Tea Party Candidate May Ensure A Harry Reid Win; Update – Tea Party Name Hijacked?; Update & Bumped: More Research On The Party; Update: A Front For Paulbots? Harry Reid Minions? Or Both?

Keith, INRE comments:

The difference in political philosophy between the Boston Tea Party and the modern Tea Party movement is astounding.

The difference in ideology when it comes to government interference with the commoners ability to make a living is not that far apart at all. Nor is it meant to be an absolute parallel in apples to apples ideology, but a similar response of disgust to the events. The Boston Tea Party was an extreme measure by a fledgling nation’s citizenry. It is the same today. Or you would prefer people take up arms??

But no.. true to an Alinsky student of organization for a cause, you instead demean those with petty insults, then claim innocence.

Now on to the more civil tone you’ve adopted, and is far more appreciated.

If the term teabagger offends you, I’ll cease using it. What is a more appropriate term? Will Tea Party Party Member do?

No… and now we come back.. finally.. to the subject of the original post. The tea party movement is a grassroots movement comprised of all different types of people and political beliefs. It is what makes the movement unique. There are Democrats and liberals, Republicans and conservatives, libertarians, and yes… some fringe extreme that you prefer to focus on via an NTSC video screen. What all have in common is our unmitigated gall at the irresponsible spending of Congress, and their penchant to simply ignore what the constituency wants. Not to mention we could find zoo monkeys that could construct better language for laws.

The tea party grassroots movement has no desire to form a “party”. They are from all voter registrations and, depending upon the candidate, will split their own way. But just about every bit of it revolves around *spending*.

So do not capitalize Tea Party, or you misconstrue not only the movement’s purpose and population, but you confuse it with a deliberate attempt by some to hijack that movement’s energy with a play on names… simply because it was legal to record it as theirs. I’m quite sure, with your business, you understand this. I do as well.

“tea party movement” or “tea partiers” will do just fine. In return I’ll make sure to add the “ic” and capitalize the “p”. Kapish?

In my opinion, the primary constitutional role of the government is to provide for the general welfare of the people, to provide for defense (not aggressive wars), to provide domestic security and ensure liberty, and to enforce justice. So, I guess we differ on the plain reading of the Constitution:

I have to laugh when someone wants to quote the Preamble to me. It’s actually an personal annual ritual that I recite this every July 4th, and has remained embedded in my memory since grade school. And if a senior moment occurs, a mini copy of the Constitution lives on my workspace desk as a reminder of all that is great in this nation. But I’m glad you thought about it.

Now let’s get to the flaws in your paragraph that paraphrases the text, and what I see in your presentation as reasonable. In fact, let’s start with the biggest one…

I don’t have a problem with wealth either. It is the extreme concentration of wealth that is problematic.

I see. You, personally, don’t have a problem with wealth as long as you, personally, agree with how much it is and who gets it. This doesn’t even cross your mind??

“In my opinion, the primary Constitutional role of the government is to provide for the general welfare….”

That would all depend upon first, the interpretation of the “general welfare”… a legal battle that has been fought in the high courts for centuries. But leaving that aside, my objection is that you place what is “general welfare” in the hands of government… and that can be anything they choose. The US Constitution and founders/ framers are very clear. It’s not a template they can build on. The federal government powers are limited *only to* very specific areas. And I, for one, do not trust what elected Congress defines as “general welfare”. And neither does the SCOTUS.

“…to provide for defense (not aggressive wars)…

Again you place caveats outside your powers. The “defense” of the nation, and whether you deem it aggressive, isn’t the choice of the citizenry, but the commander in chief. I never want a CiC who responds to our national defense based on polls. We are not in possession of the intel they are.

And oh, BTW… is there a “passive” war? Or are you merely playing with the “pre’emptive” theory? In which case it’s not much different than waging a war with absurd ROEs.

Wars have served their purpose…. Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI and II, and yes, both Iraq’s and Afghanistan. Sometimes you respond… sometimes you instigate the fight. When we are responding, we are already behind the eight ball, and have ignored all the warnings that have lead up to the need to respond. There is no magic rule… they are all a one on one assessment.

“… and to enforce justice

Now we have to get to some federal v state’s rights issues. Because law enforcement on a local level, and the federal government’s right to create laws and their law enforcement jurisdiction are world’s apart.

Congress has, IMHO, overstepped their bounds in many arenas for national “enforcement” laws…. and all done under the guise of “commerce”. Not okay. Lousy precedent that leads to more bad juju.

But then, when you consider “enforcement” alone on the federal level, that’s the executive branch. The Execs can only “enforce” what Congress has passed, and both of those are subject to scrutiny by the judicial branch by anyone with the funds to get it to the high courts. On the small stuff… this works. When you get to the bigger stuff, the amount of money it takes to wind thru the appellate system is beyond any commoner. And this, because of another segment of your business, you know well.

But the reality is, bad laws can be passed, bad enforcement performed, and the only remedy is the courts long after the fact. Yes, we live with it. But there are times there is a lot of bad stuff that transpires inbetween. You will think of your own examples, that no doubt focus around Bush. I can think of even more of the same from decades before, and now under this POTUS.

You and I will find little to agree upon unless we both enjoy a particular food or bottle of wine, Keith. Your idea that Euro-socialism is a success is a slap in the face when you consider their economic inferiority.. and their fiscal troubles. If it’s mediocrity you seek for a nation’s citizens, Euro-socialism is the way to go. We, with the right paths and growths, can recover from our fiscal mess (hopefully… if they stop and reverse this outrageous spending…). They can only hope to stay afloat… and depend upon both the US economy and the US military for the big stuff.

And you want us to emulate them? It would just be easier if you move, guy. If that’s the form of goverment you prefer… it’s there for the taking by you. Attempt to change us to suit your personal desires, and expect a battle to the death.

@Greg: My point was this: Without most of the population participating in Medicare, and without Medicare being the primary payer for services, virtually no one could afford health insurance after age 65.

I see you have been raised and bred on the Ponzi Scheme mentality, Greg. Let’s assume I averaged $450 per week, paying 3% Medicare taxes. Let’s also assume I’m 60 years old and have 44 years into paying Medicare taxes.

I’ve paid in $30,888, using that formula. Relatively non-ambitious career growth.

Now let’s assume a reasonable facsimile of a health care system. I was a young, healthy whippersnapper, like most, who only had a few broken bones over time and wasn’t a drain on the health system. What if I had put that $30.8K into an interest bearing medical account, and never drawn on it over this time except for a few broken bones? Would I be able to afford health coverage?

Your problem is you think of today’s status without altering yesterday’s realities. Thus the reason I say you can not discard what all of us have contributed to both social security… which Congress has spent and replaced with IOUs… and Medicare, then say “aren’t you lucky?”???

Give me my money back… I assure you, had I had even that nonimal cash over time, I could make better use of it than Congress did on my “behalf”.

The only way to beat that would be to mandate that private insurers spread the cost evenly across policy holders of all ages, and mandate that they sell their insurance coverage without any consideration of an individual’s age or risk factors.

You just now getting there? Well, I welcome you to the PERPETUATION of the ponzi scheme. And how old are you? Are your ensuing generations going to be prolific enough to support you?

Also, welcome to the reality of insurers and the reason for GROUP INSURANCE to avoid pre’existing conditions. Individuals, no. Group insurance? They cannot deny you coverage for more than a 12 month exemption period by federal law.

Create more groups…… have more groups offered…… competition for the healthy brings prices down.

I tend to trust the government more on the matter of honoring inter-generational contracts than private industry. Thusfar Social Security has made good on it’s retirement and healthcare promises.

sigh… never more ignorant words spoken. You are aware that there is no “social security money” in the “trust fund”, and it’s a box of Congressional IOU’s? Why where do you get off saying they’ve made “good” on these debts but to rob Peter to pay Paul?

And your “thusfar”… official as of a couple of weeks ago… is history. Gee…. that was fun. Let’s do it again and rape another generation that isn’t born yet!

One last truth for you to ponder, Greg. A governments “honor” is broken by the whim of the seated Congress and their fiscal desires. A private company’s “honor” is broken only by breach of contract, litigated in the courts or bankruptcy also litigated in the courts.

Who do you trust?