As Republicans and conservatives have scrambled to rally the support of the Tea Party movement, many have failed to take notice of some of the important inconsistencies implicit in the Tea Party message. A recent New York Times/CBS poll reveals some interesting information about the movement and its fundamental “principles.”
According to this poll, 91% of Tea Partiers want a smaller government with fewer services. Despite this hostility to big government, 62% of Tea Partiers believe that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are worth the cost (apparently no one bothered to tell them that Social Security and Medicare are evil Godless socialist programs). This would suggest that in order to achieve fiscal sanity the Tea Party believes that spending cuts are to be implemented elsewhere within the vast expenditures of the federal apparatus. However when one examines their beliefs on paying down the debt, the result is somewhat troubling. When asked whether they preferred deficit reduction or tax cuts, 49% of Tea Partiers said they would favor tax reduction while 42% would prefer deficit reduction.
So, tax cuts are preferred to debt reduction, and social security and Medicare are well worth the cost. This sounds less like a movement of mature fiscal hawks and more like one of whiny adolescents (who actually happen to be middle-aged) who want their current taxes lower and their future benefits higher. They are only concerned with fighting government spending that benefits other people and are desperately seeking to save their own precious benefits. They think the costs are well worth it and they have no intention of shouldering the burden themselves. These costs will be incurred by future generations whose taxes will be higher and whose benefits will be lower or nonexistent.
I’m reminded of the Billy Joel song “We Didn’t Start the Fire.” It seems that to the Tea Party, the national debt has just “been burning since the world’s been turning” and there is nothing that can really be done about it… in their generation. If Republicans and conservatives are serious about conserving and reforming entitlement programs (as they should be) they need to find ways to overcome this cultural mindset which believes rights and benefits come free of any obligations and responsibilities. They must come to realize that these obligations extend to their fellow citizens as well as future generations. Maybe in between talk of death panels and the rising specter of Marxism, the adults can return to this national conversation and take the lead.
balconesfault // Apr 27, 2010 at 1:33 pm
nhthinker:
What I know is a really stupid, arrogant statment when I see one.
And it’s fun to make fun of such idiocies.
nhthinker // Apr 27, 2010 at 2:22 pm
I’ll leave to ktward to tell you what you got wrong: that is, if ktward wants to.
balconesfault // Apr 27, 2010 at 3:46 pm
LOL – you really think that ktward is going to jump into the fray to defend this particular piece of arrogant bluster from you?
I’ll bet we’ll be waiting for quite awhile, indeed!
nhthinker // Apr 27, 2010 at 9:51 pm
balconesfault,
You are only continuing to wrap yourself around the axle. Maybe your mother could explain it to you.
ktward // Apr 28, 2010 at 1:06 am
nhthinker // Apr 27, 2010 at 8:24 am:
For obvious reasons, I’m not flattered. But I appreciate the attempt.
My only aim was to offer a human face to an easily dissed group of frustrated fellow Americans. But really, TeaP operates more like a Howard Beale support group than a political movement.
I will make this clear: I’ve no patience for the bigoted ilk attached to the Right, and feel no sympathy for the derision they often receive. Karma’s a bitch.
ktward // Apr 28, 2010 at 1:20 am
@balconesfault:
With the occasional exception, I fail at fray. I gladly defer my fray time to you. But hey, good news, I’m bilingual.
balconesfault // Apr 28, 2010 at 11:19 am
I shall depart from this squabble, with the acknowledgment that these day’s it’s a sign of rationality to be a former Republican.
nhthinker // Apr 28, 2010 at 12:56 pm
balconesfault,
“Squabble” would assume you had a rational leg to stand on.
You described ktward as a “he” – I think she would have mixed emotions that you would assume her to be such-
I guess you couldn’t help your ignorance by actually paying attention to her postings.
But I don’t expect you to realize nor apologize for such an assumption of gender.
Should I?
ktward // Apr 28, 2010 at 2:21 pm
nhthinker // Apr 28, 2010 at 12:56 pm
I’ve no mixed emotions. On this thread, gender is irrelevant: I’ve no idea why you are using mine as a point of contention.
balconesfault // Apr 28, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Such silliness! I am quite sure that kt does not take offense at being included in “mankind” either!
But for the record, I appreciate your gracious response kt – you are a
gentlemanlady and a scholar.nhthinker // Apr 29, 2010 at 10:27 pm
balcomesfault
“What I know is a really stupid, arrogant statment when I see one.”
You were proven wrong after calling my statement stupid and arrogant- and you keep chuggin along without ackowledging any error.
Typical liberal.
Symbolism and Humanity; What Happens When “Reality” and “Myth” Collide? » heur-e-ka // May 10, 2010 at 5:46 pm
[...] birth of the “Tea Party” only after the very embodiment of their stated platform’s arch-nemesis, big government [...]