It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


Your questions are legitimate and valid but I wouldn't hold your breath.

The TPM are merely Anti Obama Cheerleaders, all RAH and no REE.

It requires 100 members to change a light bulb. 1 to actually replace bulb, and 99 to demand change by vocal protest without offering alternatives.






[edit on 17-4-2010 by kinda kurious]




posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
From what I gather, the Tea Party is named after the first one in American history. The one where colonists dressed up as Indians and threw boxes of British tea overboard to protest the taxation on tea. The battle cry was "No taxation without representation". The colonies had no representation in England.

The reality now, however, is that there IS representation, in Congress. The TPM may not like the way they are represented. They are free to use the ballot box in November.

I believe they are also FOR the Constitution, as long as you interpret it to mean that all federal programs are illegitimate and all powers in these matters belong to the states. This is their strict interpretation and any other reading is considered treasonous.
Along these same lines, they are also for "state's rights;" sort of what the south said it was fighting for in the Civil War. We all know how that turned out.

These are just a couple of things I believe the Tea Party is FOR.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by Sestias]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by Jenna
 


I would love to know what the Tea Party stands for and I want details. Please for the love of FSM, do not say "smaller govt" and "lower taxes". I want details!

What is the TPM stance on the war? Defense? and Spending associated with it?

What EXACTLY does smaller govt mean? Smaller federal govt? Smaller State govt? Smaller local govt?

With regards to lower taxes, How low? What programs will be cut from lowering all of these taxes?

I recently heard that of each dollar of federal taxes, about 50% is medicare, medicaid and SS. And about 20% is defense/military spending. of that 70% what would the tea party cut out? The remaining 30% represents all other govt agencies and spending. What would the TPM do with that 30%? What will be cut?

What is the TPM stance on financial regulation?

What is the TPM stance on campaign finance reform?

What is the TPM stance on the war on drugs?

What is the TPM stance on public funding for roads?

What is the TPM stance on public parks?

What is the TPM stance on public libraries?

What is the TPM stance on public funding for police?

What is the TPM stance on public funding for fire depts?

What is the TPM stance on public funding for first responders?

I can come up with more questions but this is just a start.



I am not kidding I have been asking these questions over and over whenever i can to posts online or when speaking to people who support the TPM and not once have I received any intelligent responses. They just repeat the Sarah Palin-esque responses of "smaller govt", "lower taxes", etc.

Will someone who supports the TPM, please answer these questions and show me where the TPM has put any of these answers in writing.

I have been to several of the so called "official" TPM websites and not one has an actual mission statement that declares where they stand on any of these issues. They just repeat, "smaller govt" and "lower taxes".




there are a myraid of websites that will tell you that information.
if you just want to sit there and be spoonfed information so you can dismiss it i can tell you thats why noones took the time to respond.

its pretty clear you've already formed an opinion of the tpm.


alittle less hate and a little more repsect in this world works wonders..:p



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Please point out these websites to me because I have been to several Tea Party websites(still have no idea which is the official one) and not one has a mission statement or do they answer any of the questions i have asked.

You dont have to answer them but please point me to these sites you speak of because i have done my google searches without any new information.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by neo96
 


Please point out these websites to me because I have been to several Tea Party websites(still have no idea which is the official one) and not one has a mission statement or do they answer any of the questions i have asked.

You dont have to answer them but please point me to these sites you speak of because i have done my google searches without any new information.



i will do you one better go to a local tea party and see for yourself get it straight from the horses mouth.

please dont tell me that you use the msm and the internet for your sources of information

and if you actually do go to one randomly pick people and ask them what the think hopefully more than one.

also if your happy with the way things are currently being ran in washington then its a waste of time.

but if your sitting there and thinking " does government know whats best for me or do i..."

the only real freedom we have left in the country is the freedom to think no matter what side of the aisle you fall on.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


First you say this

there are a myraid of websites that will tell you that information.


Then you say

please dont tell me that you use the msm and the internet for your sources of information


You told me there are a myriad of websites and then you act as though the internet is a bad place to get information.

I have not gone to a local tea party but I have spoken to many people who say they are part of the movement (including, apparently you) and very few have offered much of actual content with regards to what they want.


also if your happy with the way things are currently being ran in washington then its a waste of time.


I'm not completely happy with everything the govt does but who is happy everything the govt ever does or any other subject or person for that matter. But if you disagree with something, you are only making noise if you dont have any better suggestions. If you want to criticize you need to have an alternate suggestion.


the only real freedom we have left in the country is the freedom to think no matter what side of the aisle you fall on.


Really? You really believe that the only freedom we have is the freedom to think? You must live in a very rare portion of the US. I feel quite free, especially when compared with many other areas of the world.

Things arent perfect but when have they ever been and is anything perfect?

If you dont like the way things are, you better be able to articulate what exactly you dont like and provide a suggestion for improvement based in fact.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
what the hell.

seriously why did i even bother.


did i say i was a member of the tea party? where? when?

YOU made the assumption.

i chose not to bash,belittle, and demigrate others who have different views.

we're done here.




[edit on 18-4-2010 by neo96]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I'm not for or against the Tea Party...if the Tea Party is mostly Republicans, it's clear that the anti-Tea Party is liberal. And, they are aggressively attacking the Republicans with personal insults. Same as it's been for many years...just different names.

I can't believe people bash the Tea Party and don't even know what they are. Oh, on second thought, I'm not surprised. Just hoping it wouldn't happen here. Go Liberal Terrorists...that way you'll be busy and can't influence any policy.



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the epitome of a non existent argument. i.e. defeat.

You claim a myriad of sources regading legitimate questions @ TPM. You then instruct another poster to research them. When challenged to provide one, you divert then cut and run.
Teabaggers usually dissolve when placed in hot water.

Try the weak sauce at Taco Bell, you will love it.




[edit on 18-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


My apologies, I didn't see that you had responded to me until today. Better late than never, I suppose.
I don't have all the answers, and I won't pretend I do. But I will try to answer your questions as best I can. I didn't set out to write a novel when I started typing, but here it is.


What is the TPM stance on the war? Defense? and Spending associated with it?


The tea parties aren't about the war, so there isn't a unified stance on it. As for spending, yes the majority want lower federal spending. You may think that's a non-answer, but really it's not.

In 2009, the federal government spent $3.52 trillion dollars. Everyone likes to talk about how we spend more on defense than everything else, but were you aware that $738.6 billion was spent on pensions (social security), $764.4 billion was spent on healthcare (mostly seniors), and $794 billion was spent on defense. An extra $30 billion isn't really that much when you're looking at numbers that high. (Source)

We had $3.52 trillion in spending and only $2.11 in revenues, and people wonder why the tea parties are clamoring for reduced federal spending. We don't have the money for all the things we're paying for, and the alternative is to raise taxes. Which would you rather have reduced spending or higher taxes? Just to break even we have to do or the other, and that's not taking the national debt into account. You won't find a single list of things the tea party movement wants spending cut on because everyone has different priorities. The main goal with it is to get the incumbents who keep voting for things that add billions of dollars to our yearly budget, the spending down, the details of what programs to reduce or cut can be worked out later.

Even Obama has been cutting programs recently, so I know people can't be against the tea parties just because of potential program cuts. Well, not unless they're against any cuts to anything that is.


What EXACTLY does smaller govt mean? Smaller federal govt? Smaller State govt? Smaller local govt?


Smaller federal government as laid out in the Constitution. The federal government has developed this nasty habit of sticking their fingers into everything and mucking it all up. Anything that the federal government was not given specific power over in the Constitution is supposed to lie in the hands of the states. The tea parties are, in part, about bringing the country back to that instead of the ever-expanding federal government we have now.


I recently heard that of each dollar of federal taxes, about 50% is medicare, medicaid and SS. And about 20% is defense/military spending. of that 70% what would the tea party cut out? The remaining 30% represents all other govt agencies and spending. What would the TPM do with that 30%? What will be cut?


Have a gander at the Pig Book if you want ideas on things that could be cut. It details all the earmarks and pork spending in the current and past federal budgets. You'll be amazed at some of the things in there.


What is the TPM stance on financial regulation?

What is the TPM stance on campaign finance reform?

What is the TPM stance on the war on drugs?

What is the TPM stance on public funding for roads?

What is the TPM stance on public parks?

What is the TPM stance on public libraries?

What is the TPM stance on public funding for police?

What is the TPM stance on public funding for fire depts?

What is the TPM stance on public funding for first responders?


You won't find an answer for any of those because those aren't what the tea parties are about. I've heard no one calling for the complete and immediate removal of basic services (roads, emergency services, parks, libraries, etc.). Why on earth would you think a movement about smaller federal government and lowered federal spending would have an opinion on the war on drugs?

You also won't find an "official" tea party website because there isn't one. It isn't one small group of people running the whole show. It's small groups organizing protests in their area and coordinating with other small groups around the country to present a unified front. (Or at least attempt to be unified.)


Originally posted by iamcamouflage

How exactly do they plan on accomplishing anything? Do they have anyone running for office? What is there common goal and how can they reach that goal? You do realize that you have to actually do something besides protest if you want to accomplish anything. They need to have a leader, every org needs a leader or spokes person.


That wasn't directed at me, but while I'm at it I'll answer these too.

The plan is to accomplish things with the only means we the people have without resorting to violent overthrow, through our voices and our votes. The tea party isn't a political party so there can be no tea party candidate to run for office. There may be people who support the tea parties who run for office, but they aren't actually representing the entire movement with their candidacy. Individual groups, sure. The whole movement, no.

Plenty can be accomplished with what's already being done. Holding protests draws attention to your cause, people who agree with your cause will see others think the same things they do and the movement grows. They get people talking, discussions are had, minds are changed or opinions strengthened. All of this affects people's voting habits. Someone who would have just voted for the name they recognized on the ballot may remember a discussion where they learned that candidate supports things the voter does not while another candidate doesn't. The second candidate gets the vote and that voter has made an informed choice instead of taking part in a game of "Who's name do I remember best".



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Jenna, I commend your cogent and well defined reply on behalf of TPM. Your analysis and erudite commentary was the first rational explanation I have seen to date. The rest of the “movement” would do well to adopt your keen insight and resolute tone.

While, like most anyone, I wholeheartedly agree that the dream of a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility is paramount to the sustainability of our nation, it is important to remember how we got to this point from a historical perspective.

I suspect, like many others, the somewhat dubious timing of the fever pitch of revolt expressed by the TPM and wonder why now? Why this President? I think I know why but for the sake of explanation, I will focus on your erudite claims regarding National debt and spending. That will require us to look back a few decades to find the root cause of this dilemma we find ourselves in today and how we arrived here. My main objection with your logic pertains to responsibility for the national debt.

 

Not learning from his past mistakes, Bush pushed through yet more tax cuts in 2003, 2005 and 2006 -- all while expanding the military, the largest single component of the budget.  He and his lap dog Republican Congress never learned from their mistakes.  As a result, the national debt has increased an average of $1.5 billion per day since the beginning of 2002.




 

The facts also show that it most often takes a Democratic President to control and reduce spending.  The truth is that the Republicans are the party of “borrow and spend”.  They hate taxes, but love to spend; their solution is to put off paying till later for our security today.  They prefer to see our children pay for their debt.  Neo-Conservative thinking has run up over an 9.5 trillion dollar debt that will not be paid off for a generation or more, and is still increasing at an astounding rate with no end to deficit spending in sight. 
 
Every time we have seen massive tax cuts there was a bubble in the economy followed by a recession.

  


Source:
cedarcomm.com...

IMO, as a whole the TPM seems to know what it doesn’t like about government but doesn’t know how to get there other than blame the current administration. It is no secret they are by in large Republican so I feel justified in exposing the shared blame.


[edit on 18-4-2010 by kinda kurious] Sorry for the late breaking edits

[edit on 18-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Thank you Kinda. I do believe that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.


I can see why the timing might seem suspicious, but keep in mind that people complained about what Bush was doing for almost the entirety of his 8 years in office. A quick google search for 'Bush protest' gave me links going back to at least 2003, and I know it hasn't been so long ago that people have forgotten all the outrage about what he did while in office.

The first tea parties were held in early 2009 to protest TARP and the bailout. Both of which were started under Bush, and the former being signed into law while he was still in office. Obama is involved because he voted for both and signed the latter into law. Every other senator and representative who supported those is a target of ire for the tea parties, why should Obama be any different? That's something I don't understand. Why should Obama be given a free pass when it comes to the tea parties? Wouldn't forgiving the part he played in both TARP and the bailouts just because he's black be racist?

There were protests for the bailouts prior to Obama being in office. Here's a video from September 2008, before the presidential elections as I'm sure you'll recall, showing a protest for the Wall St. bailouts:



Notice how they're complaining about the same things the tea parties are, but they're shown as articulate and intelligent and not as bumbling fools. Same message, likely some of the same people, different perceptions of them by the media and the public.

Here's another from April 2008:



Again, not portrayed as bumbling fools. It was only once Obama became president that protesting government spending turned into a racist act. That seems more suspicious to me than the timing of the tea parties.

The main difference I see between these videos and the tea parties is the number of people involved. These protests happened, but there weren't as many people out protesting as there were last year. Why the massive difference in participation levels? I'm sure part of it is that people have gotten progressively more angry at the government and are more willing to get out of the house and do something about it now than they were two years ago. Since the protests in those videos both TARP and the bailouts have been passed and signed into law, of course people are more angry now than they were before they were passed.

I'm also sure there are some who are using the tea parties as an excuse to spout their racist nonsense. That doesn't make the entire movement the result of racism as some like to claim though, which is the claim I see fallen back on most often and the one it appears you're hinting at in your post. The problem with that claim is the logic involved. To assume that the tea parties are the result of nothing more than racism you have to assume that every single one of those people involved is racist and that they're using anger over government expansion and spending as cover.

Neither of those assumptions make any sense. It's statistically impossible for that many racists to show up for the single purpose of protesting a black man being president without any planning being done ahead of time, that planning not being found by now, and having it all neatly hidden away under the guise of protesting government spending. Not that I expect to be able to change anyone's mind about it. To understand the true level of anger and frustration and it's true target you have to see it with your own eyes and not through the filter of MSNBC, CNN, or even Fox.

So tell me, what would it have taken for you to see the tea parties for what they are and not as something that only came about because of Obama? More news coverage of the ones that happened while Bush was in office?


Edit: Wow I must be in a novel writing mood.. Sorry about that.


[edit on 18-4-2010 by Jenna]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
So tell me, what would it have taken for you to see the tea parties for what they are and not as something that only came about because of Obama? More news coverage of the ones that happened while Bush was in office?


Because as I've stated before, I attended one and a Townhall meeting as I was initially excited at the prospect. That is when I learned first-hand empirically what they were all about. Granted it was just the one, but once bitten, twice shy. My opinion is not a result of media propaganda.

No worries about the length of your tome, you are obviously passionate and well versed on this subject. You've cleaned my clock in the past, so I'm a tad gun shy.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Because as I've stated before, I attended one and a Townhall meeting as I was initially excited at the prospect. That is when I learned first-hand empirically what they were all about. Granted it was just the one, but once bitten, twice shy. My opinion is not a result of media propaganda.


Being wary is completely understandable if you had a bad experience at the one you attended. Just don't let one bad experience color your vision of the entire movement. No two groups will be identical and it's likely that were you to attend a different one somewhere else you'd have a completely different experience.


You've cleaned my clock in the past, so I'm a tad gun shy.


No need to be gun shy, I don't bite. Usually..



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


The problem is you're letting the antics of a few dumba$$es at that ONE Tea Party rally you went to color your opinion of them all.

You're smart enough to know better than to make blanket generalizations, yet you insist on holding onto this one for some reason.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Thanks for your excellent explanations of the motivating factors and some history of the TPM. I am certainly able to respect those.

As for me, I think TARP was a necessary if regrettable evil. It's too bad our financial institutions had gotten deregulated so much and become so greedy and irresponsible that they threatened to take down not only our economy but the world's. We shouldn't have had to get to that point.

But if people think the recession and unemployment are bad now (and they are), it's important to consider that there would have been a world-wide depression of the magnitude of the one in the 1930's, if not worse, without TARP. Our economy would have been destroyed.

I don't like TARP any more than anybody else, but I am not out protesting it because, although it's not working nearly as well as it could be, we had no other real choice that I can see.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


The problem is you're letting the antics of a few dumba$$es at that ONE Tea Party rally you went to color your opinion of them all.

You're smart enough to know better than to make blanket generalizations, yet you insist on holding onto this one for some reason.


If I take a swig of milk and it tastes bad, I rarely take a 2nd.

As far as all the bigoted signage, shouting and slurs etc., I don't blame the tool, I blame the carpenter.


[edit on 19-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
If I take a swig of milk and it tastes bad, I rarely take a 2nd.


Most people don't. They throw that jug out and get a different one. They don't just swear off milk forever.


[edit on 19-4-2010 by Jenna]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


This one is for you KK. No sour milk here and kudos to you for giving it a try. Just get back up on that horse and give it another go. Before you know it you'll be bare back riding at the rallies.


"Liberal WaPo Columnist Attends Tea Party Rally; Discovers Refreshing Rationality "
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 19-4-2010 by jibeho]



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

The first tea parties were held in early 2009 to protest TARP and the bailout. Both of which were started under Bush, and the former being signed into law while he was still in office. Obama is involved because he voted for both and signed the latter into law. Every other senator and representative who supported those is a target of ire for the tea parties, why should Obama be any different? That's something I don't understand. Why should Obama be given a free pass when it comes to the tea parties? Wouldn't forgiving the part he played in both TARP and the bailouts just because he's black be racist?
[edit on 18-4-2010 by Jenna]


Thanks Jenna. This is something I have stated before, but revisionist history seems to be moving at light-speed within the TPM.

Bush started the TARP bailout, signed into law hours after it passed congress...Outrage over this is what started the Tea Party Movement...why do recent surveys show the vast majority of Tea Party Members view Bush favorably while thier views of Obama...well we know the answer there.

See the problem...

It is the discord between what they claim to be and what they are.

Ditto with financial regulatory reform...they are against it...

they will talk "socialism" vs Free Markets etc. but the bottom line is that the current bill to tighten regulations on the specific practices of Wall Street that got us here...that spurred the Tea Party Movement in the begining ...are now opposed by it. THere is no clearer evidence of hijacking IMO.

Before you echoe the GOP rhetoric that the bill "permanentlt institutionalizes government bailouts"...know that this rhetoric was carefully calculated and wholey untrue.

See below...No Tax Payer Dollars for bailouts...the TPM should be applauding the bill...but they are against it...Notice the TPM chatter about "Free Markets" in the context of reforming Wall Street and what it does with our money.
news.yahoo.com...

Also see here..Freedomworks creaed and paid for the Tea Party Express



One of the leading organizers and sponsors of the Tea Party movement appears to be paying scant attention -- if any -- to efforts by Congress or the White House to pass regulatory reform.

The group FreedomWorks, which has played an instrumental role in shepherding anti-government and anti-Wall Street angst into a major political movement, does not list efforts to reform the financial sector as one of its six major areas of interest on its website. Nor, as a sharp-eyed observer points out, does it put regulatory reform among the 18 other items it lists as "other key issues." The group does list "Regulatory Reform" as a mission on its mission page. But there are no additional details.

Considering that the FreedomWorks mission is defined as devotion to "free-market economics and limited government" the omission would seem rational. But the group and its header, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, have tactically allied themselves with the populist movement that bloomed, in part, out of anger towards the preferential treatment Wall Street enjoys within political circles -- which suggests that daylight could exist between the Tea Party protesters and their major benefactor.


www.huffingtonpost.com...

How did a group that was principally Anti Bush and Bailouts...become Anti Financial reform and Pro-Bush? Seriously...They were hijacked.

Freedomworks and Dick Armey



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join