I think you've confused the Tea Party with the Religious Right. There is nothing in the Tea Party platform that I've seen that says anything at all about religion or Christian teachings.

 

No I haven't in the minds of most. They see them one and the same. Not in their beginnings as HB said, but now they appear to have gravitated that way.

 

The two things I hear when out and about across the country and these things come up is We know what they are against, but are they really for. They seem to have no substance when they say they are against higher taxes, etc. the second is just as I stated at first they were all about no or little government interference, now they get into those moral issues.

 

I truly believe if they would have stayed their course on fiscal stuff, they would have gained much more influence and prominence, but when they talk about what is rape, etc. it really turned people off.

 

Now this may be a few, but those few had a national platform to politic their wares.

 

I also know that there is nothing research based in who I talk to from Maine to Texas, but it is what I hear and read in local news and conversations, but I do talk to a very diverse group of people. Doesn't mean anything, but it does give me a perspective that I hadn't had before.

Good point HB. But that is the basic premise behind Reaganomics isn't it? Just cut taxes and then government will automatically shrink?

No, that is not the premise behind Reaganomics. Cut taxes and more money is available for private investment and the economy will thrive. Reagan did so, and the economy boomed. Unemployment, interest rates, and the rate of inflation all plummeted under Reagan's watch. That is a historical fact.

 

Reagan was also in favor of reducing the size of government, reducing regulation, and simplifying the language of regulations. Because Carter had decimated our military capability, Reagan was forced to compromise with Democrats on domestic spending in exchange for rebuilding the military - so the size of government and spending levels rose. However, many regulations were eliminated or rewritten under Reagan and that has not happened since.

 

Reagan wisely followed the economic advice of Milton Friedman and all one has to do to evaluate the results is to compare the state of the economy when Carter left office to the economy that Reagan left. Liberals ridiculed "Reaganomics" but the truth is that the rich, poor, and middle class were all much, much better off when Reagan left office than they were when he took over from Jimmy Carter.

 

Liberals may rewrite history, but they cannot change it.

No, that is not the premise behind Reaganomics. Cut taxes and more money is available for private investment and the economy will thrive. Reagan did so, and the economy boomed. Unemployment, interest rates, and the rate of inflation all plummeted under Reagan's watch. That is a historical fact.

 

Reagan was also in favor of reducing the size of government, reducing regulation, and simplifying the language of regulations. Because Carter had decimated our military capability, Reagan was forced to compromise with Democrats on domestic spending in exchange for rebuilding the military - so the size of government and spending levels rose. However, many regulations were eliminated or rewritten under Reagan and that has not happened since.

 

Reagan wisely followed the economic advice of Milton Friedman and all one has to do to evaluate the results is to compare the state of the economy when Carter left office to the economy that Reagan left. Liberals ridiculed "Reaganomics" but the truth is that the rich, poor, and middle class were all much, much better off when Reagan left office than they were when he took over from Jimmy Carter.

 

Liberals may rewrite history, but they cannot change it.

 

Good info. Thanks for that. Reagan is also the President under whom our budget deficit and debt began spiraling upward. Debt tripled under Reagan. Government spending increased under Reagan. Improving things from where they were under Carter was easy, and almost a certainty, regardless of who was President. The same is true of Obama following Bush. When Obama took office, our economy was in such a mess there was no way he could not make it better. Interesting as I think about it that under both Reagan and Obama our economy improved significantly and a couple of the common threads appear to be a dramatically increased national debt/budget deficit and an increase in government spending.

Good info. Thanks for that. Reagan is also the President under whom our budget deficit and debt began spiraling upward. Debt tripled under Reagan. Government spending increased under Reagan. Improving things from where they were under Carter was easy, and almost a certainty, regardless of who was President. The same is true of Obama following Bush. When Obama took office, our economy was in such a mess there was no way he could not make it better. Interesting as I think about it that under both Reagan and Obama our economy improved significantly and a couple of the common threads appear to be a dramatically increased national debt/budget deficit and an increase in government spending.

C'mon now..................

Good point HB. But that is the basic premise behind Reaganomics isn't it? Just cut taxes and then government will automatically shrink?

 

It starts with living within a budget. We have rung up a huge deficit, and the liberals just want to increase taxes to catch up with the spending. It is absolutely absurd thinking. Right now, I believe Reagan would be saying we need to learn to live within our means. That part of the Tea Party message I fully agree with.

 

What is going to be the impetus to get us back on a sound fiscal path? The liberals are playing the "good" parent who wants to give their child everything while letting the other parent say no, I work, and we don't make enough to pay for this. I will start respecting the liberal theology when just ONE of them steps up and takes responsibility for a plan to live within our budget rather than copping out and blaming the other side for not yielding to their ways.

No I haven't in the minds of most. They see them one and the same. Not in their beginnings as HB said, but now they appear to have gravitated that way.

 

The two things I hear when out and about across the country and these things come up is We know what they are against, but are they really for. They seem to have no substance when they say they are against higher taxes, etc. the second is just as I stated at first they were all about no or little government interference, now they get into those moral issues.

 

I truly believe if they would have stayed their course on fiscal stuff, they would have gained much more influence and prominence, but when they talk about what is rape, etc. it really turned people off.

 

Now this may be a few, but those few had a national platform to politic their wares.

 

I also know that there is nothing research based in who I talk to from Maine to Texas, but it is what I hear and read in local news and conversations, but I do talk to a very diverse group of people. Doesn't mean anything, but it does give me a perspective that I hadn't had before.

 

I think there is a lot of confusion on the TP. People may be ignorant of their platform and thus associate with the Religious Right but they are not the same. As far as I know their platform has nothing to do with rape, religion, morality, etc. I could be wrong but I think they concentrate on fiscal issues and lack of government involvement. What may confuse people is some of the stupid things some TP candidates have said when asked about some of the religious issues. That doesn't mean the party is terribly involved in those issues.

Good info. Thanks for that. Reagan is also the President under whom our budget deficit and debt began spiraling upward. Debt tripled under Reagan. Government spending increased under Reagan. Improving things from where they were under Carter was easy, and almost a certainty, regardless of who was President. The same is true of Obama following Bush. When Obama took office, our economy was in such a mess there was no way he could not make it better. Interesting as I think about it that under both Reagan and Obama our economy improved significantly and a couple of the common threads appear to be a dramatically increased national debt/budget deficit and an increase in government spending.

 

Many people thought the same thing about Bush/Obama. They were wrong also.

I believe there are many who agree with part of the Tea Party platform of less government...when it comes to economic issues. However, the TP needs to distance themselves from the "moral right" because it is contradictory to not want more govenment in one area - economics, but to want more government in another eg. right to life.

 

At least the liberals and self-named "progressives" are on the same page with each other...they want more govenment everywhere. It is winning them elections, but pushing us closer to the septic tank.

 

Agreed. They started to mix messages a couple of years ago. They should have stuck to their core message. Now it is immigration, regions freedoms, 2nd Admend along with the 3-5 super pacs that fund these candidates with different messaging. If they want to have a political platform they should spilt off into their own party. I see less and less libertarian views from the TP lately.

 

Report: Tea Party More Christian Right Than Libertarian

hmmm. I guess not .

Many people thought the same thing about Bush/Obama. They were wrong also.

 

You don't think the economy is better now than it was under Bush?

I don't .

You don't think the economy is better now than it was under Bush?

 

The economy has sputtered since 2001. It has taken a definite downturn starting in 2006. It has not at all recovered to the 2006 level at all.

There is zero doubt the economy today is better than it was in 2007-2008 and Bush was still President then. You may be right about it not being back to 2006 levels. I would have to look more closely and compare.

You don't think the economy is better now than it was under Bush?

Absolutely not. There are more people who are not in the work force today than ever before, more people collecting food stamps than ever before, and more people drawing government disability checks than ever before.

There is zero doubt the economy today is better than it was in 2007-2008 and Bush was still President then. You may be right about it not being back to 2006 levels. I would have to look more closely and compare.

The economy is better than it was at the very end of the Bush presidency but Bush was in office 8 years. The recession was very deep when Obama took office but this has been the weakest recovery in history and the economy actually shrank last quarter. Increasing taxes and implementing policies to make energy sharply more expensive is not a recipe for growth.

Edited June 11, 201412 yr by Mitch Rapp