Tea Party Convention

[angellous_evangellous]

Allowing companies that are in danger of failing to simply do that - FAIL. Less government intervention in private enterprise.

Look where deregulation got us.

 

[Magic Man]

I was bored with it last night. But I'll give it the old college try, through the haze of meds I'm on.

Greater emphasis on capitalism: By this I mean, creating an environment that encourages and rewards small to midsize companies and the tenets of free enterprise. Removing obstacles that impede the creation and growth of private enterprise. The commitment NOT to raise taxes on small to midsize business owners and their employees (including upper management). No more "stimulus plans"" that reward ineptitude and corruption. Allowing companies that are in danger of failing to simply do that - FAIL. Less government intervention in private enterprise.

What government intervention in private enterprise specifically do you want less of?

You mention vague terms like "an environment that encourages and rewards small to midsize companies and tenets of free enterprise" and "obstacles that impede the creation and growth of private enterprise" and such, but what does that mean exactly? How is the current environment not encouraging and rewarding to small to midsize companies, and what are these obstacles that impede the creation and growth of private enterprise?

Accountability of our elected officials: No more closed door meetings with lobbyists. Term limits. Tort reform. Readable bills that don't include last minute add-ons that have not been publically aired or discussed. The responsibility to listen to, answer to, and honestly represent the concerns of the officials' actual constituents and voting bloc.[/quote]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not all Tea Party participants have the same ideas, goals, or beliefs. We're a very diverse crowd, so it's impossible to speak for everyone involved. But overall, I believe that the goal of smaller government, with a greater emphasis on capitalism - and most of all, accountability of our elected representatives - is a worthy goal and what unites most of us.

Thanks for answering my question.

I was bored with it last night. But I'll give it the old college try, through the haze of meds I'm on.

Greater emphasis on capitalism: By this I mean, creating an environment that encourages and rewards small to midsize companies and the tenets of free enterprise. Removing obstacles that impede the creation and growth of private enterprise. The commitment NOT to raise taxes on small to midsize business owners and their employees (including upper management). No more "stimulus plans"" that reward ineptitude and corruption. Allowing companies that are in danger of failing to simply do that - FAIL. Less government intervention in private enterprise.

Look where deregulation got us.

I agree.

Personally, I think the biggest thing any American government could do to help small and midsize businesses would be to streamline the processes they have to deal with.

Just this weekend, I was talking with someone who owns a small business (about 12 employees) in Massachussets. He told me how he hadn't had any issues with the local government at his previous location, but when he moved into a larger facility in another county (one that's lost a lot of manufacturing jobs and is hurting for work), the bureaucracy was insane - the county council would even approve every business licence individually.

The problem, though, is I think that to actually implement standardization and the sort of streamlining necessary, it's almost vital to centralize some of the authority: states would have to put limits on what city and county governments can do. The Federal government would have to limit the states... but then they'd run afoul of the people railing against "big government".

It's easy to make talking points and sound bites about tax cuts. It's more difficult to do the same with the issue of efficient governance. Also, I think that in the US, the tendency of people to be opposed to government oversight has created a situation where this oversight, when it is in place, is implemented piecemeal. IMO, the result is often sets of legislation and bureauocracy that don't work well with each other and, ironically, limit the freedom of people and businesses much more than if these bits of authority had been put in place according to some overall strategy.

The short version: I think that the pursuit of "smaller government" can often produce not a small government, but a large and inefficient government that's bad for businesses (and everyone else).

 

[Magic Man]

It's easy to make talking points and sound bites about tax cuts. It's more difficult to do the same with the issue of efficient governance. Also, I think that in the US, the tendency of people to be opposed to government oversight has created a situation where this oversight, when it is in place, is implemented piecemeal. IMO, the result is often sets of legislation and bureauocracy that don't work well with each other and, ironically, limit the freedom of people and businesses much more than if these bits of authority had been put in place according to some overall strategy.

Definitely. People are so afraid of "big government" and having their freedoms taken away that they force the government to do things in ludicrous ways.

It works the same way for the healthcare bills. People are so afraid of socialism and redistribution of wealth that they won't allow any kind of meaningful reform.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Once again, you're making the mistake of considering all the Tea Partiers to be Republicans, Smoke.

Every last Tea Partier may not be, but the organization most certainly is. If this is not the case, then why have so many Republicans spoken at them? Several Fox News anchors have spoken at them. And Sarah Palin apparently hasn't heard of what we call "index cards."

 

[Kathryn]

Hand, teleprompter, index cards - same o same o.

 

[T-Dawg]

Hand, teleprompter, index cards - same o same o.

Once again, you miss the point - admittedly, the hand thing was funny, but the point was that she was PREPARED for a Q&A session. Those things are supposed to be spontaneous.

 

[dust1n]

I've everything against public pork spending. I also have everything against private pork spending.

Consider the global priorities in spending in 1998

Global Priority--------------------------------------------------------------$U.S. Billions
Cosmetics in the United States------------------------------------------------8
Ice cream in Europe-------------------------------------------------------------11
Perfumes in Europe and the United States-----------------------------------12
Pet foods in Europe and the United States-----------------------------------17
Business entertainment in Japan----------------------------------------------35
Cigarettes in Europe------------------------------------------------------------50
Alcoholic drinks in Europe------------------------------------------------------105
Narcotics drugs in the world----------------------------------------------------400
Military spending in the world--------------------------------------------------780

And compare that to what was estimated as additional costs to achieve universal access to basic social services in all developing countries:

Global Priority---------------------------------------------------------------$U.S. Billions
Basic education for all-------------------------------------------------------------6
Water and sanitation for all-------------------------------------------------------9
Reproductive health for all women-----------------------------------------------12
Basic health and nutrition---------------------------------------------------------13
Source 12

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Once again, you miss the point - admittedly, the hand thing was funny, but the point was that she was PREPARED for a Q&A session. Those things are supposed to be spontaneous.

Enh. That bit doesn't bother me too much. I've seen enough political debates to know that the normal tactic is to come with a set of talking points in mind, and use them as your answers to any question that's even remotely related.

EVERY politician comes to a Q & A session prepared.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hand, teleprompter, index cards - same o same o.

Not only did she prepare for a Q&A session, which strongly implies she really doesn't know what she is talking about, it looks very unprofessional to look down at your hand while giving a speech. Not to mention people aren't going to want to shake your hand should the ink smear onto their own hand.
Granted, my sister writes everything on her hand. But it's a big joke among friends and family. We giving her a hard time about how she wouldn't be able to remember anything if she were to ever loose her hands.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not only did she prepare for a Q&A session, which strongly implies she really doesn't know what she is talking about, it looks very unprofessional to look down at your hand while giving a speech.

I agree.

Not to mention people aren't going to want to shake your hand should the ink smear onto their own hand.

She did write it on her left hand.

I was a Boy Scout, so personally I'm a fan of shaking hands with the left hand (and I like the meaning behind it), but I know most people shake hands with the right.

 

[Smoke]

Once again, you miss the point - admittedly, the hand thing was funny, but the point was that she was PREPARED for a Q&A session. Those things are supposed to be spontaneous.

Anybody in her right mind would have prepared for it; that's just common sense. If you actually watch the whole thing, though, it's clear that even prepared she doesn't really have anything substantive to say.

 

[Magic Man]

What government intervention in private enterprise specifically do you want less of?

You mention vague terms like "an environment that encourages and rewards small to midsize companies and tenets of free enterprise" and "obstacles that impede the creation and growth of private enterprise" and such, but what does that mean exactly? How is the current environment not encouraging and rewarding to small to midsize companies, and what are these obstacles that impede the creation and growth of private enterprise?

Accountability of our elected officials: No more closed door meetings with lobbyists. Term limits. Tort reform. Readable bills that don't include last minute add-ons that have not been publically aired or discussed. The responsibility to listen to, answer to, and honestly represent the concerns of the officials' actual constituents and voting bloc.

Well?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

She did write it on her left hand.

I was a Boy Scout, so personally I'm a fan of shaking hands with the left hand (and I like the meaning behind it), but I know most people shake hands with the right.

Yeah, I guess it was her left hand. So scratch the hand shake thing, my mistake.
But to clarify, she incorrectly prepared for a Q&A. Of course you need to come prepared, but it is not by having notes. It's by being knowledgeable enough to not need them. The speech is what notes are for.

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, I guess it was her left hand. So scratch the hand shake thing, my mistake.
But to clarify, she incorrectly prepared for a Q&A. Of course you need to come prepared, but it is not by having notes. It's by being knowledgeable enough to not need them. The speech is what notes are for.

What I don't get is why she wrote anything on her hand. The things she wrote were "Tax cuts, Energy and lift American spirits". Can she really not remember those three basic things? Did she really have to look at that list when answering a question?

 

[Rev. White]

I'm not a big Palin fan, but I love the way it makes peoples eyes bug out whenever her name is mentioned. Lol. I wonder how she will decorate the White House? Just Kidding! Jeesh!

 

[dust1n]

What I don't get is why she wrote anything on her hand. The things she wrote were "Tax cuts, Energy and lift American spirits". Can she really not remember those three basic things? Did she really have to look at that list when answering a question?

That's what I am saying? Like.. why not at least write key points down or something!

It makes no sense! IT MAKES NO SENSE!

 

[Alceste]

The Tea Party movement finally had their large official convention. You can read about it, here. The scary thing is that the Tea Party movement is transforming itself into a serious political force instead of a bunch of crazy people shouting in the streets; as President Obama so elegantly put it, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." What amazes me or not is that the Tea Party people really think they are fighting for a non-partisan agenda, when all they are really doing is working to get the Republican party back in power. You thought Republicans were going to sit around and do nothing after 8-years of power?

Hi, I'm not going to read the whole thread, so I apologize if this has already been pointed out, but the Tea Baggers were never anything but an astroturf PR exercise on behalf of the Republican party. You can read the smug gloating of the firm that manages the narrative of the tea bag movement in scraps of press here and there. I have, but am too drunk to think where at this moment. I have posted links before.

Anyway, I've called it before but I'm calling it again: the Tea Baggers are soon to discover that they have a leader, and that that leader is Sarah Palin (barf smiley? Anyone). She will either be a Republican presidential candidate or the leader of a "new" party called the "Conservative" party. If a "conservative" party emerges, it will be a cynical tactic to dupe moderate voters into believing the Republican party has restored some of its credibility and offloaded the embarrassing pro-life, anti-evolution, fundamentalist nutters onto the "Conservatives". If this is the strategy, the Democrats will win the presidency but the Conservapublicans will still have a majority everywhere it counts.

 

[dust1n]

Hi, I'm not going to read the whole thread, so I apologize if this has already been pointed out, but the Tea Baggers were never anything but an astroturf PR exercise on behalf of the Republican party. You can read the smug gloating of the firm that manages the narrative of the tea bag movement in scraps of press here and there. I have, but am too drunk to think where at this moment. I have posted links before.

Anyway, I've called it before but I'm calling it again: the Tea Baggers are soon to discover that they have a leader, and that that leader is Sarah Palin (barf smiley? Anyone). She will either be a Republican presidential candidate or the leader of a "new" party called the "Conservative" party. If a "conservative" party emerges, it will be a cynical tactic to dupe moderate voters into believing the Republican party has restored some of its credibility and offloaded the embarrassing pro-life, anti-evolution, fundamentalist nutters onto the "Conservatives". If this is the strategy, the Democrats will win the presidency but the Conservapublicans will still have a majority everywhere it counts.

Yeah, we went over it all already. You're right.

 

[Alceste]

Yeah, we went over it all already. You're right.

Really? Lol. That's kind of a surprise, frankly. The only serious research I've done tonight is peering into the depths of a bottle of vodka. I don't know whether I'm right or not, for once.