Real Time Analytics


Let's Walk the Walk, Not Just Talk the Talk!

I went over on HuffingtonPost to to see the reaction to last night's Tea Party Convention.

Many of our opponents are saying "It is all noise, no substance". 

I decided to join their conversations for the first time ever, and after some explanation, some of the people dogging the movement realized that they are actually Tea Partiers too!

The problem is they are looping us in with Republicans. This is mostly due to FoxNews giving us the only positive coverage and Palin being the key note speaker.  

We are conservative but I would hardly call this a Republican movement.

After I let them know that most of us don't like any of the current Republicans or Democrats in control, it seemed to hit a chord. 

I believe the people we choose to be our next leaders should have the following as the pillars of their platform for 2010.

  • Reign in the debt
  • Push Fair Tax (HR 25, S 296) fairtax.org
  • Audit the Federal Reserve
  • Make congressional salaries equivalent to the average of their constituents with a cap of the current salaray
I believe America, liberal and conservative, can get behind something like that.  Let's walk the walk!

What does everyone else think? 

And as you reply, remember that CNN/MSNBC are already saying we are fractured.   Let's have some civil conversation. 

If you do disagree, it is quite possible I am missing something and I am open to suggestions.

I look forward to a healthy discussion!

Chad




Views: 0

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Frances JoAnn Lewis on February 12, 2010 at 9:11pm
Chad, Voting record. Here is a site that I thought was good and they are working at adding that feature. I will link it so you can take a look.http://www.thepeopledecide.us/index.php
Permalink Reply by Carol Ferguson on February 12, 2010 at 9:28pm
Francis:

Thank you. This looks good and does say that the EPA is regulating. It is not the bill of 2010, but it is good.
Permalink Reply by Chad Hensley on February 13, 2010 at 9:50am
Thanks Frances. I also found this.


http://www.votesmart.org/

I think between all of this information we can starting putting things together.
Permalink Reply by Fremont V. Brown III on February 10, 2010 at 1:40pm
Permalink Reply by Carol Ferguson on February 10, 2010 at 1:57pm
Thank you. You have a neat website. I just read the bullet points this time. I would say I agree with you 96% of the time.
Permalink Reply by Chad Hensley on February 10, 2010 at 4:30pm
Why do you prefer the flat tax over the fair tax?

The Fair Tax might take a big chunk out of illegal immigration.

Your third link is broke.
Permalink Reply by Fremont V. Brown III on February 10, 2010 at 6:44pm
Sorry, remove the linked page and forgot I had linked to it.

Besides you have already hop over to the Flat Tax Forum. I will continue there.
Permalink Reply by Joshua Estep on February 10, 2010 at 1:57pm
I agree! But I think above all, the politicians should be bound by the constitution, and be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law! Especially since the decisions and actions directly affect the american public at large! Also, there is the issue of The conflict of interest, with national and multi-national corporations being involved in politics so they can get laws passed to benefit their profit margins, not only that, they get laws passed that makes it impossible for anybody to stand against them! I believe in free-market enterprise, and companies making profits, but they should not be allowed to be involved in the law making process!
Permalink Reply by Carol Ferguson on February 10, 2010 at 2:05pm
Funny you should mention this. I just took a 5 hour seminar on the Constitution at Hillsdale College. I've been out of civics class a number of years and was surprised at how much I forgot. One thing that struck me was that it is considered unconstitutional for a member of congress not to know whether or not a bill IS constitutional before voting on it. Each member of each branch of Congress swears to uphold the constitution. It is also considered unconstitutional for a member of Congress to "delegate" formation of a law. They do it. I know you are right, I just don't know what to do about it.
Candidates tend to speak in generalities. That is what concerns me about wanting smaller government--how does a candidate intend to get smaller government.
Permalink Reply by Miles M on February 12, 2010 at 6:14am
Smaller government starts instantly if we can just stop the constant increase. It stops when increased funding stops happening. I favor limiting government spending to some percentage of GDP, that way programs must sunset over time, because it is never known how much funding will be available the next time around.

I would like to tongue in cheek require that any financial vote on a bill be made by the lowest income taxpayer within every voting district. Maybe we should require every politician to stop and state that they are voting to spend the lifetime tax contribution for 4 million taxpayers like this wonderful elder statesman standing here beside me.
We have to get everyone feeling in real terms the immense magnitude of every dollar spent.

That is also why I favor external efficiency, fraud investigators. I know from my own working environment that it is easy to see non productive and unnecessary persons and activities. Many times I was one of the non essential persons and was glad that no one was there looking. we need people looking constantly in government. A high percentage of government needs to go away, and a justification for keeping people cannot be their loss of a job or pension from the government. Government should not be a permanent lifelong high paying gravy job for anyone!! We need those things to start disappearing and politicians in place that cannot easily replace or grow them.

It is always unpopular to propose cutting any program enmasse or by an external decision. Instead lets rot them from within just like our politicians have done to our government and our society!
Permalink Reply by Chad Hensley on February 10, 2010 at 4:32pm
From your lips to God's ears.
Permalink Reply by Miles M on February 11, 2010 at 9:53pm
I like your ideas very much, but I would define my approach differently. I think my bullet points would be
Originalist Constitution interpretation for Congress and Supreme court nominees
Small Government
National security
States Rights
Outlaw Lobbyists in DC

Constitution:
I would like to require every national candidate to fill out an outline format of the Constitution in their own words
defining how they interpret each section ( or critical sections we describe ). They must specify the powers and responsibilities of the office they seek as related to that section, the powers the section allows the federal government and the restrictions the section places on the federal government. This document should be used to attain tea party support and it should be known that it will also be used to crucify and vote that person out of office if they fail to perform as they have committed.

Smaller government:
I would also like to see a commitment to support awarding private contracts by department for outside efficiency and cost cutting experts to investige for waste and fraud within a given department. The results should be like the base closure process, wherein the recommendations must be adopted and implemented. The contractors are not paid until two years after the recommendations are implemented and the results certified by a subsequent follow up by a different firm.

I would also like to make every recipient of a federal pension or disability check requalify every year or maybe two years.
Sadly, I have known many persons who receive permanent disability pensions and I have NEVER known a single one that deserves it! I am sure there are millions that do, but we need to root out the cheaters!

National Security:
Pretty self evident I think.

States Rights:
Require every candidate to write out their interpretation of the commerce clause and other original sections that have been
bastardized to enable federal intrusion into state matters.

Lobbyists:
I understand there is freedom of speech, but I think it would be possible to prohibit elected officials to LISTEN to lobbyists
in DC. I have no problem with lobbyists participating in town halls etc within a home district and vying for attention along with the farmers and taxi drivers that are in the same meeting. We have to stop the special hidden, paid, corruption of lobbyists.


These are not well thought out or presented, but they generally represent how i would advise the tea party. I prefer striving for purity, values, and honesty in government and then extending trust after purity has improved or been achieved.

RSS

Tea Party Nation is a social network

 



© 2013   Created by Judson Phillips.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Sign in to chat!