Tea Party & Fellow Travellers

Peter really nails the issue of the dispute.

The Tea Party is NOT the political party of the very rich. The Tea Party is best described as moderately affluent, married couples that either own a small business or both the husband and wife have successful careers. As you point out, the policies of Democrats and establishment Republicans benefit the very rich and the very poor (whose votes are bought with welfare) at the expense of the middle class.

I will touch on some of the social issues as well. Tea Party people are generally social conservatives because their moderate financial success is due in part to the success of their marriages. Sociologists have long understood that those most likely to live in poverty are single mothers with children. Single men are not much better off because so many of them are paying child support. Unless you are a professional athlete, entertainer, wall street executive or technology guru, your probability of financial success in the US is closely related to your marital success. A failed marriage puts men as well as women and the children on the fast track to the poor house.

Another factor that is extremely relevant is that Tea Party people are Darwinian successes as well as moderately financially successful. Tea Party people have children whom they support and expect will give them grandchildren. In contrast, the establishment parties serve either welfare people who are Darwinian success but financial failures or elites who are financially successful but Darwinian failures. This combination of a sense of financial responsibility plus progeny makes TEA PARTY people accutely aware of the implications of the national debt. Establishment Republicans and Democrats don't care about the debt either because they are extremely rich and thus benefitting from the debt (guess who buys the debt to earn interest off of other people's labor), or they are poor people who choose to rely on govt rather than themselves.

It is really interesting to watch the rhetoric of the Tea Party leaders because they advocate populist policies that resonate with the trust busting policies of the Roosevelypt era Republicans. A strong sentiment for neoisolationism is also emerging. If the Tea Party becomes dominant, Europeans will no longer need worry about the US intervening militarily in the Middle East or Europe. I expect that Europeans will like this US return to isolationism very much, then regret it even more.

Hey Fly check my math,

Debt + unfunded mandates = $16 trillion US population rounded is about 400 million. So the Government signed our names to a debt of 16 x 10^12 / 4 x 10^8 = $40,000.00 owed by every man woman and child in the United States.

Any body out there got an extra $40,000.00 burning a hole in their pocket?

Poker

I would refer you to RAH and his discussion of what happens when the 10 percent are prevented (by whatever means) from inventing/entreprenuring/creating/etc. I expect the entire world is in for a run of "bad luck".

Thanks folks, I'm much better informed but possibly more confused than ever. We have a parallel here in that the "shock jocks" (talk back radio announcers on the far right), mainly appeal to the battlers. Those with lowish education, poorly paid jobs and an insecure toe hold on the property ladder. The shock jocks take complex situations, reduce them to simplistic single sentences and then inflame opinion amongst their client group. Politicians then rush to enact policies to meet "public opinion" ignoring that the squeaky wheel is actually only about 10% of the population.
Thus we are apparently being swamped by about 20k a year of refugees that come in on leaky boats. Bet the US and UK posters here wish they only had that level of refugees coming in.

Daryl wrote:Thanks folks, I'm much better informed but possibly more confused than ever. We have a parallel here in that the "shock jocks" (talk back radio announcers on the far right), mainly appeal to the battlers. Those with lowish education, poorly paid jobs and an insecure toe hold on the property ladder. The shock jocks take complex situations, reduce them to simplistic single sentences and then inflame opinion amongst their client group. Politicians then rush to enact policies to meet "public opinion" ignoring that the squeaky wheel is actually only about 10% of the population.
Thus we are apparently being swamped by about 20k a year of refugees that come in on leaky boats. Bet the US and UK posters here wish they only had that level of refugees coming in.

And here I thought the US was the only country afflicted with that particularly loathsome subspecies of sub-human ........ Actually, about the only difference world wide is how many different sides are represented on the air-waves. For the US, it covers from the far left to the far right and the middle is well represented, too. All it takes is a microphone and a radio or TV station willing to put them on the air. I would be impressed if they were only taking quotes out of context, instead of making up most of what they rant about out of rags, let alone whole cloth. I would also be impressed if one of them (or a group of them) actually spoke for 10% of the people they claim. Perhaps societies need such outlets for their thoughts, but please, don't just make stuff up. There are more than enough real problems that need attention, without making up new ones that have little relevance to the real world. Stick to the real issues of your country. Do your research to find actual problems with actual solutions. Of course, that would imply that 1.) they could read and 2.) they could think.

Thanks folks, I'm much better informed but possibly more confused than ever.

The Republican coalition is composed of social conservatives, economic conservatives, national security hawks and libertarians. Prior to the economic collapse in 2008, the Republican primary system (how candidates for office are selected within the parties, generally only very interested activist voters vote in the primary so they tend to be dominated by a very small slice of the total electorate) was becoming more and more dominated by the social conservatives and national security hawks, pushing economic issues to a secondary place.

The tea party was formed in direct response to the economic collapse in 2008. It's overriding goal was economic and anti-government issues first, other issues second. Generally the original tea party supporters were previously non-activists but were galvanized by the collapse. It was originally referred to as "the angry middle". Originally it was a massive grassroots movement with no real leader just a voice saying that they were ANGRY and wanted those responsible for the economic collapse gone! Over time it has drifted becoming more organized around its own leaders, adding in secondary issues that are also important to members such as the social concerns mentioned by Namelessfly. As it has become more organized it has drifted toward it's own activist slice. Thus only a small percent of Americans currently self identify as tea party members. But a very large percent state that they support tea party goals, just not to as extreme of an extent as tea party members. This drives two concerns among politician types. First that tea party members are now part of the highly involved electorate dominating the primaries, so if you want to be nominated in the first place.... Second they are concerned with the large slice of the electorate which supports some of the more popular tea party issues.

From my observations the tea party was formed when the birther movement was discredited and they had no viable means to oppose president obama. The stated aims of economic viability is a nice ploy but i feel they are more aimed at getting those tax cuts for the rich. As one observer has stated about american politics its more a case of F*** You - ME syndrome more than anything else.

From my observations the tea party was formed when the birther movement was discredited and they had no viable means to oppose president obama.

I'd disagree with that. Originally the tea party had widespread support from across the political spectrum. Large numbers of independents and moderate democrats were involved. The overriding issues were ANGER driven. There was anger towards the Republicans and the Democrats. Anger towards the politicians who made sweetheart deals with their wall street friends while ordinary middle class people were laid off, had their houses foreclosed on, etc. Anger toward politicians who drove (in part) the mortgage industry to collapse with unsustainable social policies and poor regulatory enforcement driving lending practices, leaving ordinary people to clean up their mess. Anger toward politicians making sweetheart deals with unions, while everyone else was paying the price.

Over time the tea party drifted toward a slice of the Republican electorate. Currently birthers do seem to be drifting toward the tea party, probably from lack of anywhere else to go. But they weren't originally part of the movement.

Note to outside the US. Birthers were an extremist fringe movement driven primarily by those annoying talk show hosts Daryl was complaining about. They believed that Obama was born in Kenya and thus was unable to be president. No amount of evidence would convince them otherwise. Unfortunately for those of us suffering from having to listen to them over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, some in the Obama camp were encouraging them by delaying release of key documents etc., because Obama was getting a lot of milage out attempting to link mainstream Republican to them. Birthers were never taken seriously by the majority of the US but their annoyance factor was high.

biochem wrote:

From my observations the tea party was formed when the birther movement was discredited and they had no viable means to oppose president obama.

I'd disagree with that. Originally the tea party had widespread support from across the political spectrum. Large numbers of independents and moderate democrats were involved. The overriding issues were ANGER driven. There was anger towards the Republicans and the Democrats. Anger towards the politicians who made sweetheart deals with their wall street friends while ordinary middle class people were laid off, had their houses foreclosed on, etc. Anger toward politicians who drove (in part) the mortgage industry to collapse with unsustainable social policies and poor regulatory enforcement driving lending practices, leaving ordinary people to clean up their mess. Anger toward politicians making sweetheart deals with unions, while everyone else was paying the price.

Over time the tea party drifted toward a slice of the Republican electorate. Currently birthers do seem to be drifting toward the tea party, probably from lack of anywhere else to go. But they weren't originally part of the movement.

Note to outside the US. Birthers were an extremist fringe movement driven primarily by those annoying talk show hosts Daryl was complaining about. They believed that Obama was born in Kenya and thus was unable to be president. No amount of evidence would convince them otherwise. Unfortunately for those of us suffering from having to listen to them over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, some in the Obama camp were encouraging them by delaying release of key documents etc., because Obama was getting a lot of milage out attempting to link mainstream Republican to them. Birthers were never taken seriously by the majority of the US but their annoyance factor was high.

even assuming you are correct in that assestment, you would have to agree the tea party is forever stained with that paint of the birther movement.

[quote="viciokie
even assuming you are correct in that assestment, you would have to agree the tea party is forever stained with that paint of the birther movement.[/quote]

And with Cruz's Canadian birth, that nonsense will be thrown forcefully back in their faces - repeatedly and with justification.