- This topic has 12 voices and 265 replies.
-
Posts
-
The question is not whether Tea Party supporters are socially conservative or not. It is whether social issues are how they define their support for the Tea Party? I would not even claim to be able to speak for the number of Tea Party members who are social conservatives but anecdotal evidence tends to make me think you are correct. I would argue that most Tea Party supporters do not support the Tea Party over social issues but rather over issues like Fiscal irresponsibility which is what garnered so much support for the Tea Party in the first place. The movement got its name from a historical revolt against the fiscal policy of the British crown. It is a mistake to define the Tea Party on social issues. Social issues are a distraction from what the Tea Party is all about.The fact that the Democrats are trying to make hay out of social issues kind of highlights their moral bankruptcy and lack of authority to talk about fiscal responsibility doesn?t it? At least we hear ideas about how to control spending from the Tea Party and Republicans. The Democrats are either silent or still playing the blame Bush game. Democrats seem to spend a lot of time slinging mud at the Tea Party and Republicans in general but I have not heard many (try zero) constructive ideas except for more spending coming from their side of the political aisle. I find it significant that many Democrats are not trumpeting their support for Obamacare, or other fiscal stimulus sonce Obama took office, why is that?
I find it significant that many Democrats are not trumpeting their support for Obamacare, or other fiscal stimulus sonce Obama took office, why is that?
I call it “bar code backlash”. Ever since stores went to bar codes, it is often hard to figure out what something costs. The tag on the shelf is missing or seems to describe something different. But the features described on the box and the glossy pictures convince you it is the perfect item for your needs and you rationalize that it can't be much more than the one you chose it over. Then you get to the counter and when your wallet is out you finally find out the cost… 😮 >:(
I call it “bar code backlash”.
Very apt and captures the essence of why the Democrats are not campaigning on the strength of their Legislative successes.
And if all this was about a deep division in society ?In the shadow of 1860 – America's “two nations” go to the pollsThe Tea Party is now dictating policy and candidate selection to parts of the Republican Party, forcing mainstream Republican politicians to make a straight choice: do a deal with the Sarah Palins and Glenn Becks to get them off your back, or confront them in defence of a conservatism that is fiscally orthodox but socially tolerant. Few have openly chosen the latter.http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2010/10/the_penury_of_americas_middle.html
I don't trust a European paper to accurately report on American politics anymore than I trust an American paper to report on European politics. My time in Europe has convinced me that Europeans just don't get where Americans come from and vice-versa. It is not an insult, it is a cultural thing. Most Europeans just do not understand this American obsession with freedom, and that obsession is basic to who Americans are. You can see echoes of this in the way Europeans treat their military. In Europe it still really is “soldiers and dogs keep off the grass.” That attitude feeds everything Europeans think about America. It is not forcing mainstream Republicans to do anything except live up to what true conservative principles really are, the only sad part is the Tea Party does not have someone as articulate as William F. Buckley to make our point to the liberal and other elites.
I'm “elite” now? 😀
I don't know, are you?Probably not, by elite I mean more the media, commentators, and members of the political class rather than the average man on the street. Normal people can be rich or prosperous too, and many are. Keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Boehner, Bill O'reilly, Obama, and Larry King are examples of the type of people I am talking about. They are all fairly divorced from what the average person experiences.
Linda Chavez has eloquewntly stated why government should stand back and let business get on with the job of making money and employing people.
When entrepreneurs fail, they've lost their own money and that of investors who have freely chosen to take the risk.Government programs, however, play with other people's money — since government has no money of its own. When government programs fail, the consequences aren't born by the people making the decisions but by the taxpayers.
This is the full piece: Linda Chavez: Obama has no clue about entrepreneurship It also explains my base argument against social spending as well. Gobernment produces nothing, bureaucrats are not spending their own money, that is why they are so lavish with it.
Linda Chavez has eloquewntly stated why government should stand back and let business get on with the job of making money and employing people.
When entrepreneurs fail, they've lost their own money and that of investors who have freely chosen to take the risk.Government programs, however, play with other people's money — since government has no money of its own. When government programs fail, the consequences aren't born by the people making the decisions but by the taxpayers.
This is the full piece: Linda Chavez: Obama has no clue about entrepreneurship It also explains my base argument against social spending as well. Gobernment produces nothing, bureaucrats are not spending their own money, that is why they are so lavish with it.
The final evidence is to be seen in the last success-story of business enlightment : The Subprime Mortgage CrisisFortunately, the government hadn't to rescue anybody thanks to these businessmen who were freely taking the risk and … supporting all the consequences ! Thank you to remind us that. (@ Scout: no personal grievance 😉 )
Mrs. Chavez is mainly talking about entrepeneurs(small business) not multinational banks. But your point is taken as well. Now I challenge you to point me to a government intervention success story. ;D
Mrs. Chavez is mainly talking about entrepeneurs(small business) not multinational banks. But your point is taken as well. Now I challenge you to point me to a government intervention success story. ;D
OK, I will bite. Here is w a recent story form one of those liberal media outlets I frequent:http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/18/news/economy/kokomo_stimulus_case_study/index.htm?hpt=SbinYes, there does seem to some bias; I am sure you can find a counterpoint at Faux News. ;D
Too bad, I dont watch Fox News. I am stuck with CNN International, SKY News, and BBC World.That is kind of sad if 14% unemployment is good news isn't it? The problem with bailouts is that they don't force companies to change their bad behavior. I fully expect GM and Chrysler to be in big trouble again within ten years. They have not learned any lessons from the downturn because they did not really feel any pain. In point of fact, both companies and many banks plus AIG would probably be in liquidation right now if they had been allowed to suffer the consequences for their mismanagment and stupid business decisions. In the military one of the principals is do not reinforce failure, but that is exactly what the bailouts did. Sending good money after bad is not the answer.
Too bad, I dont watch Fox News.
You don't have to; they get a lot of their material from your posts. :DYou are right about the unemployment rate – 14% being good is nuts.Even my liberal sources are starting to take the TP seriously, though:http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/19/preston.on.politics/index.html?hpt=T2
Even my liberal sources are starting to take the TP seriously, though:http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/19/preston.on.politics/index.html?hpt=T2
And so they should, at least for now. I hope they have staying power but the jury is still out on that one. The fact is that both spending and taxation have to be rationalized. That will mean both painful and politically unpalatable choices, witness France currently. I don't think we will be as bad as France but demonstrations for sure. One thing is certain, we cannot keep doing things as we have done them in the past. Government must pay as it goes and not continually borrow. I have said it before and I will say it again, I dont object to taxes, I object to the purpose tax receipts are put.
