Is the current tea party anything like the original tea party?

[ShawnD1]

I'm reading the wikipedia page about the boston tea party and it has a lot of interesting stuff in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party


Hopefully I'm reading this correctly. It sounds like it goes this way:
-US colonies could only buy tea from Britain, and the East India Company had a monopoly on this tea
-The East India Company was not allowed to sell tea directly to the US colonies, so all tea had to pass through Britain and be sold by middle men to the US at a jacked up price
-The Tea Act of 1773 allowed the East India Company to sell tea directly to the US at a greatly reduced cost because it removed middle men
-Even though tea was no longer moving through mainland Britain, Britain wanted to keep taxing all of the tea going to the US.
-The price of tea after the Tea Act of 1773, including the Townsend duty, actually went down


So basically the tea party was about British colonists being pissed off that they had to pay British taxes? If that happened today, it would be something like people in Hawaii getting pissed off because they need to pay trade taxes to the mainland US even when their trade isn't passing through the mainland US.

How does the current tea party relate to any of this? The big deal back then was that colonists didn't like paying federal taxes to a far away mainland Britain because they seemed to fund shit colonists didn't care about (new spinning rims on the queen's carriage). Do the current tea baggers want to do the same thing with existing federal programs? Break apart social security, medicare, and disband most of the military? (those are some of the biggest federal expenses)

 

[boomerang]

This place never ceases to amaze me. Besides the fact that you're running about 18 months behind on your faux query, the use of the word tea-bagger gives away your true intentions. Referencing spinners makes the whole post juvenile in nature to top it off.

My reaction to this post is to say don't be stupid. But I'm thinking that might be too much to ask.

However it's nice to see your interest in history. :thumbsup:

 

[Linflas]

This place never ceases to amaze me. Besides the fact that you're running about 18 months behind on your faux query, the use of the word tea-bagger gives away your true intentions. Referencing spinners makes the whole post juvenile in nature to top it off.

My reaction to this post is to say don't be stupid. But I'm thinking that might be too much to ask.

However it's nice to see your interest in history. :thumbsup:

He seemed to miss that important detail regarding lack of colonial representation in the parliament in his study of this topic.

 

[jackschmittusa]

ShawnD1

The issue was "taxation without representation".

The people today are represented.

 

[Hacp]

I'm reading the wikipedia page about the boston tea party and it has a lot of interesting stuff in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party


Hopefully I'm reading this correctly. It sounds like it goes this way:
-US colonies could only buy tea from Britain, and the East India Company had a monopoly on this tea
-The East India Company was not allowed to sell tea directly to the US colonies, so all tea had to pass through Britain and be sold by middle men to the US at a jacked up price
-The Tea Act of 1773 allowed the East India Company to sell tea directly to the US at a greatly reduced cost because it removed middle men
-Even though tea was no longer moving through mainland Britain, Britain wanted to keep taxing all of the tea going to the US.
-The price of tea after the Tea Act of 1773, including the Townsend duty, actually went down


So basically the tea party was about British colonists being pissed off that they had to pay British taxes? If that happened today, it would be something like people in Hawaii getting pissed off because they need to pay trade taxes to the mainland US even when their trade isn't passing through the mainland US.

How does the current tea party relate to any of this? The big deal back then was that colonists didn't like paying federal taxes to a far away mainland Britain because they seemed to fund shit colonists didn't care about (new spinning rims on the queen's carriage). Do the current tea baggers want to do the same thing with existing federal programs? Break apart social security, medicare, and disband most of the military? (those are some of the biggest federal expenses)

Its called the Tea Party to represent a desire to return to our roots as a nation with less government and more individual freedom. Government right now is out of control. When an individual is required to pay a 120 dollar fee for selling lemonade, you know there is something wrong.

 

[Linflas]

Its called the Tea Party to represent a desire to return to our roots as a nation with less government and more individual freedom. Government right now is out of control. When an individual is required to pay a 120 dollar fee for selling lemonade, you know there is something wrong.

To be fair that was a local government functionary with the lemonade. The Tea Party really grew with the dual whammies of TARP and the first porkulous package, and the bailouts of GM and Chrysler.

 

[cwjerome]

This place never ceases to amaze me. Besides the fact that you're running about 18 months behind on your faux query, the use of the word tea-bagger gives away your true intentions. Referencing spinners makes the whole post juvenile in nature to top it off.

My reaction to this post is to say don't be stupid. But I'm thinking that might be too much to ask.

However it's nice to see your interest in history. :thumbsup:

Yep. OP succeeds in Fail.

The particulars between the "tea parties" is almost irrelevant. Just like like women's suffrage and banning Jim Crow laws both fall under Civil Rights, the two tea parties fall into a larger broad category... mainly, the idea that the government is out of touch and repressive.

I am not a believer in the current Tea Party, but am I a believer in the role they are taking in society. I disagree with many of their "particulars," yet I'm sympathetic to some of the message and appreciate the "citizenship" they are practicing.

I am with them in believing the government is "out of order." The government does not seem accountable or responsible. Government is the property of the people, and when the government appears to be in "rebellion" against the people, ie, they are not serving in the societal interest, we have a right -an obligation- to correct it.

But, some in the tea party movement are very suspect who have very strange opinions about individuals and the role of government. Besides, they react to problems, not systemic issues that cause them.

The fashionable Lib thing to do regarding the tea party is to bash them, ridicule them, destroy them them and basically engage in the type of political discourse that's creating much of the problems we have today... it's all about petty tearing down and making the other side hurt. That goes for both sides.

 

[BoomerD]

ShawnD1

The issue was "taxation without representation".

The people today are represented.

Well...not really. We have "elected representatives," but they don't really represent the PEOPLE...they represent business...the corporations who put them in office.


What I find amusing about the current "Tea Party," is that, had a group of unhappy Democrats tried this during the Bush administration, the Republicans would have come crawling out of the woodwork to brand them as "Un-American," or socialists, or communists, or...<insert your favorite slur>.

So far, I haven't seen the Tea Party be anything but just another Republican shill group.

 

[QuantumPion]

If the King of England was doing one millionth of the crap the federal government does today, the colonists wouldn't have waited for the British to send troops to America, they would have built a freaking navy to invade England itself!

 

[QuantumPion]

Well...not really. We have "elected representatives," but they don't really represent the PEOPLE...they represent business...the corporations who put them in office.


What I find amusing about the current "Tea Party," is that, had a group of unhappy Democrats tried this during the Bush administration, the Republicans would have come crawling out of the woodwork to brand them as "Un-American," or socialists, or communists, or...<insert your favorite slur>.

So far, I haven't seen the Tea Party be anything but just another Republican shill group.

Fail. Every time a Democrat comes out for conservative values, they are universally praised. E.g. Zel Miller, Bob Conley, Ben Nelson, a few others.

Furthermore, there was plenty of conservative outrage over Bush's spending policies. However, since the old media are entirely composed of liberals, and liberals like big government, the gave little to no coverage to such complaints.

 

[Moonbeam]

Fail. Every time a Democrat comes out for conservative values, they are universally praised. E.g. Zel Miller, Bob Conley, Ben Nelson, a few others.

Furthermore, there was plenty of conservative outrage over Bush's spending policies. However, since the old media are entirely composed of liberals, and liberals like big government, the gave little to no coverage to such complaints.

Small government is a Republican talking point, not a Republican political goal. The goals we saw, illegal war, massive government spending, and tax cuts for the rich. The rhetoric is to the small gov dreamers idiots coming back to the trough. Eight years of real Republicanism was a total disaster and will be a disaster next time again. Try to wake up from your dream.

 

[ayabe]

Nope, the original tea party was a touch more informed about the issue(s) they were raging against. Call it a clarity of vision or a perhaps that they had more reliable news than say Drudge.

 

[hal2kilo]

Small government is a Republican talking point, not a Republican political goal. The goals we saw, illegal war, massive government spending, and tax cuts for the rich. The rhetoric is to the small gov dreamers idiots coming back to the trough. Eight years of real Republicanism was a total disaster and will be a disaster next time again. Try to wake up from your dream.

I seem to remember the drum beat of deficits don't matter during this period. Maybe, I'm just getting old and that's just some foggy impression I had.

They sure do matter now that we want a power change.

 

[QuantumPion]

I seem to remember the drum beat of deficits don't matter during this period. Maybe, I'm just getting old and that's just some foggy impression I had.

They sure do matter now that we want a power change.

After a few seconds of googling:

http://old.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200504280951.asp

http://www.slate.com/id/2095237

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0603.drum.html

http://article.nationalreview.com/431990/a-delayed-bush-backlash/jonah-goldberg

http://article.nationalreview.com/269655/big-foot-vs-invisible-hand/jerry-taylor-and-peter-vandoren

 

[QuantumPion]

Small government is a Republican talking point, not a Republican political goal. The goals we saw, illegal war, massive government spending, and tax cuts for the rich. The rhetoric is to the small gov dreamers idiots coming back to the trough. Eight years of real Republicanism was a total disaster and will be a disaster next time again. Try to wake up from your dream.

Small government is a conservative talking point. Not to be confused with the Republican Party. Eight years of "compassionate conservatism" aka "neocon" aka "big-government republicans" were bad for the country. Not so much a disaster I would say, not anywhere near the magnitude of the current administration anyways.

Tax cuts for all americans (which obviously includes the rich, since you can't cut the taxes of people that don't pay taxes in the first place naturally) were rightly praised. Massive government spending was largely criticize per previous post.

 

[rudder]

I seem to remember the drum beat of deficits don't matter during this period. Maybe, I'm just getting old and that's just some foggy impression I had.

They sure do matter now that we want a power change.

There is a big damn difference between a $400 billion deficit and a $1.4 Trillion deficit.

The economy was also growing at a faster pace than now. Prior to Bushes $400 something billion deficit in 2004... the economy took a serious hit in 2001 (WTC attacks if you do not recall). The CBO data shows after 2004 the deficit was decreasing (only to rise again after the dems took over congress). This is not to excuse Dubya increasing of the federal budget at record pace... but to merely point out that the B...B...B... But Bush arguments is ridiculous.

When our national debt to GDP ratio gets in the 90% range... GDP growth is going to be negative.

http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/c...l--Crisis-Doug-Elmendorf/2010/07/29/id/366001

Bush raided the treasury on his way out by signing TARP... Obama is finishing it off at record pace. Sorry you folks can't see that.

 

[Hacp]

There is a big damn difference between a $400 billion deficit and a $1.4 Trillion deficit.

The economy was also growing at a faster pace than now. Prior to Bushes $400 something billion deficit in 2004... the economy took a serious hit in 2001 (WTC attacks if you do not recall). The CBO data shows after 2004 the deficit was decreasing (only to rise again after the dems took over congress). This is not to excuse Dubya increasing of the federal budget at record pace... but to merely point out that the B...B...B... But Bush arguments is ridiculous.

When our national debt to GDP ratio gets in the 90% range... GDP growth is going to be negative.

http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/c...l--Crisis-Doug-Elmendorf/2010/07/29/id/366001

Bush raided the treasury on his way out by signing TARP... Obama is finishing it off at record pace. Sorry you folks can't see that.

Remember Tarp wasn't only Bush. Obama had his hand in half of the TARP funds. He could have chosen to not approve them but he did and used them.

 

[Linflas]

Nope, the original tea party was a touch more informed about the issue(s) they were raging against. Call it a clarity of vision or a perhaps that they had more reliable news than say Drudge.

Funny, surveys have shown that Tea Party participants tend to be more educated on issues than the average American.

 

[Zebo]

I'd say so.... in every way that matters, the separation between government and corporations/elite is nonexistent, just like East India Company/Crown, especially so when it comes to the Military Industrial complex, security surveillance State, banking, oil, insurance and pharma.

TP 10 points - and I'm not sure it's the correct way to address above.

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&#37
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&#37
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&#37
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 &#8211; 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%)

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Is this a serious question? HOW is this a serious question, the original tea partiers went up against a superior force and got the French to beat their arse.

Todays tea partiers will crap their pants if someone sneeze... oh wait, it's pretty much the same kind of twats.

 

[Zebo]

Yep. OP succeeds in Fail.

The particulars between the "tea parties" is almost irrelevant. Just like like women's suffrage and banning Jim Crow laws both fall under Civil Rights, the two tea parties fall into a larger broad category... mainly, the idea that the government is out of touch and repressive.

I am not a believer in the current Tea Party, but am I a believer in the role they are taking in society. I disagree with many of their "particulars," yet I'm sympathetic to some of the message and appreciate the "citizenship" they are practicing.

I am with them in believing the government is "out of order." The government does not seem accountable or responsible. Government is the property of the people, and when the government appears to be in "rebellion" against the people, ie, they are not serving in the societal interest, we have a right -an obligation- to correct it.

But, some in the tea party movement are very suspect who have very strange opinions about individuals and the role of government. Besides, they react to problems, not systemic issues that cause them.

The fashionable Lib thing to do regarding the tea party is to bash them, ridicule them, destroy them them and basically engage in the type of political discourse that's creating much of the problems we have today... it's all about petty tearing down and making the other side hurt. That goes for both sides.

This. I always enjoy your lucid postings Jerome.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Yep. OP succeeds in Fail.

The particulars between the "tea parties" is almost irrelevant. Just like like women's suffrage and banning Jim Crow laws both fall under Civil Rights, the two tea parties fall into a larger broad category... .

That is utter bullsheit, one was fighting for freedom, the one that exists today is fighting for the right to discriminate against others.

How you can even compare them is beyond me.

Have you not seen enough of enforcement of religious morality, come the fuck on officer, if you haven't i'll be glad to invite you if you state your name and rank, i'll make sure you help the locals pick up their innards so they can be buried whole.

 

[rudder]

That is utter bullsheit, one was fighting for freedom, the one that exists today is fighting for the right to discriminate against others.

How you can even compare them is beyond me.

Please explain how wanting the government to get control of spending is discrimination?

 

[Rainsford]

Its called the Tea Party to represent a desire to return to our roots as a nation with less government and more individual freedom. Government right now is out of control. When an individual is required to pay a 120 dollar fee for selling lemonade, you know there is something wrong.

It's called the Tea Party because it's a vaguely associated term that people in the US generally have a positive view of. Similar to how vigilante border guards call themselves "Minutemen".

However, I have seen very little evidence that Tea Party supporters actually care about the size or power or cost of government in the sort of generalized way you imply. Instead, they seem mostly against government spending on social programs. I notice a conspicuous silence on other important issues relating to the scope of government and government spending, which makes me wonder how much they REALLY want to reduce the size of government, and how much they just don't like social spending.

In other words, they're just another special interest group with better than average marketing...

 

[her209]

If the modern Tea Party existed back during the American Revolutionary War, would they be for or against incurring debt or raising taxes to fight the Brits?