So, I hear you hate the Tea Party.

[Saru Inc]

That's great! I do as well.


So, I have seen tempers flare up quite a lot around the forum when them tea partiers are mentioned. So I thought I'd ask a favor.

I'm doing a research/persuasive paper on why I think the Tea Party will save America (long story... and a boring one.). As part of the requirement, I need to interview a person who supports the tea party, and one who is against it.

Its due Wednesday morning. Yup. (Well, the annotated bibliography). So I have been breaking my back, because my english teacher at first said "I want an interview from an expert of said subject." And none of the political people I emailed over the past few weeks were getting back to me. Finally, today she said "by the way, people, when I say experts, I don't mean for example, people who have spent their whole life studying the topic. Just people who know the topic, and disagree with it. You can ask your next door neighbor why they don't donate to Haiti, if they know about it, then they are an expert in this case"

Hurray!

Bibliography is still due in one day. I don't think paperitis is a registered CDC disease as of yet. So, now that I have been enlightened, I have come to ask if anyone would be interested in partaking in this.

There is only one requirement. It must be 350 words, and typed semi professionally. Although I'll just spell check it anyways. If you are interested with venting your hatred in a polite way, as well as doing me this favor you can do this:

Send a pm with the following:
Your opinion on why you think the tea party's fiscal policies, budgets, etc., their "rogue leadership" or even their "self absorbed" grass roots movement simply will not do. Why it won't help the american populace. It just needs to be 350 words. It can absolutely show harsh bias, don't be afraid to like... not go overboard. I would also need your real first and last name, as well as a small one or two sentence snippet about how you effectively know what the hell you're talking about. (We have to prove credibility) but saying you watch the news and read the papers frequently, as well as having an active interest in politics frankly is good enough.


Also, if for some lovely reason more than one person wants to do this, go ahead and PM me, we only have one required source. But I'd love your guys opinion (honestly), and so would be grateful if I got a couple responses.

Thanks a bunch

P.s. Mods I don't know if this belongs in the politics section or not. Feel free to move it where ever you would like. Just not... the trash bin.

P.p.s. This is 477 words.

 

[bickelz]

But the tea party is going to get us back to the Regan era so that Jesus can save America from the socialist queers such as myself.

 

[Saru Inc]

this is true

 

[Blind Bandit]

So do your really think the Tea Party is good for America? Or are you just arguing for the sake of it? I'm curious.

 

[88chaz88]

 

[Chessie]

Funny thing, I do think the Tea Part will end up saving the idea of America...if only because the backlash that eviscerates the extremists will be so complete and total that it will restore our society to a place of respect.

 

[Oranguh]

Funny thing, I do think the Tea Part will end up saving the idea of America...if only because the backlash that eviscerates the extremists will be so complete and total that it will restore our society to a place of respect.

Also, most (if not all) tea party supporters are (former) republicans. The fragmentation of the right winged parties will only result in less political power overall. This will probably leave the democrats in a much stronger position. . .

Isn't this kinda... political suicide? Or am I missing something here?

 

[88chaz88]

Isn't this kinda... political suicide? Or am I missing something here?

Most tea-partiers will vote republican and the republicans know this.

 

[the]

tea party's fiscal policies, budgets, etc.,

I didnt know they had any of these things.

 

[Saru Inc]

So do your really think the Tea Party is good for America? Or are you just arguing for the sake of it? I'm curious.

Nah, my mom is the previous owner of the tea party in virginia, so it was the easiest organization since she could provide me all the information. but i don'tl ike the tea party.

I didnt know they had any of these things.

They want to shrink the budget... for one.

 

[the]

They want to shrink the budget... for one.

I mean I didn't know they had a plan that had detail in it. I thought it was just a general 'lets shrink the budget' idea.

 

[Oranguh]

and the rent is probably too damn high~

 

[Saru Inc]

I mean I didn't know they had a plan that had detail in it. I thought it was just a general 'lets shrink the budget' idea.

And thats something people are discussing about what they dislike about the tea party, how fragmented it is. One large section wants to shrink the defense budget, one wants to remove income tax etc. You think these are a joke? Then tell me! hehe.



my personal opinion: i think the tea partiers have "good intentions" but, they're kind of crazy.

 

[Oranguh]

my personal opinion: i think the tea partiers have "good intentions" but, they're kind of crazy.

True idealists~~

(according to a book called [something forgot title] written by Keirsley Idealists are NF.... Tea party people are NF?!?!? Breaking news! [Further incites drama] )

 

[~jet]

I dont hate the tea party; I just shake my head sadly at them. 99% of them are genuine, down-on-their-luck, everyday people... who have been lied to and bought it hook, line, and sinker. They're effectively doing the dirty work of the very people who ARE responsible for the hollowed out economy that is the source of their otherwise honest consternation.

 

[Saru Inc]

well you don't have to hate the party, just not agree with their views. I just said hate because so many people are like "YEA SMASH THE TEA PARTY! YEA!"

 

[Oranguh]

well you don't have to hate the party, just not agree with their views. I just said hate because so many people are like "YEA SMASH THE TEA PARTY! YEA!"

And then I was like, you go bro I'm going to add an extra dimension to this game! So then I was like "T-party = hate BUT NF = T-party? lolwut" and then everyone will be like oeh noes! We were all wrong to begin with! Whenever we start the blame game/ideological judging no-one wins! Everyone loses! And then we suddenly reach nirvana and then we become happy peaceful people. Because everyone somehow realizes that people are people and nothing more.

 

[~jet]

well you don't have to hate the party, just not agree with their views. I just said hate because so many people are like "YEA SMASH THE TEA PARTY! YEA!"

Agree'd; the people actually showing up for tea-party events are honest enough... those of us looking for real reform (you know, closing loopholes, no revolving doors between congress/presidency and major corporations, rich paying their fair share, election reform, trade policy reform, not getting into unnecessary wars, etc) could use their energy, absolutely. It's the people who organized the events... the Koch brothers, armey, etc

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

Overall, I see it like this:

• In order for a person to have a job, there must be something that is needed to be done that they are able to do
• In order for there to be a need that needs fulfilling, someone has to need to have it fulfilled (call this DEMAND)
• Now that someone needs a thing (be it a service or good), there is opportunity to meet that need (call this SUPPLY.)
• If, however, he or she who is in need has no resources to devote to acquiring the needed good or service, his or her demand is essentially empty. This resource could be anything (from building materials to food and shelter offered to resource-measuring capitol (money, commodities, etc.)
• Further, if he or she who is a position to meet demand doesn't know HOW to (or is otherwise incapacitated by things like hunger, imprisonment, fear), they no amount of demand is likely to give them means to offer supply.
• Now, in a world where resources ARE finite... there's only so much air to breath, only so much biomass to eat, only so much metal to craft, only so much coal and oil to burn (or turn into plastics), et cetera, wealth is similarly limited (wealth being a measurement of labor and resources.)
• Therefore, in a nation such as ours that is experiencing dramatic shifts in wealth (either from the many to the few, or out of the country entirely (free trade, thank you very much)), for one to gain wealth, another must lose it.
• Contrary to Voodoo economics (reaganism/trickle-down), the extremely small population of 'haves' that have come about as a result of his policies (really, THEIR policies via him and cronies) is not capable of producing enough demand for caviar and yachts and jaguars to keep the 99% of the rest of us gainfully employed; and since it is OUR wealth they have collected unto themselves, we no longer have enough of it to produce DEMAND for goods... so people are the fuel they need to SUPPLY, and, in true tailspin fashion, DEMAND ebbs further (they no longer having jobs to help fuel their demand.)

If you consider money/wealth to be like blood, circulating through a healthy body then the last 30 years (of by-the-rich-for-the-rich economic/trade policies) have done the following to us (including all those people demonstrating at tea party events): Concentration of wealth is equivalent to a blood-clot (be it in the heart or in the brain, it does not matter.. both lead to death.) while free unregulated irrational trade policies that send wealth out of the nation (re, the body) is equivalent to bleeding out... we've been collectively stabbed (by our own, quite frankly) and left to die.

The people who have done this are those who benefit the most from it. The upper 1% (and the upper 1% of the upper 1% by an entire order of magnitude more; keep in mind, the 400 wealthiest families in america own more property and assets than the lower 150 million people combined.) who buy congressfolk left and right (or have otherwise engaged in farces as congressfolk temporarily, or otherwise have served in the cabinet of virtually every president since and including Reagan.)

These are also the same people chartering the busses to haul the tea partiers around so they can protest against the very (mostly but not entirely Democrat) people who are trying to fight back against these economy-vampires. "Don't take away my medicare!" Yells one particularly misinformed tea-partier at an early rally, apparently unaware that medicare is (for all of its flaws) government provided.

The culprits own the media, and thus the message, so it only makes sense that haunted angry middle class everyday (and sadly, less educated thanks to Reagan's ongoing war on schools (yet another of the most cut back expenses during 'dire economic times' that have become common place since we swung away from progressive/democratic oversights)) would pick up their signs and their bullhorns and march, with true and admirable conviction, in unwitting defense of the very people doing them the most harm.

 

[This]

[MENTION=3019]~jet[/MENTION], out of curiosity. how much in taxes do you personally think that the "rich" should pay?

I'm just curious since you seem to have a vicious hatred and suspicion of all of them.

 

[~jet]

[MENTION=3019]~jet[/MENTION], out of curiosity. how much in taxes do you personally think that the "rich" should pay?

I'm just curious since you seem to have a vicious hatred and suspicion of all of them.

Easycheese;

If we look at american history, we have several examples:

After the last time the rich had their way with the american economy (the roaring 20s followed by the j.p.morgan great depression), we put a very high tax bracket on (and ONLY on) the amount any individual took home in pay (not at all to be confused with business profits/income (those who tell you otherwise are lying to line their own pockets.)) It varied in percentages from 70 to 90 percent, and only on the amount left over after the first (in today's dollars) 3.5 million dollars a year. The amount below that was taxed at a more normal income tax rate. The results were lovely; those in danger of straying over making 3.5mil(inflation adjusted) dollars a year went out of their way to dodge paying the extra taxes by investing the difference; in their own businesses (resulting in better pay and benefits for their workers, more stable businesses, etc) or in tax deductible things like charities, commons investments, et cetera where the funds did just as much good.

This status lasted from about the mid 1930s until 1980 when Reagan slashed it down. During this time is America's measurably best, most stable years. There were no bank runs, no economic crashes, people could afford to raise a family on a single income AND take time off AND retire AND eat and play healthy.

Since that time, lower tax rates have allowed the upper crust to abscond with the difference. Since that time, deregulation has allowed them to hoard finite wealth, launder it through offshore loopholes, hire next-to-slave labor in desperate foreign nations (thus culling jobs here and making us more desperate in a very ugly race to the bottom), and so on and so forth.

Right now, even Buffet walks around with virtual ?s over his head, proclaiming the oddity of the fact that, as a capitalist, he pays less than half the tax rate than his secretaries do (15% vs 32-35%.)

Meanwhile, if the tax were even paying THAT much (i.e., the same upper 20s to low 30s I pay) social security would never ever fail, education would could be free-to-all, debts would be minimal and manageable, wealth would still be in the hands of those who spend it (and thus create demand for *duh duh duh* JOBS (which further fuel demand for more jobs which fuel demand for more jobs which fuel demand for more jobs which fuel demand for more jobs which fuel demand for more jobs which fuel demand for more jobs which fuel demand for more jobs which fuel demand for more jobs, ad nauseam.)

So yes, while all I've done is use fact and logic to make my point (in contrary to your accusation) these people really do deserve our vitriol since they are, through their greed, machinations, bait-and-switches, manipulations, lies, etc, essentially raping the citizenry of this country and leaving them battered and bruised and exposed to hostile elements as a result. I and 99% of us have every right to be upset about that.

Are you really suggesting that 3.5 million a year is not enough to live on? Are you really suggesting that 3.5 million a year does not make one very very very wealthy. Because it was that at that (soft) limit (since someone could choose to take more home if they wanted to pay the higher tax bracket) that America thrived more than at any other time in its short history. If you want further evidence, look at any point throughout human history where all the wealth was held by the few, and see how that turned out.

Next thing, you'll be telling us 'let them eat cake!'