Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Just watch Paul Ryan
Date:	4/27/2016 10:17:08 AM

in an interview this morning, on Morning Joe, , claim that Congress now sets the agenda for the country and not the President. He said that he has met with each one of the candidates and explained the agenda to them....Huh??? He also seems to think that the House, sets the Republican Platform, not the RNC.  Shall we just stop the pretense and start calling him King?  I dont have anything against Paul Ryan, as I believe he is a sincere person and a "true believer", but this is pure Tea Party thinking.  One other think I noted was his persistence to say "whoever is the nominee".  Now perhaps he was making it a point not to seem to be supporting one candidate over another, but it didn't reassure me that some back room politics isn't still being played to prevent Trump from being the nominee, despite his big win last night. 

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Just watch Paul Ryan
Date:	4/27/2016 12:45:31 PM

IMO, it's another example of Republican leaders trying hard to save their brand from Trump.  In this case, I think he is trying to reassure his electorate that there really is a part of the Republican establishment that hasn't lost their minds & is rational enough to be trustworthy.   I think he exaggerates his importance though and will try to reframe the Republican House (that he will try to lead) as capable of governing & guiding the country, but their track record is primarily about obstructing & hanging out House Speakers to dry. They haven't been creating ideas, the House is just full of small-minded zealots..... not thoughtful & balanced leaders.   It's like they think they were elected to office so they could refuse to govern.

Fundamental Tea Party Republicanism seems to be about blind allegiance to this simplistic notion that everything the Government does is wrong, unnecessary, and suffering from too much liberalism.     This is expecially true while that Black Guy is still in the White House and makes Ryan's suggestion that "we have a plan" seem pretty hollow.

None of these prominent figures want Trump to be their nominee, IMO, but seem to be holding their noses while hoping they won't have to go on record as supporting him.   Right now, they are content to stick with the vague "I will support the Republican nominee" because they don't want to encourage a worsening schism in their Party.   It's fascinating to watch this much political drama, that's what makes me think the GOP is heading toward a split.   The center can't hold, The Tea Party defines itself by what/who it opposes (not by a governing philosophy), Trump is leading all those angry white guys down a dark path, and the core Republican leadership cannot rationally support anyone who will pose this much potential disruption to world trade agreements, international security arrangements,  foreign relations, & domestic policy for the simple reason that it will damage the global economy & create profound uncertainty that wil negatively affect the US stock markets.   

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Just watch Paul Ryan
Date:	4/27/2016 2:19:54 PM

I agree.  It just struck me this morning that Paul Ryan seems to think the House of Representatives ist fornming the base the Repulican platform and setting the agenda for the country.  Maybe we don't even need  a President. 

I voted for Obama twice.  He disappointed me in a number of areas, but overall I don't think he has been anywhere close to the worst President.  I am attracted to Trump mostly because he is an outsider and I do not believe he will accept the status quo.  He'll either be great or he'll be a total disaster.  But I am not one that hopes they will trot out Paul Ryan to save the day - he is fundamentally a Tea Partier and there is nothing in the Tea Party that attracts me. 

I fear you are right - that the Republicans are headed for a crash and split.  It is now an "awful" thing to be a moderate, yet those are usually the most successful Presidents.  And I really don't believe that Reagan was a great President.  He just about bankrupted the country in defense spending, the world is not necessarily a safer place without a Soviet Union - and his economic policies were terrible.  Even his Budget Director - Stockman - has admiitted they didn't work.  The best thing about Reagan was he was a good communicator and was able to bring people to feel better about the country after the Nixon and Carter years. 

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Tea Party
Date:	4/27/2016 3:55:16 PM

First time I have ever googled to find out what they support, but I cannot say " there is nothing in the Tea Party that attracts me".  While it may be a total impossiblity at this point, I think we must get our government under control.

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.

2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.

3. A strong military is essential.

4. Special interests must be eliminated.

5. Gun ownership is sacred.

6. Government must be downsized.

7. The national budget must be balanced.

8. Deficit spending must end.

9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.

10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.

11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.

12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.

13. Intrusive government must be stopped.

14. English as our core language is required.

15. Traditional family values are encouraged. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Tea Party
Date:	4/27/2016 7:26:43 PM

That's just fine, except give me some examples of where any of these have happened, despite a large number of Tea Party candidates in Congress.  They can't pass a budget, where is the legislation to do any of this?  I'm very leary of "family values" because I don't know exactly what that means.  "Christian values"?  A country based on religious values?  No thank you. 

Talk is cheap and I can write stuff down all day long - but where is the practice?  Who says the government needs to be reduced? What is the magic number? I'll wager that all the people who want "smaller government" by eliminating agencies, have no real idea exacty what those agencies do.    And what is "invasive government".  What does that mean?  I'd like to see a lot more definition to these things.  You see, these are broad principles, but the devil is in the details.  And what I hear from these people about the details, doesn't attract me at all. 

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Tea Party
Date:	4/27/2016 8:01:12 PM

"Talk is cheap and I can write stuff down all day long - but where is the practice? " Sounds like you are talking about your choice for President.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	The Tea Party platform
Date:	4/27/2016 8:06:14 PM

Good post.  While its raining & I can't go fishing, I'll put up some counterpoints.   

1.        Illegal aliens are here illegally.   Yes, they are.   But over the years, a number of people have immigrated to the US, formed families and settled here in the US.   We just can’t round up & deport 11 million people, it would create all sorts of havoc from economic disruption to the scary specter of a police state.   Progressives simply believe there should be a path to citizenship to avoid this, but many progressives would agree that we have to address population growth in part by limiting immigration.  For that, we need a new immigration policy, but the Tea Party has opposed that.

2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.

This sounds good on the face of it, but pro-domestic policies suggest tariffs & trade protections that will run counter to many global trade agreements which the US benefits from.   This solution could come with new problems.   Bernie Sanders is really all about protecting US workers, it’s his main thing and one of the points I am cautious about, but not opposed to.   Many, many liberals would agree with this one.

3. A strong military is essential.

I can agree with that.  Liberals have always found that conservatives want to increase military spending by reducing domestic safety-net spending.   That’s what we oppose. 

4. Special interests must be eliminated.

“Special Interests” is a broad & vague term, but Liberals are certainly opposed to the role of “big money” in politics.  That’s why we oppose Citizen’s United.   I don’t know how you can realistically eliminate the political activity of individuals, corporations or other groups lobbying for what they want though… not in a democracy.

5. Gun ownership is sacred.

Saying something is sacred elevates it to a religious significance, and we can’t go along with that.   The right to own a Barrett 50cal sniper rifle or an assault rifle is not ordained by an Almighty God.   There are already some limits on gun ownership, we just disagree about how & what guns they should cover.

6. Government must be downsized.

I hear this a lot, but don’t think it really possible.   The country is growing, and the government needed to provide for all of us will need to grow, too.   I think people have unrealistic expectation of government already, are usually shocked when what they want isn’t forthcoming (for example, disaster aid assistance), and get really upset when programs that benefit them are slashed.   Alabama is downsizing its government.   We have reduced the number of state troopers, cut the Marine police down to next to nothing, and closed state parks.  That’s what a reduction in government looks like to me, it can cause harm by reducing services/protections we need.

7. The national budget must be balanced.

Good idea, the disagreement for me is in how we get there.  I’m not an economist, but I believe that when the country is in a recession or depression, it is the role of  government to create growth (and jobs) thru spending on public projects.  It is also necessary for government to create a safety net so that too many people don’t fall into poverty and allow a greater income gap develop between the upper and lower class.     It is not always possible for the government to sit back and wait for a hoped-for business boom to lift everyone up.   Business booms do not lift up everyone equally.

8. Deficit spending must end.

It can’t end until tax revenues grow to match government expenses.   It can’t end if we aren’t more careful about how many wars we fight.

9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.

The bail out (of the Auto Industry) saved an important part of the US economy from disaster.   The economic stimulus plan & bail out of the big banks saved the entire global economy from sliding into a Depression.   We didn’t like having to do it either, but what choice did we have?   It’s not illegal for the government to keep the economy from collapsing, it’s job #1.

10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.

Sounds good, but too vague.   We would not want to decrease taxes on those wealthy enough to pay more.

11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.

Business taxation needs to be sufficient to fund needed government spending but not so high as to strangle corporate growth.  It’s a balancing act.   A mandatory reduction of business taxes ignores the loopholes that already allow some corporations to pay little to no taxes and the necessary role government plays in maintaining the rules that allow businesses to operate.    For example, the airlines couldn’t operate without air traffic controllers & the FAA.   

12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.

This is probably a real point of agreement between the Tea Party and Progressives.   The difference is that we oppose Citizen’s United and don’t believe (to quote Mitt Romney) that corporations are people, too.   Unrestrained campaign finance rules will continue to discourage ordinary citizens from running for public offices in the future.

13. Intrusive government must be stopped.

Yes, if we are talking about the NSA and government looking into emails and phone records at will.  On the other hand, Liberals think that making abortion illegal is a primary example of the intrusion of government into the personal & private life of people.

But government needs to “intrude” if we are talking about making sure that one religion isn’t legally superior to another.  For me, Tennessee’s recent establishment of the Bible as The State Book is an example of government being hijacked by religious belief, and runs counter to democratic values.   A higher federal government might well need to "intrude" on a lower state government to prevent this.      Without government intrusion, critical social changes (like the Voting Rights act) would not have happened here in the South.    It's a mixed bag on this one and depends on what we think is "intrusion" as opposed to "protection".

14. English as our core language is required.

English is becoming an international standard already, we don’t need to legislate it.   Different languages represent & promote healthy cultural identities…   Liberals think that this is an example of portraying non-english speakers as “others” who are disrupting & dangerous to our society, nothing more.

15. Traditional family values are encouraged.

Traditional values vary from Christians to non-Christians, and even vary among Christians (remember multiple wives isn’t frowned on among all Mormons).   Usually, traditional values is a slogan for opposing gay marriage, which is harmless.   Perspectives change.     50 years ago, marrying outside of your race was against traditional values.   The problem is that the Tea Party wants to choose the traditional values for everyone to follow, and doesn’t recognize that we need to accept diversity.   

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	The Tea Party platform
Date:	4/27/2016 8:21:36 PM (updated 4/27/2016 8:24:16 PM)

I did not read it all at this time because of schedule, but seems there is some agreement.  "So you say I have a chance"   dumb and dumber

On second thought the quick read is that you have provided liberal answers to the issues, and you have assumed the worst for the T's.

Government can be brought under control.  It will take a village, but it can be done.  Revenues and Expenditures can be brought into line.  If not what will be our outcome?

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	The Tea Party platform
Date:	4/27/2016 8:35:14 PM

Outcome: death of a nation.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Tea Party
Date:	4/27/2016 10:43:54 PM

Time will tell.  He gave a foreign policy speech today that a lot of people thought was very good.  I didn't watch it and haven't had time to read the reports. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	The Tea Party platform
Date:	4/27/2016 10:53:43 PM

Well, it has been this way for a long time now and we haven't died yet.  Perhaps if Congress coud ever pass a budget, we might get some where.  In my view, what needs to be done is that the way we spend money needs to be reprioritized.  There is not enough money for everything.  Maybe we should start with subsidies.  Maybe we should stop giving billions to causes overseas and stop trying to be the world's policemen. 

Maybe we should all sit down in a circle and rap about it.  Make collages and meditate.  Pull out our rugs, have some milk and cookies and take a nap. 

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	The Tea Party platform
Date:	4/28/2016 11:11:24 AM

I did present what I thought would be the Liberal counterpoints, and I’ll freely admit to my anti-Tea party bias.   However, when I read this I was struck by some of the points of potential agreement between me and the Tea Party.   That, I think, is the higher purpose of this forum… we can use it to find perhaps unexpected areas of agreement.  

Regarding Hodja’s ‘death of a nation’ comment…   I share his concerns about not doing harm to the long term prospects of the United States.   I also would not run my family finances by refusing to consider how much income I had verses all the things I want to buy.   For me, spending more than I earned was always against the rules, because I was certain that doing so would lead to financial hardship down the road.   So, I am against deficit spending in my household budget.

It is either ironic or hypocritical (depending on your point of view) for me to be less critical of deficit spending by the US government, I suppose.     The stakes are even higher in that arena, the cost of being wrong even more damaging.   I do get that.   Being a retiree who needs the stock market to remain healthy in order to complete my little journey thru life, I really do need to be cautious in the economic policies I support.

But I think the comparisons between our household budget and the national budget can only go so far.  After you take into account the differences between the two, the similarity between them breaks down in important ways.   So I will say this:   deficit spending cannot go on forever & unchecked.   It is, however, necessary to pay the bills each month even if you have to borrow to do it (be sure and recognize you have to pay it back).   And the government has the capability of using a strategy like this in completely productive & acceptable ways owing to the fact that the government has greater control of financial/economic management tools than I do.   The government also has the advantage of a longer time line than I have.       Interest rates can be set, currency exchange rates are variable, deficit spending that spurs economic growth leading to increased tax revenues can be used to pay down national debts.     Tax dollars spent on government projects inject money to communities in the form of wages, purchase of services, development of infrastructure that provides a platform for growth of private businesses, training & educating a work force that can compete in the world economy, etc.   Deficit spending, to me, can be judged as investments that will come to fruit down the road.   Using that as a guideline, there are some deficit expenses I think are likely to be unproductive & others that are absolutely necessary.

Maybe one of the differences between me and the Tea Party is that I don’t think the US is on the verge of economic collapse and I have less alarm than those conservatives that we are close to financial disaster.   I choose to worry about other disasters, some of which the Tea Party would dismiss as ridiculous.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	The Tea Party platform
Date:	4/28/2016 11:32:24 AM (updated 4/28/2016 11:39:13 AM)

My thought on the investment of government dollars is to do it in such a way that the money moves, and moves, so that the government(s) are getting a share of it as the consumers meant needs and wants.  I will try to find a list of suggestions at the time of the bank and auto bailouts.  I was against them under Bush, and under Obama.  On auto bailout I said give the money to the consumer to purchase the car of their choice, not to the big company.  The company gets the money based on meeting demands, consumer gets car and govts get some tax money.  I suggested welfare dollars be used to match dollar for dollar what someone made on a job. etc etc etc

I know my mind is little and feeble, but we can control govt and spending, and, imho, we must.

Edit:  found it, was written in July 2009

Here is the Plan to make it go. (1) 10% tax cut for anyone paying federal income tax (2) Capital gain tax to 11% (3) For welfare recipients match dollar for dollar any income they will earn (4) No more money straight to auto dealers....instead offer 10,000 to anyone who will use it to buy car made in USA (5) to hell with the AIGs (6) All govt retirees pay for health insurance (7) Spend no more of the stimulus, just let it stay in the bank (ha we don't even have it) to cover income lost from above.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	The Tea Party platform
Date:	4/28/2016 7:51:51 PM

I've always believed that it is important to identify the areas of agreement and at least get something done on those.  But our Congress now seems to believe that glimmer of agreement or compromise would be seen as giving in to the other side. 

I woud think that most Americans would agree that we need a balanced  budget in this country.  A real budget without a lot of add ons. No special allocations after the budget is passed.  I don't know if you have ever seen the legislature book that comes out every year- I suppose it is all online now, but back in the day when it was printed it was about 7 inches thick and cross references and double cross references to previous legislation.  Who the heck knows what is in there.  Additional authorizations are not necessarily with the spending authorization.  I remember when I worked drug interdiction efforts, the authorization  for that was hid back in the war on drugs area. 

The key is to get anyone to agree what the priorities are. 

I never supported the bailouts.  What a crazy idea.