Thousands of angry Greeks march against austerity

[Sheilbh]

With regards to the mainstream Republicans who have hijacked the movement, I agree.  With regards to the Libertarians and libertarian Republicans who started it, that isn't true.  The latter group does want to roll back existing programs, particularly Medicare, Social Security, and the Department of Education.

This is moving a bit from the tea parties, but isn't the key difference between the Republicans who want to win elections (the leadership, I suppose) and so say they're defending Medicare, don't want to cut defence and distance themselves from proposals that touch Social Security such as the ideas raised by Paul Ryan or Ron Paul?  It doesn't really matter how libertarian or not you are, from a national leadership perspective those ideas look dangerous.

I do think the Democrats are equally cowardly by the way, this isn't a right-wing thing.  I think it's a problem that seems widespread throughout the US political system.  Arguably you actually need cross-party consensus to do something unpopular like cutting defence, medicare and social security (as I say cutting the Department of Education is a joke, it's tiny in the big scheme of things).

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I like how your phrasing seems to support the idea that the latter crackheads are sensible with their policy aims.

Some of their policy aims are sensible.

[Jaron]

Rolling back the DOE? Why?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

This is moving a bit from the tea parties, but isn't the key difference between the Republicans who want to win elections (the leadership, I suppose) and so say they're defending Medicare, don't want to cut defence and distance themselves from proposals that touch Social Security such as the ideas raised by Paul Ryan or Ron Paul?  It doesn't really matter how libertarian or not you are, from a national leadership perspective those ideas look dangerous.

I do think the Democrats are equally cowardly by the way, this isn't a right-wing thing.  I think it's a problem that seems widespread throughout the US political system.  Arguably you actually need cross-party consensus to do something unpopular like cutting defence, medicare and social security (as I say cutting the Department of Education is a joke, it's tiny in the big scheme of things).

Yes, I do think that's the crux of the matter.  Its hard to make the painful decisions that need to be made and still get elected or re-elected.  People often criticize politicians for not thinking past the next election.  Thing is, the electorate often doesn't think very far in the future or outside their limited bubble, and so brings about the very thing they bitch about later when the shit hits the fan.  I have no doubt that many of the mainstream Republican politicians affiliating themselves with the Tea Party movement show more support for the extreme ideas than they are willing to admit.

[alfred russel]

What the tea parties stand for isn't really definable because they are somewhat amorphous, but here is the TV spot that got them started:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA

I would say they are at the core anti redistributionist. It was a backlash that started to show with "Joe the Plumber" and got momentum with TARP (redistributing money to "Wall Street" and the UAW) and finally blew up with the stimulus and housing "bailout" (that never really happened). Middle income Americans who already feel under threat view the spending priorities as taking their money and giving it to "the losers" of society (be they GM, Citigroup, or the mythical and racially charged "welfare queen").

[grumbler]

Well show me them.  If they're serious then I'll admit that I got them wrong on this.

Come on over and stay awhile, and you'll here them on the radio.  I have no idea what "show me" means, nor what "if they are serious" means.  If this is all about you being right or wrong, then I have no problem saying "you are right" about whatever it is you think you are right about.

This is generally true but there can be protests for things too.  There were some in favour of healthcare, most protests by women's rights and civil rights groups are for things, protests in this country by the Countryside Alliance and their opponents on fox hunting are for things.  They're all trying to advance an argument rather that protesting against one - as is the case with the tea parties, the Greeks, the anti-war movement and other examples.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the differences between protests and demonstrations/marches.  I think you are splitting hairs that need not be split, but if you want to argue that all "protests against" are the same, you certainly are correct in a trivial sense.

As I say I'd be very interested to read them.

You'll have to look them up.  I am sure that they are on the internet somewhere, though probably badly organized and hard to find.  Remember that this is a loose grouping of people, and the so-called "Tea Party Patriots" are just the Republicans calling themselves the Tea Party.

My impression is that, like the Greeks, they're disconnected from reality on the same point: we don't have to pay.  The Greeks have built up debt through unsustainable policies but aren't willing to take the necessary pain.  In the US you've built a welfare state, you've built the most expensive military in the world and at some point you'll either have to pay for it (tax rises which the tea parties oppose) or dismantle it (which, to the best of my knowledge, the tea parties don't support).

The tea party types probably are disconnected from reality, in the sense that they seem to be proposing cutting spending to eliminate the deficit, and there are too many people whose rice bowls would be busted if that happened (including their own:  they can say that they want social security eliminated, but they don't say what their parents are going to live on if their dream comes true).  The (non-Republican carpetbagging) Tea Party people I have heard would have no problem cutting the military drastically - they think most foreign entanglements are a waste of time, money, and lives.

[garbon]

(including their own:  they can say that they want social security eliminated, but they don't say what their parents are going to live on if their dream comes true). 

Their own savings?

[grumbler]

This is moving a bit from the tea parties, but isn't the key difference between the Republicans who want to win elections (the leadership, I suppose) and so say they're defending Medicare, don't want to cut defence and distance themselves from proposals that touch Social Security such as the ideas raised by Paul Ryan or Ron Paul?  It doesn't really matter how libertarian or not you are, from a national leadership perspective those ideas look dangerous.

I do think the Democrats are equally cowardly by the way, this isn't a right-wing thing.  I think it's a problem that seems widespread throughout the US political system.  Arguably you actually need cross-party consensus to do something unpopular like cutting defence, medicare and social security (as I say cutting the Department of Education is a joke, it's tiny in the big scheme of things).

I think that this is true to a large degree, though there is a libertarian movement that has long recognized they won't get elected and get their policies adopted, and I think they were the ones who kinda pushed the tea party movement to begin with, using a more general "throw the bums out" motif. 

[grumbler]

Rolling back the DOE? Why?

Save money without harming anything significant (hell, maybe saving money and improving education at the same time!)

[grumbler]

(including their own:  they can say that they want social security eliminated, but they don't say what their parents are going to live on if their dream comes true).

Their own savings?

Yes, and that's the problem:  the savings of the Tea Party types are eaten up replacing the lost income of their parents (whose retirement planning included having SS) and so any gains from getting their own SS payments back are eliminated.

[garbon]

I meant their parents. Don't have poor parents who were depending on SS.

[Jaron]

Rolling back the DOE? Why?

Save money without harming anything significant (hell, maybe saving money and improving education at the same time!)

The DOE is the single most critical agency in the US. 

[Eddie Teach]

The TEA in "tea party" stands for "Taxed Enough Already"

I figured it stood for the drink the Bostonians poured in their harbor 200 odd years ago.

[grumbler]

The TEA in "tea party" stands for "Taxed Enough Already"

I figured it stood for the drink the Bostonians poured in their harbor 200 odd years ago.

They use that imagery, yes.  They actually have nothing against the drink, though.

Not sure if the acronym was part of the original idea, or was tacked on later, though.  It's hard to say when the tea party movement even began.

[Eddie Teach]

The DOE is the single most critical agency in the US. 

You never changed states while you were in school, did you? Even presuming education was the most important function of the government, very little of it is decided at the national level.