that civil service cuts and broadening the tax base will not alone be able to generate the surpluses we need to pay off the official national debt. Ground troop strength must be cut too (military spending is too big a percentage of the federal budget to leave untouched and at the same time dig our way out the federal debt crisis).

Stu


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Pegasis - Wonderful comment and spot on.

Stu - Clinton's decision is, was and always will be a disaster. It has led to an unsustainable troop rotation that is wearing our our armed services members out and takes a horrible toll on their families. God bless our troops.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Pegasis, great post. I've made many of the same points here and on other blog systems. Brilliant minds think alike! :)


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 5 years ago

Frog

My profile, neither democraat nor republican, the loyal party member is the root cause of a non accomplishing Congress.

The Flip Flop of democrat/repulbican control and back doesn't accomplish much for the people.

Illegal Aliens cause several issues for the country.

A threat to National Defense in that they can get easily get across the border, along with any one else.

Illegal Aliens are not going through the Immigration Process like millions of leal immigrants have done. While the immigrants going through the immigration process are turend away in large numbers, large numbers of illegals come into the country.

This large number of citizens from other countries drain our economy, and many may even partake in elections.

This is not helpful to the country.

The size and scope of the governments, Federal, State and Local far exceeds its necessary levels. Every government employee is a TAX Burden and they should get no more or no less than people working in the private sector.

my opinion..

Thanks


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

OD - From my research, federal employees seem very over compensated. My ex still works for the FAA and makes a killing if compared to what an admin assistant makes in the private sector.

It seems to graduate down as you move from fed to state to local in pay scale. The benefits packages all receive need a severe look see. As do the lifetime bennies Congressmen make even if they only serve one term. What a friggin racket.


junkseller profile image

junkseller 5 years ago from Michigan

Bush was not fiscally responsible. He increased spending. Conservatives will argue that it was alright because it was spent on ideologically acceptable endeavors (defense).

Democrats have also (obviously) been willing to spend money on ideologically acceptable endeavors (entitlements). The point I wanted to make is that fiscal responsibility is separate from one's ideological position. The Tea Party doesn't seem to separate them very well. They pretty strongly tend to have a conservative ideology. All I was really trying to say is that their position may in fact be stronger if they were fiscal purists. As it is now there is no way of knowing whether they really care about fiscal responsibility or of it is simply a tool to achieve a desired ideological outcome.

The Tea Party, by leaning in a particular direction, doesn't create a dialogue which includes everyone who shares their fiscal concerns. I meant my comments more as a question than a statement. You were making the argument that they were being taken for granted and I was just offering the possibility that perhaps it is because their fiscal message is too intertwined with their ideological tendency. The question than being, would they be better off with an ideological neutral position?

I didn't really intend to have a debate about immigration (to which I am unqualified) I was just using it as one example of ideology vs. fiscal responsibility. Like defense tends to be.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

JS - Conservatives won't argue that it was alright. Faux conservatives may advance that argument but not a conservative. Obama has increased the debt he took over by 3 trillion dollars, and counting, in a 2 year span. That is unacceptable.

I don't think you understand the link between fiscal responsibility and social issues. It isn't a matter of purism in the least.

It's okay to agree to disagree. The TPM is a grass roots movement, it isn't a political party, so sometimes drawing a line is useless in trying to say what is pure and what isn't. I've been associated with the movement from the onset so I understand what the basic stances are. It all started around the time of the Stimupork bill and has gained momentum since its advent.


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 5 years ago

Frog Prince

Thanks, I agree.


TheGroundsquirrel profile image

TheGroundsquirrel 5 years ago

I have penned this song as my T.E.A. Party anthem. If I decide to get drunk, I may even sing it for youtube.

Wind whistles from my weatherstrip,

on another lonely trip.

It's off to work as down the road I go.

It's just another hectic day,

here in the good old U S A.

Payin' my tax the only way I know.

Hard labor . . . . hard labor.

Payin' my tax the only way I know.

If you don't have a better plan,

come on down give me a hand.

Payin' my tax the only way I know.

Some folks they said they'd had enough.

They decided to get tough,

and march on Washington, that's in D.C.

They said that there just ain't no way,

here in the good old U S A,

they're goin' to tax the life right out of me.

Hard labor . . . . hard labor.

They're goin' to tax the life right out of me.

If you don't have a better plan,

come on down give me a hand.

They're goin' to tax the life right out of me.

Now this great nation has a plan.

It's called The Constitution and,

it stands for what is right and strong and free.

Sometime soon there'll be a day,

here in the good old U S A,

we'll stand and holler "no more tax on me!".

Hard labor . . . . hard labor.

We'll stand and holler "no more tax on me!".

If you don't have a better plan,

come on down give me a hand.

We'll stand and holler "no more tax on me!"

If you don't have a better plan,

come on down give me a hand.

We'll stand and holler "no more tax on me!"


junkseller profile image

junkseller 5 years ago from Michigan

I don't know what I supposedly don't understand so I can't comment on that. And being that I haven't disagreed with you it seems like we just aren't communicating clearly for some reason.

My point was that the the Tea Party as I understand it advocates both fiscal responsibility AND a conservative ideology (strict constitutionalism, anti-immigration, and strong national defense). But, a conservative ideology is not necessarily or automatically fiscally responsible (defense for instance). Therefore, the Tea Partiers are NOT fiscal purists (fiscal responsibility is not their only concern).

And that is fine. I am not in any way arguing against that or criticizing them. I'm happy to have another player in the game (I hate the two-party system).

But, as long as they hold to both of those values they remain a subset of the conservative movement. They do not have the ability to reach across the fence and engage fiscally responsible liberal minded individuals.

Such an individual could for instance put forth a budget that encouraged immigration, had huge reductions in defense spending, held steady on entitlement spending and was fiscally responsible (i.e. spent less than it took in).

Again, this is more of a question than a statement. I am just wondering if it would make sense for the Tea Party to drop the ideology a bit and try and have a broader dialogue with everyone who cares about fiscal discipline. This wider group of people could then put forth fiscal policy purely for fiscal reasons rather than ideological ones. That seems worthwhile to me. On this small post alone there are a dozen suggestions of things to cut. If we can all agree to make decisions based primarily on fiscal criteria maybe we can accomplish something. But, when we also include ideology, it just seems to me like an impossible quagmire. In which case nothing happens and we all lose. The months worth of budget debates are a perfect example. They seem to me to be ideological spit fights that have very little to do with fiscal policy.


eovery profile image

eovery 5 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

I think the tea party has no where to go put to get bigger and stronger.

Keep on hubbing!


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

junkseller - The ideology is to be an individual, not some party hack. Be as self-sufficient as possible and not rely on a Nanny to stroke your needs. I think you need to do some further reading on this movement. My intent here is to shed light on Republican thought that the TPM is in their corner whatever they do, or don't do. That is not true.

To separate the social issues from the fiscal issues is impossible. The social issues that have been pursued over time are part of the problem. Why? They all cost money, too much money. That's a whole different subject.

As far as defense, I'm not sure you clearly understand what the primary role of the federal government is in the US Constitution. It is the national defense of this nation. As we cut, the safety issues of the citizens of this nation need to be considered. Defending this nation, and having the ability to do so, are paramount and that ability should be the last thing that is cut.

We've done that. I was there when it was being done, I disagreed with it and ultimately we have seen the consequences of doing too much cutting in the national defense arena.


TheGroundsquirrel profile image

TheGroundsquirrel 5 years ago

Carter cut Defense, the mullahs took over in Persia. History repeats itself.

@junkseller . . . the mistake is in believing that the T.E.A. movement is in any way structured as a single uber-organization akin to the major political parties in America today.


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 5 years ago

Great piece of writing. I am still waiting for the Republican Party to come up with some interesting candidates and ideas. Please let it not be Palin. In any event we are in the midst of the worst crisis of our times and what we need are solutions no matter where they come from. We are running out of time. Voted up and awesome.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Ground Squirrel - I had to give you an "Atta Boy" on my latest "Okay Liberals, Explain This..." Hub.

People not really in tune with the TPM sometimes think we are a political party with this party ideology ingrained within us which just isn't so.


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 5 years ago

Frog Prince

I look at the TEA party as a catalyst to level the see saw of the Two Dominant Party. Getting them to come to the middle and actually make progress for the people.

Unfortunately today and for the last one hundred years, the party in control only represents the majority of people that voted for them. And they don't really even represent them well.

Imagine Congress as the dog sled team carrying the people of the country. Progress is in the straight ahead direction only. When the democrat dogs are in control, the sled and the people head left, and when the republican dogs are in control the sled goes to the right. Progress is never attained, because it takes a Team to go straight ahead.

We have never had such a team, but maybe the TEA can get the left and the right to the middle. Even if it is only a defensive move by the two parties to momentarily band together against the TEA part.

my opinion...

Thanks.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

OD - Having been to many a rally, the TPM is comprised of Dems, Repubs and Independents and everyone in between. It isn't about political parties, it is about the welfare of our country. You used an excellent analogy to point out one of the problems we are facing - party ideology is trumps.


junkseller profile image

junkseller 5 years ago from Michigan

What the heck Frog Prince. What OD said is exactly what I've been saying. He gets a gold star and I get chastised for not understanding and needing to read more. Bullocks. That's okay, I'll give him a gold star too for saying it in a way that made sense.

My entire point has been that the ideology of individualism and being anti-party and of fiscal discipline are the things that reach out to everyone.

The position of anti-immigration, and high defense spending are the parts that push the movement right of center and start to exclude liberals.

if the movement is pushed right of center it seems to lose its ability to have the transformative effect that OD mentions.

I'll take your word that the on the ground rallies have people of all flavors, that isn't represented in the Tea Party's Congressional presence.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Junkseller,

You are correct that TPM groups do not explicate in detail how they would go about implementing fiscal reform. Individual TPM candidates differ somewhat on the details, but their general theme is large cuts in federal operating expenses, significant expansion of the tax base (eliminating the FIT and going to a national sales tax), and phasing out SS and Medicare in favor of less expensive and purely needs based programs. Not all TPM candidates support all three of these ideas, but most support at least 1-2 of them.

Stu


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

junkseller - Clarity is sometimes needed. I've heard and read remarks that the TPM is the far right of the Republican party. That tells me how uninformed someone can be. If believing that our government needs to swing back to adhering to the US Constitution then I guess we are.

My reference to you was to what the US Constitution has to say about national defense. I actually have some liberal beliefs but when it comes to fiscal matters I don't have a one. Anyone is welcome to embrace TPM but just understand our core principles. Tea Party Patriots lays it out what this is all about.

But above all else, the people I have met at all the rallys I have attended love this country and are concerned about the course we are on. What our legacy will be for future generations isn't looking too pretty right now.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Junkseller,

Some additional comments:

"The point I wanted to make is that fiscal responsibility is separate from one's ideological position." - This really isn't true. Ideology inextricably combines both fiscal and social elements. For example, how would you separate the the two in regard to entitlement policy? You simply can't.

"The Tea Party, by leaning in a particular direction, doesn't create a dialogue which includes everyone who shares their fiscal concerns." - This is absolutely true. You may find a rare centrist or very rare liberal who is fiscally responsible, but that hardly makes them TPM timber. There are also the other key TPM planks of legal constructionism and committment to free markets. The TPM is unabashedly a conservative movement. It will only "bridge gaps" to the extent that it encourages a small number of centrists and liberals to become true conservatives. The purpose of the TPM is not to heal or widen the ideological divide; its purpose is solely to purge centrists out of the GOP and replace them with true conservatives.

"The question than being, would they be better off with an ideological neutral position?"- The TPM, by nature and purpose, can never be ideologically neutral. It is trying to undo 120 years of progressivsm, and take our nation back to the letter and spirit of the Founders. If successful, this will mean much in the way of Congressional repeal bills and court challenges to vacate federal laws, EO's, and agencies that violate the enumerated powers clause of the Tenth Amendment. It will also mean a policy of fiscal restraint like nothing this country has ever seen before. Further, it will result in mass elimination of regulations whose benefits do not warrant their cost, or are harmful rather than helpful. As you can see, it is impossible to be ideologically neutral here; the TPM IS an ideology.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Groundsquirrel - does your song follow the rhythm of any song I would be familiar with?


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Junkseller,

You are correct that fiscal restraint is not the TPM's only concern. But it is not accurate to portray the TPM as not being "fiscal purists" just because there are some areas they might spend more on than moderates or liberals. I define a fiscal purist as someone who, in the aggregate, wishes to run federal surpluses large enough to pay off the official national debt over a few decades, and is willing to phase out the big social programs (such as SS and Medicare) fast enough so that most of their special issue treasury assets can be abrogated (i.e., ripped up), since these debts are too large to ever be repaid without inflating (printing massive amounts of fiat money).

It is most important to understand that ideology is critical here. You can't separate fiscal responsibility from ideology. A bad ideology, or absence of an ideology, will result in the very federal growth that creates unrepayable levels of debt in the first place. Thus legal constructionism, especially in regard to Tenth Amendment enumerated powers, is critical to both solving the current debt problem (vacating and defunding federal agencies in violation), and preventing it from occuring again in the future.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

OD,

"I look at the TEA party as a catalyst to level the see saw of the Two Dominant Party. Getting them to come to the middle and actually make progress for the people."

The TPM most definitely is NOT trying to get people to "come to the middle." We already have a middle; it's called the GOP. We are trying to ELIMINATE the middle. The idea is to convince voters to replace GOP moderates (i.e., most of the GOP) with true conservatives, as well as expand the GOP at the expense of Democrats.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Junkseller:

"My entire point has been that the ideology of individualism and being anti-party and of fiscal discipline are the things that reach out to everyone." - The TPM does stand for fiscal discipline, but it is hardly individualistic (libertarian) or anti-party (revolutionary). It is simply a grassroots movement that wants to return the GOP to its mainstream conservative roots.

"The position of anti-immigration, and high defense spending are the parts that push the movement right of center and start to exclude liberals." - You are correct; the TPM IS a conservative group. We are not in any way trying to "appeal" to liberals; we want to throw them out of office.

"if the movement is pushed right of center it seems to lose its ability to have the transformative effect that OD mentions." - The TPM already is well right of center. Transformation does not mean "changing everyone's mind" at the public level. We just want to transform Congress: (1) replace GOP moderates with genuine conservatives, and (2) throw Democrats out of office. Of course a TPM POTUS is also important to us.

Stu


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Stu - I believe you mean replace RINOs?


junkseller profile image

junkseller 5 years ago from Michigan

@Stu From VT

This was to your first "Some additional comments" post.

Haven't looked at the rest yet.

A conservative can cut entitlement spending and leave defense spending alone while a liberal could cut defense spending and leave entitlement spending alone and fiscally they might be in the exact same place. The exact same fiscal result with entirely different social results. That is what I meant by them being separate (probably wasn't the best way to say it).

A liberal could say defense cuts are fiscally responsible, they can't necessarily say those cuts are RIGHT. They are only right if the people accept them (the people being all of us).

Similarly a conservative cutting entitlement spending might be fiscally responsible, it doesn't mean they are right.

I, like a lot of people, believe we need a new fiscal future but that fiscal future can take entirely different forms. It is up to all concerned voices, not just one, to decide the exact form that future takes.

I'm happy the Tea Party exists. Despite the fact that ideologically I am probably as far away from them as you can get. I'm still here listening to what they have to say. Regardless of any other ideology I may have, the one I believe in perhaps more than any other is that the best solution is not MY solution - it is OUR solution.

Personally I think we all need to loosen up a bit on our personal ideologies in order to really accomplish the fiscal changes we need. So defense AND entitlements need a shave. Which is why I have some sympathy for Rand Paul's budget. He does a little of both. While some of his proposals make me nauseous I am at least willing to read it and accept that he makes some good points. And I am not making any accusations here (you all seem fair minded) I'm just not really sure I see that flexibility in Congress (from either side or group).


TheGroundsquirrel profile image

TheGroundsquirrel 5 years ago

@ Stu' . . . sorry buddy. It is an original work and therefore does not adhere to any existing tune. As stated before, when I get the guts to sing it in more places than just my car I will put it up on youtube.

@ Junkseller ... what is your love affair with cutting defense? Especially when the current geo-military situation demands otherwise. More than a third of our current government at all levels has no constitutional mandate or justification. Have ya'll taken a step out in the big world and taken a look at what is going on? I mean beyond the fisheye lens of the journalism class fail locusts.


b. Malin profile image

b. Malin 5 years ago

I am not a member of the "Tea Party"...no particular reason...However, they have my utmost Respect. Maybe I just don't like labels, and yet I do call myself a Conservative, because I truly am. We (husband & i) don't spend what we don't have...and yet we live well...without debt. I enjoyed and educated myself with your timely Hub, Frog Prince. Thank you.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

b. malin - TPM is more based upon ideology than it is on being a label brand. It's the concept that counts.

Thanks for providing your input.

The Frog


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 5 years ago

Stu

I understand that but in the end you need to replace the see saw up and down of party control with forward movement. What ever you call it there has to be a common middle. None exists now even with the TPM.

Right now there is Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, TPM Cola.

Having TPM Cola be identified with one of the other colas doesn't fix the problem.

What the country needs in the end is One Cola that everyone likes because it is made up from the best ingredients.

That means to me voting for the person rather than the party. The people should force the party to produce the candidates that they want, and not the ones that the party wants the people to elect.

In the Interim as I said, the TPM is a good catalyst to break the two political party see saw. The see saw goes up and down but not forward.

I hope that make sense to you.

Thanks


junkseller profile image

junkseller 5 years ago from Michigan

@TheGroundSquirrel

Me wanting to cut defense spending is irrelevant. Lots of Americans want to cut defense spending (including TPM Rand Paul). 65% of the discretionary spending increases over the last decade are from defense. They have a right to a place at the table as much does anyone else. Cutting spending now, considering our current engagements is tricky, that doesn’t mean it can’t be pointed in that direction. It is a perfectly valid viewpoint.

Also, whether you like it or not, not everyone is a constitutional originalist. I don’t know if they have a defining term (perhaps an evolutionist). A lot of these people are pretty smart (including me - Ha). You are welcome to your arguments about unconstitutional spending. I’ll listen to them but I don’t have to agree with them. But more importantly I won’t tell you to shut up and I am not going to insult you (insults are usually more a reflection upon you than they are on the ones you are insulting – in case you didn’t realize that).


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Junkseller,

I agree with your point that people with different ideologies will have natural tendencies to cut different areas, but the reality is that we can't generate enough savings necessary to pay off the official national debt without cutting both. In fact, increased tax revenue will also be necessary. I'm against increasing FIT rates, as it depresses business investment and reduces jobs. A better way to go is to scrap the FIT entirely, and go to a national sales tax on all end use goods and services.

Sadly, there will never be an "our" solution that both everyone can agree on, and that will generate a big enough current account swing (about $2.4 trillion per year for 30-40 years) to liquidate the official national debt. We also have the completely unrepayable off balance sheet debt ($90 trillion), which will require vacating and defunding giant social programs like SS and Medicare, so their treasury assets can simply be cancelled. The combination of massive cuts in the civil service and military headcount, regressive taxation, and replacement of SS/Medicare/Medicaid with purely current account funded needs based benefits (no liability buildup, as benefits would float annually with the national budgetary requirement to run the roughly $800 billion annual surplus required to pay off the official national debt over about 30-40 years) is something only the most hard headed apolitical conservative Congressman could vote for. This is why we need to change the ideoligical composition of Congress in order to implement a fiscal solution that will actually address the problem.

You are correct that there is no flexibility in Congress. There is no "bipartisn solution." In fact, with most of the GOP being centrist, even they fall far short of what we need. The only answer is a TPM saturated GOP that dominates both houses of Congress (i.e., most GOP centrists and Democrats voted out), and also hopefully a TPM president. We need 400-500 clones of Ron Paul, Jim DeMint, Michele Bachmann, Sharron Angle, Mike Lee, Pat Toomey, etc. ruling Congress with an iron fist. We need people who are not afraid of losing votes or campaign contributions. This can never be a "negotiated solution;" we need it forced down our throats for our own good, because we the people are just as afraid to face the problem, and the magnitude of the required solution, as the RINO's and Democrats are.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Groundsquirrel,

OK, will be waiting for the official release!

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Hi Malin,

One of the sad things about our nation is how few bother to vote, or are politically activist for what they believe in. You might think about joining one of your state or national TPM organizations and helping out if you have time. I belong to both a state and national TPM group.

I highly recommend taking a look at http://www.teapartypatriots.org.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Hi OpinionDuck,

I agree with your point about forward movement, but there is, and never was, and "common" middle. Ignoring extremist ideologies, there are really only four ideologies in America, and they don't overlap:

(1) Libertarianism - vest most power in the people.

(2) Conservatism - vest most power in the states or the people, depending on state culture.

(3) Centrism - find me a job.

(4) Liberalism - vest most power in the federal government.

From the above, you can see that there is no "One Cola" that everyone likes because the four groups can't agree on what the best ingredients are.

Voting for the person rather than the party is conceptually a correct position to take. But at a practical level, parties tend to attract somewhat like minded people. At present, the GOP atracts mostly centrists, and the Democratic party attracts a mix of liberals and socialists.

The TPM is not intended as a catalyst to break the two party see saw. It's mission is to recompose the GOP; toss out the centrists, and replace them with genuine conservatives. The "forward movement" we need to solve our fiscal crisis is more than we the people can bear. It has to be forced down our throats like castor oil by very brave Congressional patriots who are willing to sacrifice votes and campaign contributions. This is why the GOP RINO's and Democrats need to be tossed out of Congress, and replaced by GOP TPM conservatives.

Stu


TheGroundsquirrel profile image

TheGroundsquirrel 5 years ago

Dean Acheson once said: "No people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom, by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies."


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Mr. Acheson was right. Appeasement always makes you a victim, not an ally. This is why we are a laughing stock in the Middle East, even though we are now openly supporting Shiites, even radical Shiites, instead of our historical allies in the Middle East and Europe. Iran and its satellites can see how weak we are. We have alot of power, but they can see that we don't have the will to use it.


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 5 years ago

Stu

Thanks for the detailed reply.

Unfortunately, I am going to have disagree with you or maybe just give a counterpoint.

1. Unless the Congressional see saw is broken then there will never be any forward movement, or progress in the country. Too date the see saw has accomplished what we have today, and if continued tomorrow, then today will look better.

2. If the political parties are not reset, then there will be no progress.

3. If voting for the best person is not viable, then again there will be no progress because as long as the parties call the shots there will be no positive change in the results.

4. Without the one cola, then voters will flip flop every major election because as history has proven neither party in control did any real forward movement. And every time there is a reset in the control of Congress we start back at square one.

5. If we have to follow four main idealogies, then we can define those as problems, as opposed to solutions.

For example, neither party has even attempted to reduce the size or the scope of the goveernment much less actually accomplished it. In fact, the size and scope of the government has even increased since the economic meltdown of 2008.

Neither party has implemented a solution to the impending energy crisis, and dependence on foreign oil.

The list goes on, but I am working on the Frog Prince's dime. So, I apologize to him.

Neither party has thinned out the Internal Revenue Code.

Neither party has had the solution on recovering the economy, or increasing employment.


tmckim profile image

tmckim 5 years ago

I'm a proud tea-party member. Thank you for the hub. Good work.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

OpinionDuck,

I certainly appreciate your frustration with the system, and the terrible results it has led to. But the ugly reality is that "compromise" only leads to wishy-washy platitudes and not real solutions. The issue really isn't one of party, but one of ideology and pragmatism. Unless we elect and support leaders who will take the extremely painful steps necessary to right the ship, the problems will grow instead of getting solved. I'm not so naive as to think all or even most voters will have the guts to support real solutions to the fiscal crisis. We just need enough good people in Congress to force us to take our medicine, and a president who won't veto every attempt at fixing our problems.

Stu


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Stu - What you speak of is the subject of my latest Hub on reforming the entitlement society.


junkseller profile image

junkseller 5 years ago from Michigan

@Stu

You could have just said you were an authoritarian in the beginning and saved us all this dialogue.

An Iron-fisted Congress full of TPM clones that ram things down our throat? Really? Isn't that chapter 1 of Mein Kampf?

I'm happy you have a strong idea of a solution but the idea that it is the only solution is naive and dangerous. So too is the idea that only the TPM can save us.

A one flavor Congress would be fine if we were a one flavor country. We aren't and hopefully never will be. If we really want to change things we should elect people who will both represent our particular interests AND who actually do their job (democratically negotiated policy-making) not rigid monoliths of dogma who eschew compromise and negotiation.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

junkseller - Interesting about ramming things down people's throats in light of the last Congress we had with Majority Leader Pelosi.

Do you happen to remember her statement after the last election, "We won! So we'll do what we want!!" They they proceeded to do so at our economic peril. That was righted a bit in November of 2012. That's called politics son.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Hi Frog, I think I got to your latest thread. If not, I will shortly. Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Junkseller,

I'm not by nature an authoritarian. I fall on the far right side of mainstream conservatism, which is closer to libertarianism than statism.

My main beliefs regarding authority are that the federal government should only be delegated those powers that the states cannot execute effectively, and that the split of power between the states and the people should be determined by state law, which will vary by state culture.

My "forcing down the throat" comment devolves from the fact that almost all of Congress, and the people as well, are too scared to face the magnitude of our fiscal problem, and the pain that will be required to genuinely fix it. I am in no way arguing for unconstitutional power grabs by the federal government. I'm simply saying that it is my hope that we elect enough Congressmen, and a president, that will take the hard and unpopular measures required to fix our fiscal mess.

Think of it in corporate terms. As a shareholder, you are an owner, higher in precedence than the CEO. But this in no means that the CEO must hold a shareholder vote everytime he makes an operating decision. You are paying him a salary to run your corporation for you. You are relying on his expertise to make decisions on your behalf. You may not like some of his decisions at the time he makes them, but you need to defer final judgment until the results of those decisions become apparent. It is from this point of view that I am saying that Congress and the president need to adopt a "take no prisoners" approach to abrogating most of the off balance sheet debt (by drastically shrinking payouts under SS, Medicare, etc.), bolster the tax base, and make enormous cuts in the civil service and ground troops. "Compromise" won't work here. We need to fire elected liberals and moderates, and give real conservatives a chance to right the ship. They should of course use completely legal means, but they need to ignore how "popular" their decisions are. Essentially, we need to tackle government finances the way Jack Welch fixed GE when he took over: major action on all financial fronts at once, no compromise, minimal phase-in periods, etc. Gradualism will only lead to the crisis becoming so large that no solution will be effective. We need a comprehensive fix, and we need it NOW.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Frog,

My faith in government is growing! "We won! So we'll do what we want!!" They actually kept a promise!

Stoo


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Stu - I don't even want to get started on how utterly stupid Pelosi is. I can write an article on her outrageous statements.


TheGroundsquirrel profile image

TheGroundsquirrel 5 years ago

I don't remember who said it, but I've heard it repeated in many movies and shows . . . "diplomacy serves only to prolong crisis". I know it will be hardest for those heavily acclimated to artificial environs and possessing few tradeable skills, but let us not forget that we are talking about Americans and green purple or blue, when the chips are down ordinary folk stick together. A pox upon those who live or strive to live inside the castle ... their vanity shall be their undoing. Good day, gentle people.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Frog - please do!!!


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Groundsquirrel,

All people in power try to "live inside the castle," and become egotistical as a result. Our Constitution's rules regarding vertical and horizontal separation of powers was intended to prevent this egoism from morphing into tyranny, but sadly our leaders have been trashing the Constitution for over 100 years. It is easy to see why there is so much tyranny that has resulted: judges legislating from the bench, presidents issuing EO's that violate the Constitution and federal code, Congress passing laws that violate the Constitution and even previous laws they passed that are still on the books, illegal federal usurpation of state and individual powers, etc. Obama is not a pure singularity; we have had socialist presidents before (Wilson, FDR). Obama is better viewed as the result of a long term process, one that substitutes the rule of law as intended by the Framers with the personal ideologies of individuals acting without checks and balances. Without checks and balances, you will ALWAYS eventually have tyranny.

Stu


TheGroundsquirrel profile image

TheGroundsquirrel 5 years ago

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." — C.S. Lewis

'nuff said . . . :)


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Groundsquirrel, I agree with Lewis. I'm less afraid of a crook who flat out says he is one than one that pretends to be your friend. Stu


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 5 years ago

Unless the system is changed for the better, the results will not change for the better.

The voters are the fault, election after election they vote in the party candidates. The voters are like sports team fans, and right or wrong they will stick by their team. Even when their team doesn't win any games.

Congress hasn't won many games for the people in the last century.

Until the voters can break away from the political parties and train the candidates by not electing, and especially not re-electing them unless they prove themselves.

Political party control flip flop in congress is non reproductive as their is no forward movement.

I don't see or hear of any real plan by anyone to change the system, and better yet change the voting habits of the people. Blind party faith is just not working, not that it ever did for the people. Although it is a perfect system for the political party.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

OD - If we took the (D) or (R) from besides the name many people wouldn't know what to do. I can see them come screaming out of the voting booth demanding to know who was who.

Also me thinks TPM is changing the party game a bit.

The Frog


Carpefriggingdiem profile image

Carpefriggingdiem 5 years ago

FP, James Clyburn is a POS. Can't stand to listen to him when he's on TV any more than I can stand listening to Obamaster.


junkseller profile image

junkseller 5 years ago from Michigan

@Stu

I think you are partly right and partly entirely wrong. Your argument is essentially that our spending level is around 100, democrats argue for 110, republicans for 90. We need spending to be around 60 and the only way to break the stalemate is to toss out everyone and replace them with TPM members. Problem solved, right?

WRONG!!

I don't disagree at all that we need to bring spending down (take a bit of bad medicine) but we can't have that decision entirely resting on one ideology (that is the very tyranny you warn against). We can't have one CEO. We need several of them.

It isn't right to have a single group deciding what spending level we need to be at or exactly how fast we need to get there. You might argue for a spending level of 60. I might argue 70. You might argue a 5 year timespan. I might argue 10.

Furthermore, no spending level is a static line. They have a shape. For any given pile of money, people will spend it differently. Even if we agreed on a specific spending level, you and I would spend it differently. These differences matter.

You may be right that there needs to be a significant change in congress, but the factor to be changed is fiscal responsibility, NOT ideology. If we toss out fiscally irresponsible congressman, we do not have to only replace them with the TPM.

I'll accept a reduction in spending - as will many liberals and progressives who care about and are smart about fiscal discipline, but it is mind-boggling absurdity to expect that people outside of the TPM should simply hand the checkbook over to them. It's not going to happen. And it wouldn’t create a reality that would accurately represent the will of the people (which ostensibly the TPM cares about).

@Frog Prince.

I am not a Pelosi supporter. Actually I scream in terror when I see her. I don’t like when anything is rammed down our throats. That isn’t the way politics SHOULD be. That might make me a naïve idealist, I am at least consistent. I didn’t agree with the Dems doing it anymore than I think the TPM should do it.


TheGroundsquirrel profile image

TheGroundsquirrel 5 years ago

@ Junkseller: Sir, I must take issue with your underlying premise that the TPM is "one" group with a too aggressive ideology. You have made a bad assumption. Also, you mention the one thing that cannot be known, that being "the will of the people". This country was initiated, designed and constructed on the premise that free individuals of good conscience could peaceably assemble to provide a common defense for their individuality. Yet, you seem determined to follow the course of group think and group identity. The TPM is actually hundreds of gatherings of people who are fed up with peanut butter politics. While you will "accept" a reduction in spending, I demand it. The TPM has no ideology, I and other like minded individuals actually want to restore and use the rule book for America, in other words the Constitution of The United States of America. You do understand that we live in a republic, not a democracy, right? Your analogy of a "checkbook" is false as well. IF we were on a physical monetary standard with a finite amount of revenue/reserves you would be right. Since the government took it upon themselves to "create" vast sums of money out of thin air and can simply declare funding for all of their little fantasies, your concept simply does not apply. I know you are worried about what all of life's losers are going to do without government sustenance, and to a point I am a little worried as well because I too dislike the suffering of innocents. Outside the castle I like to call it friends, family, church and local governance. How can I help my neighbor if my efforts are being redirected to saving some obscure bait fish over two thousand miles away that wouldn't have an impact on my life even if you let Joe Biden work out the logic on it? Well, it's time to get in my gross carbon emitter and head off to the tax mines of O-man so I can feel good about myself again (or so say the Tories of D.C.).


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

GS - I think you just hit a BINGO. Excellent my friend. I always like it when you wax eloquently :)

The Frog


junkseller profile image

junkseller 5 years ago from Michigan

@TheGroundSquirrel

I didn't define the TPM. They have done that themselves. And you can go on to anyone of their websites and see pretty much the exact same set of ideas being espoused. Or any one of their rallies and see the exact same signs. I am terribly sorry if calling it a group violates your sense of grand individuality. Being that I am one of the few people here who hasn't claimed to be a part of any group I have no idea how it is that I am the one who can be accused of groupthink. It is idiotic.

It also makes absolutely no sense to talk about having no ideology and to then proceeed to provide an ideological list (originalism, spending reduction, fiscal policy concerns, entitlement reform, and cap-and-trade objections). Do we need to define it? Very well, here it is: "the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program" (Merriam-Webster).

My only point in commenting on here in the first place was to say two things. One is that some people, who are fiscally responsible, don't agree with the TPM and two, that it seems like it would make some sense for everyone who is interested in reducing spending to work together.

Your right I can't speak for the "will of the people" but neither can you. I can speak for myself and others that I know though and say that there are people who think differently than the TPM. If the TPM is unwilling to work with anyone who has different ideas than they do, then they will make themselves irrelevant. I don't think that is a good thing. You can demand all you want, but you need to understand I have just as much right to tell you to piss off. In which case nothing happens. That's my point. Of course it won't be me and you doing it, it will be whoever we elect.

My checkbook example (as an ANALOGY) was to explain a simple point - people spend money differently. I wasn't trying to explain the monetary system.

Just like Stu was using the CEO example to illustrate a point. It isn’t my problem if you do not understand how an analogy is used.

Some of those funded fantasies include the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the people I am most worried about are the wussies who will no longer able to sleep at night without having $700 billion in defense spending to protect them from their imaginary bogeymen. (See how easy it is to insult people – why don’t you try something a bit more noble).


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

JS - Sometimes you make sense and at others I get lost trying to read you. The basic ideology of the TPM, if in fact you have visited the websites, is the adherence to the US Constitution. My own representative has said on national TV that what most of Congress does isn't constitutional in nature. He is James Clyburn, formerly the majority whip.

The second ideology is to exercise fiscal restraint. Tell me the last time you saw the federal government doing that.

We also believe in personal responsibility and don't need a Nanny to do things for us. Many people agree with that. I live that way.

The other ideology is to "power down." That goes back to personal responsibility. Power to make decisions needs to be at the lowest level possible. Not too many people disagree with that. The federal government has stepped all over the 10th Amendment and that continues to be the case today.

To call the TPM representatives "extreme" is outrageous and Schumer knew that when he did it. Those were the caucuses talking points which were made clear on what was caught on tape. Reid used the words "radical agenda" and that the TPM has no favorable support. I brush that off because Reid evidently isn't paying attention.

In fact, as the diddle about cutting a minuscule amount of money from the last 6 months of this FY, the TPM will grow stronger. The mandate was "cut spending" and "balance the budget". Just like we have to run our households. Those points I mentioned are the bottom line of the TPM.


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Junkseller,

"You may be right that there needs to be a significant change in congress, but the factor to be changed is fiscal responsibility, NOT ideology. If we toss out fiscally irresponsible congressman, we do not have to only replace them with the TPM." - The problem here is that TPM incumbents are the only ones calling for major reductions in federal operating expenses, broadening the tax base, and reforming entitlement programs. The basic idea is that fiscal responsibility and ideology are inseparable. Centrists are too afraid of losing votes, and liberal incumbents are too in love with redistribution, to count on them for the drastic changes we need. The biggest budget proposal we have at the moment is the GOP plan, which cuts a paltry $60 billion from annual federal spending, does nothing to broaden the tax base, and does nothing to reform entitlement spending. The reality is that to pay off the official national debt ($15 trillion) over 3-4 decades, we need an annual positive swing of about $2.4 trillion in the federal operating budget (turn the $1.6 trillion annual deficit into an $800 billion annual surplus), and phaseouts of the big social programs (like SS and Medicare) so we can rip up most of the special issue treasury assets backing their future liabilities (this "off balance sheet debt" is so large ($90 trillion) that no amount of fiscal restraint will enable us to be able to pay it). The problem is so severe that the "will of the people" doesn't matter; we need the solution forced down our throats Jack Welch style.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Groundsquirrel,

Excellent post. My only difference is that the TPM does in fact have an ideology: fiscal responsibility, free markets, and legal constructionism. These main ideological planks define the TPM.

Stu


TheGroundsquirrel profile image

TheGroundsquirrel 5 years ago

@ bunkseller . . .. oh damn, I slipped up and allowed myself to insult you. Give me break. I'm not going to waste a tiny portion of the world's server space dissembling your self cancelling logic. I will leave you with this thought instead. Re-read your posts and tell me whether or not I have reason to believe that you practice liberal tippy toe politics. Also, and I know my high school teachers will cringe, "I know you are but what am I" is a perfectly acceptable debating point. By the way, and back to a more social setting, I am a mechanic. If it flies, floats or rolls, I work on it. What do you do in the tax mines all day, if you don't mind me asking? I like to get to know my fellow posters a bit so our tet-a-tet sessions retain the air of civility that marks the brightest minds of the greatest nation in history. Have a nice day.

p.s. My irritation at the use of "ideology" with respect to the TPM is that we are not working from an "idea", we are working from a physical document. The TPM did not define themselves, the Constitution of The United States of America is what defines a true participant in the Taxed Enough Already Movement. Live long and prosper!


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Groundsquirrel,

You're correct. The main TPM planks all come straight from Founder intent as regards the Constitution. It is essentially a movement to get us back to following our major legal principles as set forth over 200 years ago.

Stu


junkseller profile image

junkseller 5 years ago from Michigan

@Frog Prince

I have in fact visited several of their websites. "Fiscal Responsibility - Limited Government - Free Market". I get it.

The question is, do you understand the alternative? There are people who believe in a non-originalist interpretation of the Constitution, a strong central government, effective safety net programs, AND fiscal responsibility. Maybe you think these people don't exist. They do, and they could just as easily as the TPM eliminate the deficit. They just would do it differently. I think there is a great deal of disagreement about where exactly power should be placed. It is not a simple or clear issue. The TPM is not, nor should it be the only option. Whether anyone elects these alternatives to Congress is of course an unknown at this point, but they should.

There isn't a single person in all of Washington DC that I voted for, so I can not be blamed when one of them says stupid things. I don't think the TPM's core platform is radical or extreme. While I don't agree with it, I have no interest in them being excluded from the debate.

@Stu

They aren’t quite the only ones. There is the “gang of six”, though I imagine their proposed cuts aren’t deep enough for your satisfaction. I am not arguing against the TPM. They are putting words into action and I can’t fault them for that. All I am really saying is that progressives and liberals need to put up candidates who are equally serious about the fiscal situation. I can’t really speak for anyone else, but as for myself, I won’t consider voting for anyone who doesn’t put fiscal discipline as their main priority. I will probably even listen to libertarians. Heck I might even give TPM candidates a chance. But I won’t vote for anyone who doesn’t talk about entitlements AND defense spending in the same sentence, and I will not vote for anyone who talks about immigration as an invasion, nor will I vote for anyone who is unwilling to work with the opposing side. All together that probably means I have zero options.

@GroundSquirrel

My skins thick enough to not really care about insults coming at me, but calling a large swath of people “life’s losers” seems like a bit much.

We can’t talk about America without talking about freedom and democracy, both of which are messy. They take effort, determination, and often times sacrifice, but in the end it is worth it. Isn’t it? I am pretty sure you would agree with me about that. You know the feeling I am talking about – when 50,000 people at a game rise as one to look up at our flag and sing along with our glorious anthem - and you get that chill that crawls up your back that doesn’t quite go away until you down a couple hotdogs and beers.

That is the thing that matters. But it isn’t free. I am not here on some liberal tippy-toe political mission (whatever the heck that even is). If I am tippy-toeing it is because I am trying to do the hard part of democracy – the part where you have to sit across the table from a guy, whose ideas you think are idiotic, but it doesn’t matter, because at the end of the day you have to find a way to come to an agreement and shake hands (so you can then go do the important things, like enjoying hotdogs and beers at a game).

I don’t seem to be doing a very good job of it. And, I am not really arguing against your position or trying to convert you to mine. All I’ve been trying to say is that we need to work together (which means our representatives need to work together). And come election time the ability to engage the opposition, and concern for fiscal discipline are two of the main qualities I will be looking for.

p.s. There are very different fundamental ways to relate to the Constitution. Some hold to a strict relationship, some a more interpretive relationship. A number of TPM core ideals are based upon having a strong originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Since there is more than one way to relate to the Constitution, the CHOICE to adhere to one particular relationship does in fact partially define you.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

The alternative? Junkseller, I suggest you read the US Constitution, thoroughly I might add. That's this nation's Bible and if the idiots in Foggy Bottom would adhere to it in running this country, rather than ignore it, that would right the ship of state.

There is no alternative to the US Constitution that I prefer to live under. You?


Stu From VT 5 years ago

junkseller,

All proposals on the debt crisis so far have been junk except for Rep. Ryan's. He does a good job with recommendations on cutting the big entitlement programs, and goes about 40% of the way needed on government operating cost cuts. He dances around taxes though with minor tinkering. The government needs about $1 trillion more per year in taxes even after the necessary cost cuts are made (we really need to scrap the FIT and go to a 20% national sales tax). I agree defense cuts (troop reductions) need to be made. Immigration SHOULD be treated as an invasion, not a military one, but a legal one. All illegal immigrants must be expelled. They cost Americans jobs, and cost the taxpayer about $130 billion per year to maintain (social costs, incarceration expenses, etc.).

Re "There are people who believe in a non-originalist interpretation of the Constitution, a strong central government, effective safety net programs, AND fiscal responsibility", you are right that they exist, but they are living a pipe dream. "non-originalist interpretation of the Constitution" is just a euphamism for illegal activism, "strong central governmen" ALWAYS means crass overspending, and "effective safety net programs" will never be affordable. Power MUST be pushed from the feds to the states. The feds should have MINIMAL powers such as national defense and major infrastructure (things the states can't do for themsleves), but, as per the 10th Amendment, the vast residue of power should flow to the states (they won't overspend on implementing these powers because they can't print money).

"There are very different fundamental ways to relate to the Constitution" - True, but only one way is right. The Constitution, and all law, MUST be interpreted in light of framer intent. ONLY Congress has the right to promulgate law. There is no "relativity" involved. The judiciary's SOLE function is to INFER framer intent (from all available evidence), not "adjust" it according to its own ideology. This is called horizontal separation of powers, an essential pillar against tyranny.

Stu


Stu From VT 5 years ago

FP,

You're right. Strict adherence to the Constitution would not only return powers stolen from the states and people by the feds, but would have prevented the debt crisis. All the stolen powers have to be funded, and the states are not on unlimited credit cards like Uncle Sam. This is why I feel complimented when libbies call me a Tenther.

Stu


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

Junkseller and Stu - Me thinks you might want to start sitting in on the history classes that I have just begun. It always helps to understand the intent of our Founding Fathers as we discuss the deeper problems of our nation.

Here's the link JS: http://hubpages.com/politics/The-10th-Amendment-Th...


Stu From VT 5 years ago

Hi Frog,

Have already visited and posted at your Tenth Amendment Hub.

Stu


trimar7 profile image

trimar7 5 years ago from New York

Whenever I read your posting or Partisan's postings, I am reminded that I must, must get my brother on here writing. He is so in sync with the two of you. For me, I am disgusted with both the Republican and the Democratic parties. Most of them have an agenda and it is not the citizens of this country.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 5 years ago from Arlington, TX Author

trimar - I've been a registered Independent for years now. I sure don't need a political party to do my thinking for me. Tell your brother to come on, the battle of 2012 is about to begin :)

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working