Tea Party Will go Nowhere Unless...

They get some wise leadership and at least some semblance of unified direction.

So far at the convention I’ve seen, the alleged honcho who’s name escapes me at the moment say “people who couldn’t even spell the word vote have elected an avowed communist” and Joe Farah put the birth certificate thing front and center.

I have no problem with calling Obama a communist, but the clear implication is that illiterate blacks are responsible for his election. This is exactly the way to phrase something like this if your intention is to hand the media a Desert Eagle 50 and paint an “I’m a racist” bullseye on your temple. I understand and even probably agree with the thrust of what this guy was trying to say, but there are one thousand wiser and more effective ways to state it.

Regardless of what anybody thinks of the birther issue, it is unbelievable political stupidity to make it a platform in your agenda. Obama has handed clear thinking constitutional constructionists a very impressive arsenal of weaponry to point at him. What, WHAT, is wrong with these people pulling the citizenship question out of the back of some drawer when there is a room full of artillery staring them in the face?

Very disappointing and breathtakingly sophomoric. I am not in any way saying that they should play softball, but how about SMART hardball??

It’s what I call the Marcia Clark method of losing where a more focused approach ought to win.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It’s what I call the Marcia Clark method of losing where a more focused approach ought to win. [/quote]

Marcia Clark had the deck stacked against her on a couple of levels from the start, but I get your point.

I even think it’s a mistake to make the primary focus Obama at all. He is just the latest and starkest symptom of a very long developing disease.

Sign this is just the thing Mr O said when he grilled Republicans last week; people talking bullshit and spreading mistruth. Calling your own president a communist is one of those things that is not only untrue but also stupid in which it actually works against the message you were trying to deliver in the first place.

A lot of the people at that convention sound like they have an personal motive against Obama. Talk about being derogatory, rude and demeaning. If they keep talking like that no one is going to take them seriously. Hearing those birthers pisses me off especially when its been clearly shown via birth certificate that he was born in Hawaii.

what was the “thrust” of what Tancredo was trying to say, and why do you agree with it, trib?

my bet is the tea party movement disappears when obama leaves the white house.

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Sign this is just the thing Mr O said when he grilled Republicans last week; people talking bullshit and spreading mistruth. Calling your own president a communist is one of those things that is not only untrue but also stupid in which it actually works against the message you were trying to deliver in the first place.

A lot of the people at that convention sound like they have an personal motive against Obama. Talk about being derogatory, rude and demeaning. If they keep talking like that no one is going to take them seriously. Hearing those birthers pisses me off especially when its been clearly shown via birth certificate that he was born in Hawaii.[/quote]

you sound flustered. don’t let those dimwits get you riled up. wearing your ass as a hat causes cancer so they all should pass quite soon.

This was the first convention, Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Sarah had a good speech, look forward to more of them. Could have done without some but all in all a good first event.

Thinking this is going nowhere shows people still don’t understand, it was when they supported Brown that he got elected. If they can put a republican in office in Mass, just think of what they could do in a more conservative friendly state. This is the direction of the future.

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

you sound flustered. don’t let those dimwits get you riled up. wearing your ass as a hat causes cancer so they all should pass quite soon. [/quote]

43 posts and still have said nothing of importance.

I really hope the Tea Party takes off as the Anarchist/Libertarian movement and finally take down the central government. The libertarians probably will never be able to do it because of the fact that the first part of the name resembles liberals, which is sad that conservatives wouldn’t understand however, but most people do not and that is the current state of the Union.

With Palin endorsing them, how much more credibility could they lose?

What most everyone fails to understand, from the Tea Party people to the Libs, is that we are mathematically and certainly doomed. No matter what anyone does, we are doomed.

Most spending is LOCKED in stone. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are untouchable and mathematically MUST destroy the country. They are at least half of the budget. Anyone who tries to reform these will immediately be demagogued by the other party and would be voted out anyway. As long as we have a popular democracy, those programs are untouchable.

Like a machine gone mad, the system will spiral out of control. A military dictatorship will be installed, with old people getting tiny doles and doctors being drafted and forced to serve.

This is all a certainty, just as 2 + 2 = 4.

"The trap got sprung in 1983, when Social Security went bankrupt. That was the year Reagan â?? President Tax Cut â?? signed a new law for funding Social Security. The new law imposed income taxes on Social Security payments. It also scheduled a series of increases in the wage base subject to FICA taxes.

That emergency measure deferred the day of reckoning until now. The law was passed in the first year of Reagan’s massive deficits: over $200 billion in 1983 dollars, meaning close to $500 billion in today’s money. That was the end of the Republican Party’s commitment to a balanced budget.

Bill Clinton benefited politically from balanced budgets, 1998â??2001, but only by means of a statistical trick: using Social Security’s net income after payouts as net revenue for the government, and then burying the liabilities in the government’s off-budget accounts. This has been common practice ever since the Johnson Administration.

That game of political deception will end this year. This year marks the year â?? like 1983 â?? when receipts from FICA taxes will not cover outlays in the program. The flow of funds will henceforth move from the general fund to the Social Security Administration."

Technically it isn’t a party. Secondly, right now at this moment it is in it’s most pristine condition as it’s a bunch of people standing together with out a single, or group of leaders. This rose from the population. The message is “the people are pissed and the leader need to be afraid”. That is the right message. Given the size, I think, and hope, it completely reshapes the politics of both parties over the next few years.

Give it time. Eventually a leader will emerge. In the mean time, I will just sit back and watch in wonder as loosely affiliated bands of politically disenchanted voters wreak havoc on a party of decadent, opportunistic, social predators who have gotten too fat to defend themselves.

With leadership and bureaucracy comes expense, corruption, and a whole mess of other problems. With no leadership, there is no one for the opponent to smear, and no one to negotiate with or appeal to. It’s beautiful.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What most everyone fails to understand, from the Tea Party people to the Libs, is that we are mathematically and certainly doomed. No matter what anyone does, we are doomed.

Most spending is LOCKED in stone. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are untouchable and mathematically MUST destroy the country. They are at least half of the budget. Anyone who tries to reform these will immediately be demagogued by the other party and would be voted out anyway. As long as we have a popular democracy, those programs are untouchable.

Like a machine gone mad, the system will spiral out of control. A military dictatorship will be installed, with old people getting tiny doles and doctors being drafted and forced to serve.

This is all a certainty, just as 2 + 2 = 4.

"The trap got sprung in 1983, when Social Security went bankrupt. That was the year Reagan �¢?? President Tax Cut �¢?? signed a new law for funding Social Security. The new law imposed income taxes on Social Security payments. It also scheduled a series of increases in the wage base subject to FICA taxes.

That emergency measure deferred the day of reckoning until now. The law was passed in the first year of Reagan’s massive deficits: over $200 billion in 1983 dollars, meaning close to $500 billion in today’s money. That was the end of the Republican Party’s commitment to a balanced budget.

Bill Clinton benefited politically from balanced budgets, 1998Ã?¢??2001, but only by means of a statistical trick: using Social Security’s net income after payouts as net revenue for the government, and then burying the liabilities in the government’s off-budget accounts. This has been common practice ever since the Johnson Administration.

That game of political deception will end this year. This year marks the year �¢?? like 1983 �¢?? when receipts from FICA taxes will not cover outlays in the program. The flow of funds will henceforth move from the general fund to the Social Security Administration."

[/quote]

Although the best solution would be to phase out the program and return retirement and disability to matters of personal responsibility and personally bought insurance, and the second best solution I think would be to partially do so with a partial reduction in benefits, if these will not be done then that leaves:

Increase the FICA tax.

Now although the Federal Government already collects more taxes as share of GDP than should be the case so this is not the best solution, it is better than increasing income tax.

Why?

Because income tax has been transmogrified to a thing where 50% of income earners pay no or essentially no tax.

This is inequitable. They get as much or government services as anybody, as much or more government benefits as anybody, yet they pay not a plug nickel?

If the income tax were increased, you know it would be done where this 50% base would pay zero of it.

Whereas if the FICA tax were increased, then they actually would start – just barely start, but at least start – on carrying a share of the load rather than being carried along.

Additionally, as opposed to raising income tax, this would be Social Security benefits being paid for by Social Security tax, which is more reasonable (although unfortunately it would still be the Ponzi scheme of the tax going not towards your benefits, but towards the benefits of earlier forced-participants in the scheme.)

Of course this won’t be done either… Obama would far rather yet further raise the tax burden on small business owners, on professionals, and on investments, like any good Marxist.

Tiribulus:

You bring up a MAJOR problem that will often “doom” many of these “movements”.

It’s one thing to talk of things like economic policy/debt/fiscal responsibility, Constitutional Foundations, role of Government, etc.

It’s quite another when you attempt to: a) come up with viable solutions b)attempt to keep peoples deep-seated emotions and/or prejudices out of the equation and c) attempt to come up with solutions to complex social problems within a diverse and free society as our own.

That’s when the “unity” begins to collapse.

As an aside:

I was just in the store buying some Super-Bowl goodies…and I always look at the magazine shelf. I saw a Mag that had Palin on the front with the headlines “Will Palin Save America”?

No.

She stirs up passion, for sure…and gets cheers with her folksy “quips”, especially directed at the President. Then leaves with $100,000 and no solutions.

My feeling is that we have to save ourselves from ourselves. And maybe the only “solution” is in the article HH posted…the whole things has to collapse and anarchy reign.

I just pray that doesn’t happen.

Mufasa

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What most everyone fails to understand, from the Tea Party people to the Libs, is that we are mathematically and certainly doomed. No matter what anyone does, we are doomed.

Most spending is LOCKED in stone. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are untouchable and mathematically MUST destroy the country. They are at least half of the budget. Anyone who tries to reform these will immediately be demagogued by the other party and would be voted out anyway. As long as we have a popular democracy, those programs are untouchable.

Like a machine gone mad, the system will spiral out of control. A military dictatorship will be installed, with old people getting tiny doles and doctors being drafted and forced to serve.

This is all a certainty, just as 2 + 2 = 4.

"The trap got sprung in 1983, when Social Security went bankrupt. That was the year Reagan �?�¢?? President Tax Cut �?�¢?? signed a new law for funding Social Security. The new law imposed income taxes on Social Security payments. It also scheduled a series of increases in the wage base subject to FICA taxes.

That emergency measure deferred the day of reckoning until now. The law was passed in the first year of Reagan’s massive deficits: over $200 billion in 1983 dollars, meaning close to $500 billion in today’s money. That was the end of the Republican Party’s commitment to a balanced budget.

Bill Clinton benefited politically from balanced budgets, 1998Ã??Ã?¢??2001, but only by means of a statistical trick: using Social Security’s net income after payouts as net revenue for the government, and then burying the liabilities in the government’s off-budget accounts. This has been common practice ever since the Johnson Administration.

That game of political deception will end this year. This year marks the year �?�¢?? like 1983 �?�¢?? when receipts from FICA taxes will not cover outlays in the program. The flow of funds will henceforth move from the general fund to the Social Security Administration."

[/quote]

Although the best solution would be to phase out the program and return retirement and disability to matters of personal responsibility and personally bought insurance, and the second best solution I think would be to partially do so with a partial reduction in benefits, if these will not be done then that leaves:

[/quote]

Here’s what would happen to anyone who even DREAMT of touching these programs:

"The most famous example is Barry Goldwater in 1964.

As a Senator, he had on occasion suggested that the government should implement certain aspects of voluntarism into the Social Security system. The Democrats took advantage of this. As recently as 2009, a Time Magazine article on the politics of Social Security reported on this.

President Lyndon Johnson’s campaign ran a TV ad showing a pair of hands ripping a social security card in half as a narrator says: “On at least seven occasions, Senator Barry Goldwater said that he would change the present social security system. But even his running mate, William Miller, admits that Senator Goldwater’s voluntary plan would destroy the social security system. President Johnson is working to strengthen social security.”

A leader can explain to the people until he’s blue in the face. Their answer, like bleating sheep, will be: “I want my check!! I want my benefits!!”

The leader might say how the country will be destroyed, that we have to borrow trillions from China just to pay on these things, and the sheep will bleat the same thing.

They’ve been taught by libs that reality is rubber, that morality is relative, and that humans can be twisted into any shape. They’ve been taught that ‘we are all here to serve one another’.

They are about to see those principles in practice.

There are no political solutions to political problems.

I like that, Lift!

Mufasa

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Sign this is just the thing Mr O said when he grilled Republicans last week; people talking bullshit and spreading mistruth. Calling your own president a communist is one of those things that is not only untrue but also stupid in which it actually works against the message you were trying to deliver in the first place.

A lot of the people at that convention sound like they have an personal motive against Obama. Talk about being derogatory, rude and demeaning. If they keep talking like that no one is going to take them seriously. Hearing those birthers pisses me off especially when its been clearly shown via birth certificate that he was born in Hawaii.[/quote]

Haven’t you figured it, most people that contribute to these political forums have no interest in the truth unless it serves their purpose

Wow, I really got behind.

Unfortunately HH AND Lifty are correct, but I believe for different reasons than they probably do. None of this will have any lasing impact. We may delay the inevitable a little while, but the younger generations, the grandchildren of the 60’s, will usher in the final collapse of anything resembling a faithful traditional family and with it the last remnants of what was once the United States. All the rest of this is merely symptomatic. We are almost there already.