[bymy141]

The more I read about the US Tea Party movement, the less I understand it.
Can somebody please help me, an ignorant European citizen?

From what I understand is it a movement without a specific structure that initially was against the growing influence of government on the US society. Specifically against the extremely high spending to save companies which were going down because of the crisis and the health care reform.

An internal structure, specific goals and objectives, a position in the US political landscape and a political program seem to be absent.

So, what it is it precisely?

[Ira]

It's basically a bunch of white folks who are pissed that a black guy got elected president.

[dgaies]

It's basically a bunch of white folks who are pissed that a black guy got elected president.

[bymy141]

Seriously, I don't understand.

It also seems to be against the current republican establishment, looking at the latest results and there are black Americans taking part in the movement as well.
That doesn't look like an anti black president / Obama statement to me.

[jeffkrol]

Seriously, I don't understand.

It also seems to be against the current republican establishment, looking at the latest results and there are black Americans taking part in the movement as well.
That doesn't look like an anti black president / Obama statement to me.

Well it's hard to explain (it's not totally cohesive)but wiki does a fair job:

Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and the perils...... dogma.......
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/30/INN71G0VG9.DTL

[dgaies]

Seriously, I don't understand.

It also seems to be against the current republican establishment, looking at the latest results and there are black Americans taking part in the movement as well.
That doesn't look like an anti black president / Obama statement to me.

It's not really, I just thought Ira's post was funny

Well it's hard to explain (it's not totally cohesive)but wiki does a fair job:

Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The wiki entry is probably a good place to start.

[causey]

It's basically a bunch of white folks who are pissed that a black guy got elected president.

This is a good start for a definition. I'd qualify it as follows: it's basically a bunch of ignorant white folks who are pissed that a black guy got elected president.

They and their leaders have the distinctive mark of a severe lack of grip on reality.

[Parallax]

The more I read about the US Tea Party movement, the less I understand it.
Can somebody please help me, an ignorant European citizen?

From what I understand is it a movement without a specific structure that initially was against the growing influence of government on the US society. Specifically against the extremely high spending to save companies which were going down because of the crisis and the health care reform.

An internal structure, specific goals and objectives, a position in the US political landscape and a political program seem to be absent.

So, what it is it precisely?

Looks to me like you actually understand it pretty well. It started with the ideals that you mentioned, but very quickly attracted so many extremists, loonies, and people just looking for an organized way to vent their anger and frustration, that it lost what little credibility it started with. IMHO it should be renamed the Granola Party. (Mostly flakes and nuts). It's unfortunate because if it had taken a different route, id may have made some beneficial changes in or politics.

[jeffkrol]

A picture is worth a thousand words......

Roots........

Tea Party leaders state that he was ejected from the event because of the offensive nature of the sign and is no longer affiliated with TeaParty.org, but as of October 2010 Dale Robertson is still shown as the President & Founder on the TeaParty.org/about.php webpage.

About us :: TeaParty.org
From wiki, sometimes you just need to read between the lines..........

Polls have also examined Tea Party supporters' views on race and racial politics. The University of Washington poll of registered voters in Washington State found that74% of Tea Party supporters agreed with the statement "[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it," while a CBS/New York Times poll found that 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites, compared with just 11% of the general public, and that they are more likely to believe Obama was born outside the United States.[58][64][65] A seven state study conducted from the University of Washington found that Tea Party movement supporters within those states were "more likely to be racially resentful" than the population as a whole, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology.[182][183] Of white poll respondents who strongly approve of the Tea Party, only 35% believe that blacks are hard-working, compared to 55% of those strongly opposed to the Tea Party, and 40% of all respondents.[184][185]

[kswier]

Just to be clear, the sign and references to the tea party hating black people are a running joke based on a few crazy people that attended their rally. It is not a stance of the entire tea party.

It seems to me that the tea party's main focus is cutting taxes, government spending, and government regulation (in some areas). In general they favor states rights instead of a strong federal government (an argument that goes back to the civil war). And I believe they are, in general, against welfare.

Now, the part I am confused about is that the pea party movements seems to want to cut spending without touching social security, Medicare, and defense spending (these three categories make up a huge percentage of the US budget). The reason why they do not want to touch social security and Medicare is because the majority of tea party members are older middle/upper class people, and these programs will benefit them. Instead, it seems to me that they are in favor of cutting earmark's, welfare, and any government involvement in healthcare. It should be noted that earmark's, welfare a small portion of expenditures compared to social security, Medicare, and defense spending.

My greatest fear of their policies is that it will lead to a wider gap between the rich and the poor (as has been happening since Regan reformed the tax structure, and was expedited by some of Bushes tax cuts). While this gap widens, programs to help the poor will be cut (such as Obama's healthcare plan and welfare). The tea party is also in favor of government deregulation, which is what got us into this bad economy. Also the tea party seems to want to balance, and reduce the budget so they can cut taxes (all without messing with social security, Medicare, or defense spending). This seems like an impossible feat to me.

[GeneV]

The problem with all these attempts to peg the Tea Party is that there is no Tea Party. A party has an organization and a set platform. The Tea Party has neither. Much of what passes for Tea Party policy is just recycled Republican sound bites seasoned with a bit of anger. However, Republicans have as much or more to fear from these folks as Democrats, because much of their anger is because the things they were promised by prior Republican politics did not pan out. They will not pan out this time, either.

[jeffkrol]

Just to be clear, the sign and references to the tea party hating black people are a running joke based on a few crazy people that attended their rally. It is not a stance of the entire tea party.

It seems to me that the tea party's main focus is cutting taxes, government spending, and government regulation (in some areas). In general they favor states rights instead of a strong federal government (an argument that goes back to the civil war). And I believe they are, in general, against welfare.

Now, the part I am confused about is that the pea party movements seems to want to cut spending without touching social security, Medicare, and defense spending (these three categories make up a huge percentage of the US budget). The reason why they do not want to touch social security and Medicare is because the majority of tea party members are older middle/upper class people, and these programs will benefit them. Instead, it seems to me that they are in favor of cutting earmark's, welfare, and any government involvement in healthcare. It should be noted that earmark's, welfare a small portion of expenditures compared to social security, Medicare, and defense spending.

My greatest fear of their policies is that it will lead to a wider gap between the rich and the poor (as has been happening since Regan reformed the tax structure, and was expedited by some of Bushes tax cuts). While this gap widens, programs to help the poor will be cut (such as Obama's healthcare plan and welfare). The tea party is also in favor of government deregulation, which is what got us into this bad economy. Also the tea party seems to want to balance, and reduce the budget so they can cut taxes (all without messing with social security, Medicare, or defense spending). This seems like an impossible feat to me.

History of the Tea Party Movement — Infoplease.com

No racism is not a direct stance...... I just ask myself daily if the movement would have had momentum had a 'white guy" been elected......
To me the answer is it has added fuel in the subtle undertone that America for whites is being threatened.. demographics somewhat support that philosophy...
OK so lets push birthers/racists/obama haters aside for a minute ( best defined as a right to be racist yet racism is bad) and leave us w/ the economic arguments..... mostly based on separation of gov and capitalists.... with "pet projects" OK.........
Of course what to really believe is problematic when one doesn't really admit it.. case in point:

Oct. 6, 2010 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- LOUISVILLE -- Republican U.S. Senate nominee Rand Paul claims in a new TV ad he does not support higher deductibles for Medicare and that his Democratic rival, Jack Conway, is "deliberately distorting" his views on the issue.

But Conway has released a video that shows Paul suggesting repeatedly there should be a $2,000 deductible for Medicare patients.

"A $2,000 Medicare deductible would solve a huge amount of problems," Paul says at one point during a September 2009 town hall meeting on health care. "The hard part is, how do you present this on national TV? What's going to happen to me in a statewide race if I tell people I think the Medicare deductible is going to be higher? Am I going to be hooted out of the room?

"I'm willing to take a risk because I think it's the right thing to do" because the other option is a publicly funded health care system like Canada's, he said.

Despite videos, Rand Paul says he doesn't support higher Medicare deductibles - Medicare & Insurance News - AARP Bulletin
Rand Paul is the poster child of the misguided tea party.....

He shares the dislike of the Federal Reserve held by his father, libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. He is one of the few candidates in America who has come to the defense of BP. And, in a recent MSNBC interview that has caused much heartburn within the Republican Party, he said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should not have barred discrimination at private businesses.

[Ratmagiclady]

One thing they really don't mention is how many of the actual 'Tea Party candidates' (and those they favor from the 'GOP establishment,) nominated are in lockstep with the Religious Right on social issues.

(Not surprising, cause the economic platform is also one that would do the opposite of anything 'populist,' ....there are a lot of radical haters involved there who want the government to do nothing but enforce their religion, etc.) It may not cost the government much up *front* to discriminate, but discrimination and otherwise arbitrarily 'punishing' minorities puts a pretty significant drag on any recovery in real terms.

Expelling perfectly good soldiers over DADT when a majority of the troops and families aren't at all worried about serving alongside gay people, that's both against the will of the people, the troops, and constitutes government waste right there: training people and then making them unemployed.

If you're trying to keep people's mortgages from going under, it doesn't help to have the government using its time,resources, and power to make it harder for LGBT families, or non-Christian families, or a lot of minorities (this starts adding up pretty quickly to a substantial chunk of the population) ...to make a go of it.

If you want people to commit to living in your state or any such, you don't use hatred of them and even their children in schools (via the 'pro-bullying stance' of a lot of these candidates, opposition to hate crimes laws protecting people they ...don't like,) and legalized and even enforced disadvantage, etc as a political wedge.

Certainly people's property values won't be maintained if ever-increasing segments of the population *wouldn't want to buy it, or just plain couldn't, cause social and political and economic powers use scapegoating them as a substitute for wise management.* ...which should be basic-enough capitalism for anyone.

The candidates the Tea Party nominate and the state platforms they actually vote for claim these 'Values' will magically fix everything while doing the opposite of what's wise or even in most of the people's self-interest.

Down here, the state may be rolling out the corporate-friendly bennies to entice companies to move down here, (at the people's expense, generally) ...while with the other hand saying, 'Oh, by the way, we reserve the right to ignore Federal civil rights protections for five, ten, or twenty percent of your employees.

Trying to go high-tech while simultaneously falling all over themselves to make it that much harder to retain employees: we're here by happenstance, and our haste to get out, I think, is really part of this sort of self-imposed brain drain. (Social issues aside, how many smart people are going to want to want to invest in much of Georgia after they were like, 'Screw the environment and planning, we're all for 'growth,' ...for so long that no one seems to have a clue where the water's supposed to come from? Denial is *definitely* not a river in central Georgia.)

We were even laughing this morning at a Republican ad saying, amid the usual 'Tea Party' slogans, 'Our guy is *against health care.*'

I mean, practically running an attack ad against himself, how well do they think he's going to do as part of running a government?

In a lot of ways, the Tea Party is made up of people of 'frustrated privilege' which is generally how you get that sense of 'white rage,' (and their actual demographic isn't as badly-off as they claim: 'Joe The Plumber' is actually a millionaire.)

The scariest thing about it is how inarticulate that anger is, how much of it's just a front for the Religious Right saying the 'right' things to the right people, and the media lapping up the press releases and having extended gaffe commentary, instead of really reporting.

There was much triumph about Scott Brown getting in office, not much reporting about what he actually did, which was pretty much jump right in Wall St's pocket.

[Phil1]

"No racism is not a direct stance...... I just ask myself daily if the movement would have had momentum had a 'white guy" been elected......"

I can't speak for them but Obama is rumored to be half a 'white guy' and there seems to be a lot of 'white, green, brown, black guys. girls and undeclareds' in office that they really don't like much from both partys if you have been reading the news. I hope that helps.

I would guess it would not have made much differance to them if Obama was 100% any color with or without stripes of your choice after the last few years of gov't screw ups.

[Parallax]

If a black person doesn't like Obama, does that mean it's because he is half white? Or is it just maybe possible that race has nothing to do with it? A couple of questions for those of you who claim that the people who don't like Obama are racist and only angry because a black man was elected:

1. Does that mean that black people who didn't like Bush are all racist and didn't like him only because he was white?

2. How do you classify blacks that aren't happy with Obama?

3. Blacks American are Disappointed With President Obama
How do you classify the people mentioned in the article who "are just happy to have a black president and for them anything he does is fine with them."?

I am sure that there are those who dislike having him as president simply because he is black. It is, however, often assumed that if a person doesn't like another person who happens to be of a different race that the dislike must be because of the race difference. My experiences are that the more racist a person is, the more likely he is to make that assumption about others.