The Tea Party

well yeah, that too

LOL.

Curious how different people can go to a tea party meeting and see such different things.
I've been to several, some connected to work, others on my own. It's a small sample but I can only talk to the ones I've seen.
--Probably a larger percentage of old white guys that the population as a whole, and it varied with where the event was (what city/state)
--The overwhelming impression: they were people who had already made/inherited/etc theirs and sure as hell didn't want anyone touching what they had. Generosity, caring, understanding were nowhere to be found, black, white, or hispanic.
--The thing that troubled me the most was the real perception that anyone who wasn’t making enough was lazy and ripping off the government. That a “dose of reality” would either straighten out their laziness or they’d starve, and either was OK to most the tea partyers.

It’s always a lot easier to be “small government” when you already have your comfortable life style. Still waiting to have a tea party economist explain to me how a lot of single mothers of 2 young kids can make enough working to cover child care and transportation. And can look forward to her kids going to a school with an ave class size of 48 in a building with years old serious maintenance issues and where the typical HS grad reads at the 7th grade level. But the tb crowd want to reduce the money spent on education without showing a way forward. Odd how when I ask them what school I should send my grandkids to they give me great stories about how their kids went to these very expensive private schools. And if the single mom at min wage really cared about her kids she’d send them their too. Since she doesn’t it’s more “proof” that said single mom is just trying to scam the system.

I’d have a whole lot more good will towards the tb-ers if they could actually give me an answer that didn’t equate everyone on public assistance to a thief, and instead gave forth a sound transition plan.

I think the Tea Party's answer to your hypothetical about a single mother with two kids would be: "Well, she shouldn't have been irresponsible and had kids she can't take care of." One of my top rules for ethical living is 'Never have a child you can't support,' so I might also criticize the mother (AS WELL AS THE FATHER, who's equally responsible for his childrens' plight).

Okay then, what about giving the woman the right to terminate her pregnancy? FUCK NO!, says the Tea Party. They're pro life, you see. A bunch of cells is sacred and deserves government protection, but you're on your own once you're born, mother-fucker! The Tea Party is all for creating a massive government apparatus to monitor the uteruses of women, yet somehow they can say with a straight face that they're for 'small government.' Hahahaha.

So the Tea Party's 'answer' to the hypothetical really isn't an answer at all. The Tea Party will come up with a bunch of 'reasons' why we shouldn't fund public education, health care, and child nutrition programs, such as there's waste and fraud. I imagine there is, just as there's waste and fraud in the private sector, but we don't discard capitalism because of that.

The bottom line is the Tea Party doesn't want to fund a government program unless they see a direct benefit because they're all about self-interest. We're not talking about creative thinkers here, so the link between the tax and the benefit has to be red crayon on white paper clear or they won't see it.

So we cut funding for public education, health care, and nutrition programs for poor kids. Maybe then we'll have to pay to give them food stamps, catastrophic health care at public hospitals, or even to incarcerate them. Then you might look back and think: We could have saved so much money in the long-term by affording the poor kids a chance at the beginning.

That's why I think the Tea Party is the party of fiscal irresponsibility. They want to have their's now, and fuck future generations that will have to pay for their shortsightedness, greed, selfishness, and hypocrisy.

The bottom line is the Tea Party doesn't want to fund a government program unless they see a direct benefit because they're all about self-interest. We're not talking about creative thinkers here, so the link between the tax and the benefit has to be red crayon on white paper clear or they won't see it


as witnessed by their signs at a rally


STOP SOCIAL SPENDING

Obama Leave My Social Security Alone


kinda paints the entire picture IMO.

I think the Tea Party's answer to your hypothetical about a single mother with two kids would be: "Well, she shouldn't have been irresponsible and had kids she can't take care of." One of my top rules for ethical living is 'Never have a child you can't support,' so I might also criticize the mother (AS WELL AS THE FATHER, who's equally responsible for his childrens' plight).

I'll give you two examples of ladies in this situation. Very different from each other, but I think they are both instructive.

Lady #1: Married her HS sweetheart at 19. By 23 they had two kids. He enlisted in the marines because he felt it was the right thing to do. A year later she's a widdow. Yes, she gets a life insurance policy (not huge), and a fraction of his E2 or E-3 salary. Not exactly enough to hire a nanny, or pay for day care while she goes to college. But she clearly made a bad decision marrying a Marine.

Lady #2: Left home at 15 because her mother was a crack head and pressured her to smoke it. Homeless, lived shelter to shelter. Has 2 kids by 2 deadbeat dads who sweet talked her that they would take care of her. One is now in jail and will be for a long time. The other is a lawyer who said he'd marry her--but had no intention of leaving his wife. When she pushed for child support he threatened her with charges of blackmail and had is pals in the DA frighten her into signing papers giving up any child support--he told her she would be convicted and her kids would become wards of the state. Oh, and guess what political leaning the scum bag attourney is? One guess only: Yep, a loud, vocal tea bagger. What a nice guy. I know his firm--he's a senior partner making about $400K--and he begrudged a 19 y/o a few hundred in child support. That was 15 years ago, and though she has never once threatened him in any way, he refuses to lift a finger to help her or his daughter at all.

He gets off with ZERO responsibility and she needs to reinact Le Mes for the next 20 years of her life because as naieve young girl was stupid enough to believe a lyeing scum who threw her to the curb. She admits her mistakes, but it looks like a one-strike-your-condemned world from where she sees it.

The bottom line is the Tea Party doesn't want to fund a government program unless they see a direct benefit because they're all about self-interest. We're not talking about creative thinkers here, so the link between the tax and the benefit has to be red crayon on white paper clear or they won't see it.

No, not seeing it can be excused as stupidity. Most of them see it alright, but their greed gets in the way. Most of them truly don't care if our cities become like Rio where homelss kids are treated no differently than rats or stray cats. The sin of their mother is passed down to the children, and mercy is never thought about once the sunday sermon ends. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

.

Lady #1: Married her HS sweetheart at 19. By 23 they had two kids. He enlisted in the marines because he felt it was the right thing to do. A year later she's a widdow. Yes, she gets a life insurance policy (not huge), and a fraction of his E2 or E-3 salary. Not exactly enough to hire a nanny, or pay for day care while she goes to college. But she clearly made a bad decision marrying a Marine. Originally Posted by Old-T

Bad example, Old-T. Any service member serving should have as a minimum $50,000 Serviceman's Group Life Insurance (SGLI); plus, pay and benefits due. Any serviceman serving in a combat zone should have $400,000 SGLI, or they are a fool. Additionally, the widowed wife will receive a Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) for the children until the children reach majority. There are other, additional financial and educational benefits for the surviving spouse and the children. Not to diminish the loss of a spouse, the government does substantially augment the income of the surviving spouse.

Yes, you are correct and I am aware of most those options. I have gone to the VA and the Marines with her. It seems she will get about $25K per year, give or take. She won't starve, but in medium to high cost of living areas that is scaping by--and even this amount is under attack by some of the "fiscal conservatives".

When the Tea Party becomes the real tea party and not the GOP backed tea party, I'll join. As long as they keep supporting the status quo by supporting Republican candidates, I can't support the tea party. I don't like Democrats or Republicans as the only difference between both is the letter next to their name. For the last 30 years we have been led down this path by both parties and now all of a sudden we're supposed to trust the GOP will do the right thing.

I understand, ICIPeace. I'm the same way. But the threat of an Obama second term is frightening, so at least temporarily, I'm supporting the Tea Party and Romney, just hoping for enough time to put the defibrillator on Liberty. Obama pulled the plug, and we have to bring her back to life. I don't know if Romney or the Tea Party will do it, but Obama won't, and after a second term, it will be too late.

Well COG, I hope Romney wins. In 2016 we'll still be sitting at $20-$25T in debt, running deficits, housing hasn't recovered, oil prices through the roof, and high unemployment. Why? Because the system is broken and regardless of who wins, macroeconomic forces are in play and in my opinion cannot be stopped.

I can't really disagree with you, ICIPeace. I was adamant against Romney up until recently, and quite frankly, the only really good thing about him is that he isn't Obama. Romney is a statist, but he will be in his first term, and he will have to at least answer the phone when Rand Paul and others in the Liberty Movement call. Not that he'll do anything, but at least he might (emphasize MIGHT) listen. I'm really just hoping to buy some time for the Libertarian Party to gain some traction. It's a long, long, long shot, but it's the only shot I see out there.

But you're right, we are headed headlong into tyranny. And I don't think we'll be able to reverse the course in time. Better take the Rosetta Stone course in Chinese.

I can't really disagree with you, ICIPeace. I was adamant against Romney up until recently, and quite frankly, the only really good thing about him is that he isn't Obama. Romney is a statist, but he will be in his first term, and he will have to at least answer the phone when Rand Paul and others in the Liberty Movement call. Not that he'll do anything, but at least he might (emphasize MIGHT) listen. I'm really just hoping to buy some time for the Libertarian Party to gain some traction. It's a long, long, long shot, but it's the only shot I see out there.

But you're right, we are headed headlong into tyranny. And I don't think we'll be able to reverse the course in time. Better take the Rosetta Stone course in Chinese. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Oh my heavens Chicken Little errrrr SOF, the sky is really fallin' this time! It really and truly is!

WAHWAHWAHWAHWAH

Glad you love government so much, BigTurd. Wait until you find out what government thinks of you.

I was adamant against Romney up until recently.... Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Hahaha. Now THAT'S some funny shit! So much for the Tea Party's pure, uncompromising 'principles.'

Watching yall talk about shit that is backasswards is hilarious.

Shyster and I were texting the other day and I said something to the effect of, obamacare was passed because someone got a BJ. Then he said, "If things got done in washington with BJ's, the tea party would rule, because yall SUCK." that was some funny shit right there.