• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tea Party or Coffee Party?

Which "Party" Do You Agree With More?

  • Total voters
    35
rathi said:
Both the Tea and Coffee party exemplify exactly how we arrived in our current situation. Vague generalities, without ever offering a workable specific plan. Throw around words like "small government" "liberty" "grassroots" and then pat yourself on the back. Nobody stands up and offers a workable plan that can actually implement their goals.

For example, lets suppose that balancing the budget is one of your stated ideals. Saying "we need to control outrageous spending in washington" is an empty platitude. Saying "we need to raise the social security retirement age to 70, cut the BCT Ground Combat Vehicle Program, and reduce medicare coverage for end-of-life care" is actually meaningful.

A talking point is not a replacement for taking action.
Click to expand...

Completely agree but it's easier to make vague goals than to take a stand on issues.

Coffee and Tea Parties, populist nonsense that don't offer any resolution for today's problems.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Completely agree but it's easier to make vague goals than to take a stand on issues.

Coffee and Tea Parties, populist nonsense that don't offer any resolution for today's problems.
Click to expand...

Is that anything like "Hope and Change"?
 
Jucon said:
READ BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE ORGANIZATIONS!

Which "party" do you agree with more and why? And have you or are you willing to join these groups and march with them to fix this country?


Tea Party:
"An ongoing, nationwide effort by grassroots protesters, a collection of individuals and self-organizing groups, all united in accomplishing a single goal: returning fiscal responsibility and limited government to the United States through the exercise of political activism. The main focus of the TEA Party Movement is a rebuke of outrageous mandates, overreaching and out of control spending by an out of touch federal government.

All of the rallies are in protest of the generational theft of public tax monies, the tremendous extensions of United States Federal debt and authority, the apparent restructuring of the Federal government with the intent to contravene the system of checks and balances for which the Constitution provides, and the attempt, which some movement leaders say has been in progress for several decades, to sacrifice liberty for permanent dependency"
(Tea Party Movement - Conservapedia)

** Note: I use Conservapedia because I felt if explains well what the Tea Party movement is about. More below...

Tea Party Core Values: (More info at: core values or Tea Party Patriots - Official Home of the American Tea Party Movement)
- Fiscal Responsibility
- Constitutionally Limited Government
- Free Markets


Coffee Party:
"Its mission states that it is based on the underlying principle that the government is 'not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges we face as Americans.' Its slogan is 'Wake Up and Stand Up'. Its stated goals include getting cooperation in government and removing corporate influence from politics." (Coffee Party USA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

** Note: Again, I felt wikipedia summed up the group well. More below...

"Coffee Party USA aims to reinvigorate the public sphere, drawing from diverse backgrounds and diverse perspectives, with the goal of expanding the influence of the People in America's political arena. We do not require nor adhere to any preexisting ideology. We encourage deliberation guided by reason amongst the many viewpoints held by our members. We see our diversity as a strength, not a weakness, because we believe that faithful deliberation from multiple vantage points is the best way to achieve the common good. It is in the responsible and reasonable practice of deliberation that we hope to contribute to society.

We want a society in which democracy is treated as sacrosanct and ordinary citizens participate out of a sense of civic duty, civic pride, and a desire to contribute to society. The Coffee Party is a call to action. Our Founding Fathers and Mothers gave us an enduring gift — Democracy — and we must use it to meet the challenges that we face as a nation." (Coffee Party | Wake Up and Stand Up)
Click to expand...
my party:

the vodka party.

truth, liberty and grey goose for all.
 
Dav said:
Looking at the underlying meaning is exactly what I did. On the surface, the phrase seems to just mean what you said it means. But that doesn't make what I said any less true.
Click to expand...

You want to show then what you are basing all this on, other than "democratic socialists" used the phrase? Since the meaning in itself is not at all sinister, maybe you can show why in this case it really is.
 
Redress said:
You want to show then what you are basing all this on, other than "democratic socialists" used the phrase? Since the meaning in itself is not at all sinister, maybe you can show why in this case it really is.
Click to expand...

Since they explicitly put it in there that "government is not the enemy", it was all pretty clearly an attack on the tea-party-espoused idea of limited government. That idea is based on individualism and decisions being made at the individual rather than societal level, which the Coffee Party people either don't understand or just don't like, since they view a democratically-elected government as something that should make decisions for people based on what a majority of people want. Note that they did not say that elections should express the "collective will" of the people. They said that the government should do this, and they made an obvious jab at the individualist-based call for limited government while doing so. Though I'm pretty sure most of them don't realize it, this is almost exactly what democratic socialism is.
 
Everyone calls me a "commie" but I'm actually just a socialist :mrgreen:
 
liblady said:
my party:

the vodka party.

truth, liberty and grey goose for all.
Click to expand...

Mine is the Tequila party. Go Whigs!

Individual freedom to choose: straight up, lemon and salt, or orange and cinnamon.
 
Jucon said:
I don't get it... Obama reduces people's taxes and they want more reductions? I have a question for you... pick one... reduce our federal deficit or reduce taxes? Either you pick one or you find a middle ground. You can cut programs all you want, but those programs supply jobs to people so when you cut programs you lose jobs. You reduce taxes, you have less revenue to pay for government, so the deficit and debt goes up.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the great reply! I would like to add, however, that a reduction in taxes doesn't necessarily mean the government will receive less tax revenue. As you mention in the following sentence, it's "Good for job creation," but not in the public sector, I think you meant private sector.

If you reduce taxes, and private sector jobs increase, you have less unemployment and therefor more people paying taxes. So the government, in the long run, actually brings in more tax revenue from lower taxes. That's the extremely short version for economics 101.

As we're seeing today, if the government increases taxes, it provides a short-term boost of tax revenue. However, after this initial boost in tax revenue, if the government continues to increase taxes instead of lower taxes businesses won't hire and the economy will shrink; thus, in turn, providing the government with less tax revenue than if they had lowered taxes.

It's really that simple. When the government taxes something, typically there's less consumption or use of whatever it is they're taxing. So when the government taxes small businesses and taxes the people to no end, there's less money flowing in the free market to create jobs and stimulate economic growth. The wrong solution is how Obama and the Democrats going about it, thinking that increasing taxes (again and again) will bring in a continuous flow of short-term boosts in tax revenue. The correct solution would be to lower taxes, which will truly stimulate the economy and private sector job growth, and in turn bring more tax revenue to the government.
 
Redress said:
An election for office is the best example of people coming together to express their collective wills, and it is very much a part of our system. Don't get hung up on these little phrases, but instead look at the underlying meaning.
Click to expand...

While sometimes government is necessary to protect our common interests in Life Liberty and Pursuit of Hapiness, why do we need to have the "collective will" of everyone forced on us? How about we just stick to our individual will more? Democracy, while needed in some cases, is nothing more than rule by 50.1%. The market allows people far more variety, no timetable to replace their product if it displeases them, and as long as one has enough fellow customers, it doesn't matter if most people picked the the other product.
 
Last edited:
Dav said:
Since they explicitly put it in there that "government is not the enemy", it was all pretty clearly an attack on the tea-party-espoused idea of limited government. That idea is based on individualism and decisions being made at the individual rather than societal level, which the Coffee Party people either don't understand or just don't like, since they view a democratically-elected government as something that should make decisions for people based on what a majority of people want. Note that they did not say that elections should express the "collective will" of the people. They said that the government should do this, and they made an obvious jab at the individualist-based call for limited government while doing so. Though I'm pretty sure most of them don't realize it, this is almost exactly what democratic socialism is.
Click to expand...

Dav, this is spin. Pure and simple spin.

You are right, it is in reaction to the Tea Party movement, but that does not make it entirely against everything the Tea Party is about, only that it is different and in reaction to.

The Coffee Party is not, anywhere I can see, saying the government should make decisions for people, it is saying that the government is elected by the people to work for us. Congress passes laws, the president signs those laws, we the people pick who is in congress and the president.

It further does not say that the "government should express our wills"(nice spin, only have to change one word to get your interpretation), but that "the government is 'not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will". It's not the government telling us what to do, but puts the responsibility for the government on us. We choose them.

Trying to align a group you don't like with an unpopular group is a common but dishonest tactic.
 
Politics101 said:
Thanks for the great reply! I would like to add, however, that a reduction in taxes doesn't necessarily mean the government will receive less tax revenue. As you mention in the following sentence, it's "Good for job creation," but not in the public sector, I think you meant private sector.

If you reduce taxes, and private sector jobs increase, you have less unemployment and therefor more people paying taxes. So the government, in the long run, actually brings in more tax revenue from lower taxes. That's the extremely short version for economics 101.

As we're seeing today, if the government increases taxes, it provides a short-term boost of tax revenue. However, after this initial boost in tax revenue, if the government continues to increase taxes instead of lower taxes businesses won't hire and the economy will shrink; thus, in turn, providing the government with less tax revenue than if they had lowered taxes.

It's really that simple. When the government taxes something, typically there's less consumption or use of whatever it is they're taxing. So when the government taxes small businesses and taxes the people to no end, there's less money flowing in the free market to create jobs and stimulate economic growth. The wrong solution is how Obama and the Democrats going about it, thinking that increasing taxes (again and again) will bring in a continuous flow of short-term boosts in tax revenue. The correct solution would be to lower taxes, which will truly stimulate the economy and private sector job growth, and in turn bring more tax revenue to the government.
Click to expand...

No, thank you. This is the kind of dialogue that will progress our country further. Having a conversation in a non-confrontational way. Thank you for your insight. :2wave:

I went on a rant in that post, but honestly I can't stand people who label others with liberal ideas as being Communist, Socialist, Anti-American, idiots, etc.

I am a moderate and as such have liberal and conservative viewpoints. So when people straight out insult liberals I take it as a personal insult.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom