On The Record: Tea Party Beliefs?

[Tenacious D]

I am neither a member of the Tea Party, nor do I feel that I am well enough informed to formulate a firm opinion on their movement, in any regard, either for or against.

However, the recent anti-Tea Party propaganda which is spreading on the boards gave me reason to find out more. Upon visiting their site, I found the, "Contract From America" - which is a listing of their ten core beliefs.

It read, verbatim, as follows (links supplied at the end):


The Contract lists 10 agenda items that it encourages congressional candidates to follow (percentage of Tea Party Members feeling of each issue's importance, I suppose):

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)
2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%)
3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)
4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words -- the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%)
8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%)
9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)
10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)

So, here's the question, would you desire that each of these measures be enacted (written into law), essentially as they are described and written, above?

You should ONLY vote "Yes" if you agree that each and every item should be written into law.

If you would say, "No" to any single item, then you should answer, "No" to this poll.

Links:
Wikipedia: Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Official Tea Party Site:
Contract FROM America

 

[volinbham]

11. Hate black people...

I kid, I kid.

Where the TP loses it is when the seniors in the group protest Big Govt then say keep you hands of my Medicare.

 

[droski]

#3 and #6 could cause major problems when the govt needs to act the most. think of ww II.

 

[Tenacious D]

11. Hate black people...

I kid, I kid.

Where the TP loses it is when the seniors in the group protest Big Govt then say keep you hands of my Medicare.

Is it wrong that my interest in the Tea Party is positively correlated to the amount of flailing and screaming that the Demos aim in their direction.

It's kind of like the Japanese whaling vessels on Whale Wars.....I'd never given whaling a second thought, nor had any interest in what the Japanese were or were not doing in the southern oceans of the world. However, as soon as I saw the boat o' hippies trying to stop them (with hilarious results), the more I found myself cheering for them to snag some whales. Weird.

 

[JTrainDavis]

#3 and #6 could cause major problems when the govt needs to act the most. think of ww II.

I agree with you here, the concept is good but there are too many what ifs that would nessecitate spending. The other 8 I am all far, so i will vote "present" as to not give my idealogical enemies anything to use against me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

#3 and #6 could cause major problems when the govt needs to act the most. think of ww II.

Agreed, to an extent.

But that's like saying, you need a credit card the most for life's unexpected eventualities. Some might argue that were the credit card no longer an option, you would (or should) have better prepared by putting some into savings.

If they cut out earmarks, alone, think of how quickly it would bankroll.

 

[Tenacious D]

I agree with you here, the concept is good but there are too many what ifs that would nessecitate spending. The other 8 I am all far, so i will vote "present" as to not give my idealogical enemies anything to use against me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

"No" votes are as equally welcomed here as "Yes" votes. This was no loaded question.

The point of this is to see how many land on either side - and failing to vote "No" (though I understand your reasoning) will only give one side or the other an argument that the results were somehow skewed.

So, you and Droski have a different perspective than I do - but you two likely know more than I on this, and a great many other things - so please vote your conscience.

 

[droski]

Agreed, to an extent.

But that's like saying, you need a credit card the most for life's unexpected eventualities. Some might argue that were the credit card no longer an option, you would (or should) have better prepared by putting some into savings.

If they cut out earmarks, alone, think of how quickly it would bankroll.

but that's expecting logic from politicians. history has proven if revenues go up they politicians will spend it. not sure you can regulate that properly. earmarks are clearly a huge problem, but serve a purpose to some degree in that we wouldn't want to have to individually pass every single needed federal project. not enough time in the day for that.

 

[JTrainDavis]

"No" votes are as equally welcomed here as "Yes" votes. This was no loaded question.

The point of this is to see how many land on either side - and failing to vote "No" (though I understand your reasoning) will only give one side or the other an argument that the results were somehow skewed.

So, you and Droski have a different perspective than I do - but you two likely know more than I on this, and a great many other things - so please vote your conscience.

If that is the case than the vote is Yes, in an all or none situation.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[KB5252]

but that's expecting logic from politicians. history has proven if revenues go up they politicians will spend it. not sure you can regulate that properly. earmarks are clearly a huge problem, but serve a purpose to some degree in that we wouldn't want to have to individually pass every single needed federal project. not enough time in the day for that.

What it would do is hopefully make them spend time on all the things this country absolutely must have done instead wasting taxpayer money trying to figure out ways to buy votes at home.

 

[droski]

What it would do is hopefully make them spend time on all the things this country absolutely must have done instead wasting taxpayer money trying to figure out ways to buy votes at home.

agreed there does need to be some solution

 

[BigPapaVol]

but that's expecting logic from politicians. history has proven if revenues go up they politicians will spend it. not sure you can regulate that properly. earmarks are clearly a huge problem, but serve a purpose to some degree in that we wouldn't want to have to individually pass every single needed federal project. not enough time in the day for that.

asking politicians to have a long term view or to keep the "whole" in mind is like asking me to wear nightie and thong.

 

[volinbham]

asking politicians to have a long term view or to keep the "whole" in mind is like asking me to wear nightie and thong.

sucking up to LG again?

 

[BigPapaVol]

sucking up to LG again?

negative. Transgender doesn't work for me.

 

[Tenacious D]

asking politicians to have a long term view or to keep the "whole" in mind is like asking me to wear nightie and thong.

Why can't they do something as simple as that?

 

[MystifyingVol]

Why can't they do something as simple as that?

Because the media would get pictures of them in the thong and blackmail them?

 

[tigervol9802]

As presented, no.

The theory and ideas behind them, yes.

 

[lawgator1]

You have to love a political movement that announces a completely arbitrary number of words for the tax code as married to the number of words in the document they want to invoke.

I mean, I say that the tax code should be limited to the Declaration of Independence. That's less words. Therefore, by TP logic, it is automatically better.


I appreciate and agree with a lot of their principles, but the devil is in the details and this kind of oversimplified logic and rhetoric is just not helpful at a time when we have complicated problems that require sophisticated solutions.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[MystifyingVol]

I appreciate and agree with a lot of their principles, but the devil is in the details and this kind of oversimplified logic and rhetoric is just not helpful at a time when we have complicated problems that require sophisticated solutions.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Please give me some problems that you consider complicated that require sophisticated solutions.

 

[OrangeYankee]

You have to love a political movement that announces a completely arbitrary number of words for the tax code as married to the number of words in the document they want to invoke.

I mean, I say that the tax code should be limited to the Declaration of Independence. That's less words. Therefore, by TP logic, it is automatically better.


I appreciate and agree with a lot of their principles, but the devil is in the details and this kind of oversimplified logic and rhetoric is just not helpful at a time when we have complicated problems that require sophisticated solutions.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

So a law that states "Every US Citezen and US worker shall pay XX% (to be determined later) of their income to the Treasury Department to fund the services rendered by the Federal Government" is too simple then? How so?

 

[lawgator1]

Please give me some problems that you consider complicated that require sophisticated solutions.

Social Security
Medicare
The VA
National Security
Defense
Education
Infrastructure
Import and Export policy
Funding of Science and Technology
Department of the Interior
Interstate Commerce
Financial Regulation and Oversight

So a law that states "Every US Citezen and US worker shall pay XX% (to be determined later) of their income to the Treasury Department to fund the services rendered by the Federal Government" is too simple then? How so?

I think the "to be determined later" language might be the matter of a small debate.