No, the Tea Party is a true grassroots group of people that are fed up with the federal government overstepping the constitutional powers granted them. People from all walks of life are members or supporters. The rich guy thing is just propaganda lies spread to discredit the movement.
It's hard to compare the two. There have been 1700 arrests+ now in OWS including 4 men directly connected to Occupy Cleveland behind bars for domestic terrorism. You won't find those kinds of things on the Tea Party side at all.
And what would be wrong with that?(not really true but)..<br />
What would you rather have? more jobs with a decent living,a little extra for a house,vacations and nights out?<br />
Or what we have now? 16 trillion in debt, tax money going to failed companies, more green crap that doesn't work, and a socialist gov't that wants to control all aspects of your life?<br />
I'll vote for the one who will get rid of 90% of the regulations, stop supporting the TSA,DHS and EPA and the unions(crooks) and let us actually do what we already know how to do.
No, but if it were, it would still be a better answer than what we have going on today.<br />
Contrary to popular belief - its not just the corporations buying politicians. There are lots of unions doing so. The difference is that when corporations get their way it often leads to jobs and profits (which is good for our 401K.) Corporations can be prosecuted much easier than unions can and individuals who act unscrupulously can be fired with is practically impossible in a public employee union.<br />
I've walked through multiple Tea Party events. I didn't see the Koch Brothers or Governor Walker. I did see a lot of small business owners. <br />
(Compare that the to $40K a plate fundraisers that Obama has been holding at a rate of one ever 3 days for more than 15 months now. How many small business owners do you think are showing up for those?)
Well, the tea baggers are gullible, ignorant, old white men that billionaires like the Koch brothers funded to influence the mid-terms. The dysfunction that creates allows the very wealthy to continue and loot America, paying proportionately less in taxes than the 99% that they consider suckers.<br />
Because this smoke and mirrors of right wing and religious social activism, tea baggers and other repubs get people to vote against their own economic self interest. (i.e. What's the Matter With Kansas). As a result, the repubs have lurched into reactionary cloud-cuckoo-land and the old progressive repubs have taken over the Democratic party.<br />
I see the Democrats fragmenting into liberal and centrist parties when the creepy angry white-bread old men of the current repub party die off and the repub party dies a deserving death at the hands of the crazies.
Wow, stereotype much? First off, a large percentage aren't even men. "What's the matter with Kansas" took about three minutes for Ann Coulter to destroy the other day - i wish there was a link to it I could post. The problem with propaganda like that is that it's a house of cards.
Oh my! I seem to have forgotten the fear-crazed unschooled and ignorant palin-wannabes who think that coulter's shrill diatribes have anything to do with reality.
I'm not here to convert people like you - I am here to ridicule and marginalize them.
You have no clue and are a sheep spouting all the liberal propaganda. ?The rich pay the lion share of the taxes. The top 10 percent pay over 70% of the taxes in America. You believe and spread all the old socialist lies that lead to the collapse of a country. Look what happened to the old Soviet Union.
Get a life!
I'm sorry, if I had said "Bill Maher" you'd have understood that i know what a political satirist is. As for "unschooled and ignorant" I know where I went to school, how much it cost, and what kind of a job it got me. I'm sorry my answers frustrate you, but nothing about them says "ignorant" or "unschooled."
Your credentials in economics? Krugman, a nobel prize winning economist who was warning about the repub created recession before 2008 disagrees with you and my ideas align with his. Are you educated beyond high school or did you just fossilize early. You also sound like a repub chickenhawk. In 1968 I would have liked to ram the muzzle of my M109A1 up your ***. Messier than just fragging a waste of oxygen like you.
Wow typical left wing diatribe, Do you have any facts to back you up or is calling people names all you know how to do.
Gtr1400 - If krugman was who he said he is, he'd be making billions on Wall St. instead of writing columns for a failing newspaper business that is shrinking by the day. (And - not so coincidentally - the newspapers he writes for seem to be the ones shrinking fastest.) If you didn't know that the very high point of Krugman's career was making money as a consultant for Enron and that he wishes he could have the jobs of any of the guys he second guesses for 10 cents on the dollar of what they make, you haven't thought this through. "Nobel Prize winning????" What a bad joke. Yasser Arafat - a noted terrorist - has a Nobel prize. Jimmy Carter - probably the biggest failure of a President ever - has a Nobel Prize. "The Rush Limbaugh of the Left' bloviator Al Gore got one for a Powerpoint presentation he flies around on his private jet to go deliver to an increasingly disinterested crowd that has realized his Cassandra-like yelping has more to do with his ponzi schemes than real science. Nobel prizes aren't worth much when people like that get them now are they? If your ideas align with Krugmans, I guess I understand why your views are so laughable. Here's all you need to know: Krugman can't get a real job - that's why he's a Monday morning quarterback and leftiist lackey that even any committed democrats looking for credibility stays away from. You laugh at Coulter yet you bring up Krugman. Krugman is just Coulter or Bill Maher without a sense of humor. (Although that really doesnt' stop intelligent people from laughing out loud about what he writes.)
Perhaps, but their rank and file are "hands off my medicare" old people, so it wouldn't make much of a difference were they to take power. The genesis may have been Ron Paul style libertarian paleoconservatives, but that isn't really what it's about anymore, more just a standard issue right-wing reaction to Democratic Party policies. Such is a dirty little secret of America: everyone loves welfare, so long as it's *their* welfare and not somebody else's.
The difference is that old people paid into those systems their whole lives ,and when there was a government shutdown threat, Obama stood at his teleprompter and told them that their social security checks would be the first things cut. It's pretty obvious that there isn't going to be enough money to go around - and Obama could pass the "buffet rule" 10 times over and there won't be. These people just want to make sure they'll get what they paid into. (Compare that to the Occupy folks who want it but don't want to work for it)
Fair enough, but the average recipient receives far more than they paid in, hence why both systems have massive unfunded liabilities in the relatively near future, why its really a cleverly designed welfare system. Even including all the holdings in treasury bonds, most of what the baby boomers paid in SS/Medicare taxes was already spent, on the retirements of their parents. Generation X isn't big enough or wealthy enough to foot the bill in the same fashion, and if current economic conditions continue Generation Y won't be making enough money to pay off their student loans, let alone fund the Medicare deficit. And you're right that there aren't enough rich (who, now more than ever, are the elderly) people to make up the difference. Bet on all of their net worth going to pay for their stays in crappy nursing homes, because the very "occupy" types they're snickering at are the ones that are supposed to be paying their bills.
Actually Solowing, I agree with you on that. But put this in perspective, if a private company had promised these people "Give x% of your income for your entire working life and you can get "Y" when you retire, would the insurance company or financial institution that made that promise have a liability to pay those people before others? Even in a bankruptcy situation they would probably get first claim to assets. I agree it needs to change - and obama at one point promised he would deliver reforms. He not only didn't do it, but his democratic senate hasn't even delivered a budget in 3 years.
The monies that people put into SS would more than support all of the current and future recipients because of the interest money the fund has been collecting since it was started, except that all that money has been removed from the SS fund by politicians of both parties and replaced with government bonds ( I.O.U.'s ). Get your research done before making asumptions that suit your thesis. But, if you want to tell a lie often enough, some people will believe it. History proves that.
I'd be lying if I said I was aware of what happens in that situation, like with defined benefit pensions in companies that go bankrupt, but I agree that we owe those who we told we'd take care of and took their money.
Would and will are two different things. That said, Social Security is fixable, isn't really the problem. Medicare has a far bigger unfunded liability, even worse assuming current trends in healthcare costs continue.
Zbignue - I 100% agree with you and never said that wasn't the case. So lets give the same crooks the control of our healthcare right? Now there's a winning plan.
No that's who co-opted it. They ran off once they realized that grover "drown government in the bathtub" norquist was serious.<br />
You want to see what happens when a government doesn't regulate industry? Look at china, toxic paints, horrible working conditions, poisonous products, cheap and inferior materials, foodborne illness scares, disgusting wage levels, etc. Keep in mind that's what the right wing wants, the less they care about their employees the more profit they can reap. Anytime I hear the words "deregulation" I think back to the times when it was legal to dump toxic waste in the rivers and legal to use CFCs that ate up the ozone la<x>yer, and legal to hire goons to beatdown striking workers. Don't forget about the occasional person made into lard or sausage filled with what got caught in the machine.<br />
Hence why offshoring got popular in the first place, it was in CEOs mind's "too expensive" to pay a real living wage to the american workers, and plus all those regulations about safety, health, and the environment really put a damper on the huge profits they got from cheap possibly dangerous products. Deregulation is just a sneaky way of trying to bring back the glory days of companies who could pollute all they wanted, fire anyone anytime, and turned their noses up at workplace safety.
Can you show us the plank in the GOP platform that says repeal everthing from clean water to child labor laws? The "lets take everything to the illogical extremes" is so silly. IF you really know of any good sold in the United States created with slave labor, call the commerce department and they will embargo it. Rhetoric aside though, most such investigations turn up factories that are fine.
"The "lets take everything to the illogical extremes" is so silly." So tell me why gay marriage or socialized medicine is bad again? Anyway, Bush refused to sign the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, Lax regulation of derivatives markets, the sub-prime mortgages, and securities is what led to the crash in 2008. Don't forget republican attempts to curb collective bargaining, refusals to back environmentally sound bills, and the belief that they are in no part to blame for the mess we are in now.
I think the GOP platform on gay marriage is asinine. They are on the wrong side of history there. On federalization of healthcare, I think the problem is that the program is being run at the wrong level. As we've seen with program after program - things that go to Washington DC don't get more efficient. Given the size of this issue - it really belongs on the state level. What is good for New York is not necessarily good for New Mexico. The centralized planning around big hospitals in major cities works in New Jersey doesn't work in North Dakota. It's really that simple. As for curbing collective bargaining, there's nothing wrong with that. Even the President of the United States has to follow rules, and on "environmentally sound rules" I'd have to know what you're talking about. The GOP congressmen in my district is about as green as they come - but he does keep jobs in mind. On the 'no part of the blame" business - everyone in government who has been there for any length of time is responsible, but only one team is trying to solve the problem - and it ain't Obama's team.
Collective bargaining is a worker's right. The house passed a law blocking new EPA laws on emissions, in 2011. They also voted to allow the keystone pipeline to proceed without the environmental and saftey reviews the white house wanted. and that's just for starters. If the stimulus bills hadn't been passed there's no telling what could have happened to our economy. While everyone is responsible to a degree it's clear that pro-business lobbying led to deregulation and a lack of oversight in favor of profit, much of this legislation was brought in by republicans. While democrats did vote for it, that only shows that deregulation is never good for the country.
Yes. surprisingly, many of the Tea Party freshmen in congress who came in on a wave of anger about the bailouts and all that socialism are now taking a lot of donations from the biggest banks who received it.
It's not really surprising but I see your point.
As many have already pointed out, The Tea Party is a grass roots movement of middle class Americans that want our government to operate within the confines of the constitution. There were so many good answers here I don't think I can add anything
This seems to be the case. But now I want to go make tea.
I thought that they were just a group of freaks that liked tea!