Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Eagle_eye]

To me, the tea party movement seems to be an enigma. Large numbers of poor and middle income Americans are supporting policies that obviously benefit the rich and the rich alone: massive tax breaks for corporations, removal of social safety net aspects of the government like social security and medicaid, reduction of union rights, etc. It is apparent to me that the vast majority of these people are not acting in their own best interest or in that of the country. My theory as to why is that business leaders are using their influence, both monetary and personal, in addition to conservative media outlets like Fox setup by others of their kind, to spew propaganda to the general population. They have somehow managed to entrench in American culture the concept that hard work always equals wealth, and thus that all of those who lack their level of wealth are simply not working to their full potential and thus are "lazy". Those who have adopted this reasoning look at their societal status, see that it is not equal to the likes of Rupert Murdoch, the Koch brothers, etc., and, not seeing themselves as lazy, of course, find an outside influence to blame for it. The strength of the corporate system and its links with the republican party has provided an easy target in the governmental programs that these corporations find themselves constrained by and denounce.

Thoughts?

[mainiac]

It's hardly a new phenomena, just a new name.  I suspect it's getting a little worse, but that's pretty subjective opinion.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

What's worse then a Conservative? A Reactionary Conservative (aka Right Wing nutjob). These people are fools. There's nothing worse than a sheep selling it's own flock to the wolves. A poor "Tea Partier" and a rich "Tea Partier" have NOTHING in common.

These people are trying to lead the charge towards FDR's safety net brandishing large, evil scissors. I say they should be outlawed as extremists. I sincerely believe that a media propaganda-driven movement is more dangerous then any other type. The Tea Party is not a grassroots movement. It was created by the people who control the vast amounts of influence and money in the historically ignorant area of society- poor religious folk.

[Flying Dice]

Honestly, I'm not sure if I should pity the people who are actively working against civil rights and their own best interests, or if I should be disgusted... It says something really sad about the state of our nation that even a minority group of this size can be gathered with the use of nothing more than blatant lies, disinformation and fearmongering. Of course, as maniac said, our views of it are largely subjective because we haven't been alive during the vast majority of similar cases, but there is still something horrifying about being able to watch the deliberate deconstruction of our ideals, and worse, to know that the people pulling the strings are doing so out of sheer arrogance, that it isn't even about the power or the money, that things like this are being done simply because they can be done without any viable opposition.

[Dr.Feelgood]

It's understandable that many of you are misinformed about the Tea party. It's not in the mainstream media's interest to educate American citizens on these issues. The tea party is simply a grassroots movement which opposes tax increases on hard-working Americans. Middle class, upper-middle-class, and wealthy Americans all earned their money. I don't see why the government, as wasteful and corrupt as it is, should take our money to continue funding social programs for lazy leeches and handing it to the banks who put us in this mess. There are alternates to raising taxes, such as cutting Medicare and social security. These programs are incredibly wasteful and unconstitutional. Yet, liberals would rather take our hard-earned money and give it to those who didn't work for it, and cut our defense budget. Why does our society need these "safety nets"? It isn't the government's role to coddle it's citizens, until they die. Yet, liberals are driven to create a fang-less, emasculated nanny state. Maybe grandma should have taken responsibility of her finances and saved for retirement, instead of asking for hand-outs. Maybe that college deadbeat should have gotten a job and bought insurance, instead of making us all pay. I'm sure grandma can survive on cat food (just joking.. cat food is expensive.. maybe oodles of noodles  ) and the deadbeat can find cheap insurance. 

[Eagle_eye]

It's understandable that many of you are misinformed about the Tea party. It's not in the mainstream media's interest to educate American citizens on these issues. The tea party is simply a grassroots movement which opposes tax increases on hard-working Americans.

please explain how stockbrokers and CEO's are more hardworking than say, construction workers, or a paramedic, or firefighters

Middle class, upper-middle-class, and wealthy Americans all earned their money. I don't see why the government, as wasteful and corrupt as it is, should take our money to continue funding social programs for lazy leeches and handing it to the banks who put us in this mess.

I agree that the banks are a large part of the issue here, but simply because one does not have a job does not mean one does not want wan, or is not capable of holding one. There are quite simply fewer avaliable jobs than workers

There are alternates to raising taxes, such as cutting Medicare and social security. These programs are incredibly wasteful and unconstitutional. Yet, liberals would rather take our hard-earned money and give it to those who didn't work for it, and cut our defense budget.

while social security and medicare are inefficient, without them, there would be no financial backup for a vast number of citizens. Please, explain how they are unconstitutional. I see no references to healthcare in the constitution. As to the defense issue, the Department of Defense is funded by taxes, and it is just as inefficient, if not more so, than any other government program. But the debate over military strength is going on in a different thread.

Why does our society need these "safety nets"? It isn't the government's role to coddle it's citizens, until they die.

The role of government in America is supposed to be to preserve the freedoms of its citizens. How is a person free if they have no job, no money, noone is hiring, and they're only surviving off of the food from a soup kitchen?

Yet, liberals are driven to create a fang-less, emasculated nanny state. Maybe grandma should have taken responsibility of her finances and saved for retirement, instead of asking for hand-outs. Maybe that college deadbeat should have gotten a job and bought insurance, instead of making us all pay.

Saving for retirement is no guarantee of reaching it. The vast majority of people do not have the aptitude to manage their money in financial markets, and thus outsource the work to brokers, many of whom are either bad at their jobs or corrupt. It is also necessary to consider the role luck plays. It is entirely unfair and immoral to penalize someone for something they could not have prevented without prescient ability. As for insurance, insurance companies are essentially protection rackets, demanding prices far higher than they absolutely need, with next to no competition. The regional concentration of individual insurance companies is immense. In some areas, 95% of insurance policies are for one company. A minimum wage job is simply not enough to pay for good insurance, and the scarcity of jobs means that many will go without it for lack of government intervention, and many of those may die young because of that. HOW IS THAT FAIR?

[Phmcw]

Feelgood, it's a lost cause. We've had Urist is dead tome and Lumin, so whatever you say it WILL sound realistic, even if you suggest to feed cat's food to old ladies.

[Vector]

Dear Eagle_eye:

That smiley at the end indicates that Feelgood is trolling.

[Eagle_eye]

I suspected that, but it was too good an opportunity for a rant to pass up

[mainiac]

That is a very strange trolling.

[Soulwynd]

It's Poe's law.

[penguinofhonor]

Poe's law is my favorite law.

[freeformschooler]

That was an awfully fast moderation.

[Bauglir]

Mr. Feelgood is pretty good at that sort of trolling.

That said, I believe that the root of the problem is people conflating good personal financial conduct with that of a nation, as well as insistence that the world is fundamentally just. This latter has a lot of non-obvious implications, which I can't fault the Tea Party for missing - they've got them all figured out and incorporated into their ideology. For instance, if the world is just, any change must necessarily be bad. Further, since they believe that you need to work hard to succeed, it is right to work hard to succeed, and therefore if you've succeeded you must have worked hard, and conversely, if you have failed you must be lazy. Naturally, every Tea Partier works hard.

[mainiac]

I don't think they all imagine themselves as having worked hard.  I've never asked anyone of them, but it's not my impression that was the origin of their views.