Tea Party "Contract on America"

[Thunder]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/15/tea-party-protesters-descend-dc-new-contract-america/

it includes, among other things, and end to "government-run health care".

does this mean they want to do away with Medicare, Medicade, and the Veterans medical system?

boys these guys are stuuuuuuuuuuupid.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

They can't legally implement this contract until after they get elected***.



***After they get elected. :dl:

[johnny karate]

does this mean they want to do away with Medicare, Medicade, and the Veterans medical system?

Nope:
And nearly three-quarters of those who favor smaller government said they would prefer it even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut.

But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

Others could not explain the contradiction.



boys these guys are stuuuuuuuuuuupid.

Yup:
“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.”


Source. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html)

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I'm sure they just want to repeal the recently passed legislation on healthcare, but "we're gonna end government run health-care" and oppose the "government take over of the healthcare system"* makes a better sound bite.

*Worth mentioning that before this bill was passed the government was still paying for over half of the total US medical expenses.

[johnny karate]

I'm sure they just want to repeal the recently passed legislation on healthcare, but "we're gonna end government run health-care" and oppose the "government take over of the healthcare system"* makes a better sound bite.

Well, it certainly rolls off the tongue better than "We're a bunch of self-entitled hypocrites who make up lies!".

[Piscivore]

Why doesn't every teabagger holding up a sign or giving an interview just cut to the chase and say what they mean: "Change scares me."

[Meadmaker]

This wqs my favorite quote:

"'Look we don't (need) leaders for this,' said Dick Armey, the former Texas Republican congressman who now leads FreedomWorks and was part of both the 1994 Contract With America and the new contract. "

Indeed he was part of that, but he skipped one important part. He skipped the part where you actually do the things that are part of the contract. The Contract With America made great political sloganeering, and it worked to help Republicans get elected, but they weren't actually interested in fulfilling the contract once they got elected.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Well, it certainly rolls off the tongue better than "We're a bunch of self-entitled hypocrites who make up lies!".

And I still think people would vote for that.

[mortimer]

"Contract on America"? Clever, parky.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

That'll teach those politicians who weasel out of the American peoples' wishes by using vague promises destined to be broken!

[Taarkin]

Contract "on" America just sounds like...I dunno, an imposition or something.

[Dorian Gray]

Why doesn't every teabagger holding up a sign or giving an interview just cut to the chase and say what they mean: "Change scares me."
Because every irony meter on earth would instantly explode (considering the origin of 'Tea Party').

[Darth Rotor]

Contract "on" America just sounds like...I dunno, an imposition or something.
Nobody expects the Spanish Imposition -- oops, sorry, I'll come back in again. :blush:

does this mean they want to do away with Medicare, Medicade, and the Veterans medical system?
A good question, and one which appears to escape the slogan crafting department of the Tea Party.

[pgwenthold]

A good question, and one which appears to escape the slogan crafting department of the Tea Party.

Which I find odd, considering how bloody obvious it is.

[Steven Howard]

This wqs my favorite quote:

"'Look we don't (need) leaders for this,' said Dick Armey, the former Texas Republican congressman who now leads FreedomWorks and was part of both the 1994 Contract With America and the new contract. "


Obvious follow-up question: "So what is it that you do, exactly?"

[headscratcher4]

Driving home from work last night, passed the tax day teaparty protest on the Mall. Thought it was pretty small considering the nearly 24/7 coverage they've been getting on cable news...barely filled one corner of the grounds in front of the Washington Monument. Now, this was around 5:00pm and it might have been bigger earlier, but really quite unimpressive at that time (considering some of the crowd were actually anti-teaparty protestors). Just an observation.

[Bikewer]

They were discussing this poll on NPR's Diane Rehm show (weekly reporter's roundup) this morning.
The conclusion was that the Tea Party folks were pretty much mainstream Republican; well-to-do, well educated, older, etc.
Although some of the rhetoric tossed around is rather extreme, it seems that most of the 18% of the people expressing support are hardly radical.

[Frank327]

I especially like #3: demand a balanced budget. Where were these people during the reagan and bush years when for the first time in american history the debt was raised steeply during non-wars/crisis years? I quess unbalanced budgets are only bad when you're actually using them to achieve something?

[Bob Blaylock]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/15/tea-party-protesters-descend-dc-new-contract-america/

it includes, among other things, and end to "government-run health care".

does this mean they want to do away with Medicare, Medicade, and the Veterans medical system?

boys these guys are stuuuuuuuuuuupid.


So anyone who wants government to obey the Constitution, stick to its rightful duties, and keep its filthy hands out of areas that it has no business meddling in, is “stuuuuuuuuuuupid”?

[Cleon]

and keep its filthy hands out of areas that it has no business meddling in

Like dictating who you're allowed to marry?

Oh, right, sorry, that's one of those things government should keep its filthy hands in. :rolleyes:

[Skeptic]

Like dictating who you're allowed to marry?

The state does not dictate who you're allowed to marry . It's no crime for a man to live with another man. It's not crime for a man to declare himself married to another man. It's no crime for a church to perform a homosexual marriage ceremony and consider them married. It's no crime for, say, a private insurance company to recognize them as married in terms of benefits, etc. (some such companies do). And so on.

What you don't have is the right to have this marriage recognized by the state for tax and other purposes. That's something quite different. The state certainly has a right to decide what unions it recognizes as married. If I don't give you $100 that hardly means I am "dictating how much money you can make" and that the only way I can "keep my filthy hands off" your business is by giving you $100.

[Cleon]

The state does not dictate who you're allowed to marry . It's no crime for a man to live with another man. It's not crime for a man to declare himself married to another man. It's no crime for a church to perform a homosexual marriage ceremony and consider them married. It's no crime for, say, a private insurance company to recognize them as married in terms of benefits, etc. (some such companies do). And so on.

What you don't have is the right to have this marriage recognized by the state for tax and other purposes. That's something quite different. The state certainly has a right to decide what unions it recognizes as married. If I don't give you $100 that hardly means I am "dictating how much money you can make" and that the only way I can "keep my filthy hands off" your business is by giving you $100.

Spin it however you want; the hypocrisy doesn't magically disappear.

[johnny karate]

So anyone who wants government to obey the Constitution, stick to its rightful duties, and keep its filthy hands out of areas that it has no business meddling in, is “stuuuuuuuuuuupid”?

No, it's stupid to demand the government scrap entitlement programs with the exception of the ones that benefit you.

Which seemed to be the rather obvious point of the post you quoted.

Odd that you would have missed that.

[fuelair]

So anyone who wants government to obey the Constitution, stick to its rightful duties, and keep its filthy hands out of areas that it has no business meddling in, is “stuuuuuuuuuuupid”?

Yes Bob, because I think they and others are either ignorant of the Constitution and what it allows OR are not actually ignorant, but, far worse, are using that lie to try to change things they don't like. Your mileage clearly varies. I suggest a bit of time reading a book or two on Constitutional law written by disinterested legal scholars. Because I am giving you the consideration of assuming the first rather than the second.:)

[fuelair]

So anyone who wants government to obey the Constitution, stick to its rightful duties, and keep its filthy hands out of areas that it has no business meddling in, is “stuuuuuuuuuuupid”?

Though, a lot of people on my side of the fence were trying exactly that argument when the Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld Troika were actually violating aspects of the Constitution - and supported with no argument about that by the people who now teabag. Just saying - but I'm sure you were not supporting those unConstitutional-for-real things they did.

[quarky]

Getting bogged down in details isn't in the spirit of Tea Party activists.

Let's stay focused on the important stuff:

The illegitimate communist president wants to take our guns; force us to have abortions and become homosexuals, and kill our granny.

We can't stand by, idle, and wait until he begins the burning of all the flags and bibles.

[patchbunny]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/15/tea-party-protesters-descend-dc-new-contract-america/

it includes, among other things, and end to "government-run health care".

does this mean they want to do away with Medicare, Medicade, and the Veterans medical system?

boys these guys are stuuuuuuuuuuupid.

2/3rds majority for any tax hike? I see they've learned from California. That's working so well here.

[Meadmaker]

The illegitimate communist president wants to take our guns; force us to have abortions and become homosexuals, and kill our granny.



Really? I had no idea it was that bad! Them darned libruls in the lame stream media said all he was going to do was make me buy health insurance!

That's it! I'm buying stock in Lipton right now!

[tyr_13]

Really? I had no idea it was that bad! Them darned libruls in the lame stream media said all he was going to do was make me buy health insurance!

That's it! I'm buying stock in Lipton right now!

Nope. It's gold coins. It's always gold coins.

[thaiboxerken]

Contract for america... created by big corporations. Check out the lobby groups sponsoring this deal. http://www.thecontract.org/about/

[hgc]

So anyone who wants government to obey the Constitution, stick to its rightful duties, and keep its filthy hands out of areas that it has no business meddling in, is “stuuuuuuuuuuupid”?


Faulty premise x3. That's what's stupid.

[Thunder]

do the Tea-Baggers want to end the FED and go back to the gold standard?

[Meadmaker]

do the Tea-Baggers want to end the FED and go back to the gold standard?

That's not good enough! A national currency of any sort, even gold certificates, is an example of big government run amok. Why do we need "dollars"? Why can't private banks issue their own money just like they did at the time of the first revolution? Get government out of the money supply!

P.S.
And that SOB Alexander Hamilton got what was coming to him! Remember Aaron Burr!

[rdaneel]

That's not good enough! A national currency of any sort, even gold certificates, is an example of big government run amok. Why do we need "dollars"? Why can't private banks issue their own money just like they did at the time of the first revolution? Get government out of the money supply!

P.S.
And that SOB Alexander Hamilton got what was coming to him! Remember Aaron Burr!
Or even better, we can let the free market handle it. Let companies issue their own currency and run their own generous credit system. I can see no possible downside to this system.

[JoeyDonuts]

Or even better, we can let the free market handle it. Let companies issue their own currency and run their own generous credit system. I can see no possible downside to this system.

:dl: