I am somewhat surprised that it wasn't until post #56, or so, that people began to <vaguely> consider what defines that "social welfare" and why this is a biased reference, biased to the left.
"Social Welfare" to me, and many if not most Cons, is the general welfare of society, and that comes about from the application of the terms of the Constitution, with government limited solely to the enumerated powers, with legislation and taxation and government's intrusion into every aspect of our lives being curtailed, then there is far more money in society, far more prosperity, and a greater increase in the well-being of society.
Throughout this thread I see references to the interests of the Tea Party and other similar organizations being predominantly "political", as the terrain of the body politic, and thereby should not be tax-exempt. In my view, this is precisely not the case, but reflects a corrupt method of evaluation. The terms of our government are not the fair game of politics, and were resolved at our country's foundation, and do not involve government social welfare programs, nor should they involve government taxing organizations that are not for profit, and basing this taxation "scheme" on such a skewed evaluation expecting such direct social activities.
I view the Tea Party as decidedly a-partisan, and unpolitical in nature, simply advocating legit governance, but you turn on any MSM media broadcast, and you'll hear some socialist mouthpiece trying to portray their ideals as "radical", because those ideals are hostile to big government and social engineering. It's not the Tea Party's fault that the Democratic Party has gone entirely Marxist, and big government, and is even entirely hostile to the original terms of "Liberal".
The flip side in this example is that those advocating awareness of the fraud that is Climate Change, or promoting the socialist corruption that is "Sustainable Development", by whatever activist social endeavors, would be readily recognized by those on the left <and the current IRS mentality> as promoting acceptable "social programs", but we on the Conservative side recognize these things for what they are: Social Engineering, big government intrusion, and the deliberate long-term intention to increasingly encroach upon, and eventually outright deny, individual freedoms - decidedly not of social benefit.
The fact that only one party vaguely adheres to the terms of the Constitution, with only specific politicians within it adhering to the terms of the Constitution, and the other party flagrantly violates those terms, everyone in near synchronous lockstep, is not the fault of the Tea Parties and other Conservative groups, because they did not interject what should not be in the political arena in the first place, into that political arena.
