These tea party people....

[Hassled]

Nutters? In this BBC blog, one woman says "This progressive agenda (Obama's economic policies) has progressed to the tipping point in the United States, where we either stand up for the constitution of the United States or we accept socialism, tainted with Marxism."

How can she interpret Obama's policies as socialism tainted with Marxism? Is it just down to lack of education? I really, genuinely, don't understand. I don't understand the fear they seem to have. And they're doing well - they've got the Delaware Senate nomination, NY, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky and Alaska. Meanwhile they're being funded by billionaires who clearly have a vested interest keeping the focus on tax cuts for the rich.

I don't know what my point is really - I get that many people want smaller government, lower taxation, less govt spending etc, but that view is already well represented. I don't get this extremism.

Well said Claig! Why have we not got some 'tea party' lot here, or are we here, but not listened too? Oh by the way what is 'Monbiots?' (excuse the ignorance!)

complimentary, we haven't got them here, because the progressives dominate our main broadcast and print media and ridicule them at every stage. But the time of the progressives is passing, and things may change one day.

George Monbiot is a journalist on the Guardian. He is one of the foremost proponents of global warming and climate change theory. I think he could be classed as a progressive. Reading his columns is not very instructive, but is educational in ascertaining how desperate the progressives are getting as they lose the climate change argument. He has a list of the top ten "climate change deniers" and Sarah Palin is on the list.

The more I hear about Sarah, the more I am starting to like her and the Tea Party. Here is what Sarah, a Vice-Presidential candidate, said about global warming

Global Warming is Junk Science

Progressives like Monbiodiversity must be apoplectic. Someone has called their bluff, and they don't like it.

Letting people keep their money != People having enough cash to run their business.

Claig - So tell me again - WHY is global warming being used as a trojan horse for overpopulation?

And if I've got this correct, there is a conspiracy between government and big business to acheive, what exactly?

If people keep their money they either spend it, in which case it goes to businesses, or they save it, in which case it goes to banks and in theory they should lend it to businesses. It circulates the money in the real economy. Instead we handed over money to the banks and they didn't circulate it enough back to businesses, but used it to shore up their balance sheets and pay out bonuses etc.

Claig thanks for the link. I watched the speech and found it uplifting! I myself stood as an PPC last election, and the amount of people who told me that the elite at Westminster "do not represent the people" if I had a fiver for every person that told me this, I would have bought myself a new coat!
Even Cameron and I know you're a supporter of his,does not understand how many people think. I questioned him on the Equalities Bill and how I thought it would efffect my children in the future, in regards to the choosing of those with 'perceived characteristics' and he said to me "how else are we going to recruit more ethnic minorities into jobs?". My response was, "well not by chooshing someone for the colour of their skin!" Cameron did not get it, his children will not be effected by the Equalities Bill as they have the name Cameron. That is why I think he is the best of bad bunch. He is one of the political elite.

Agree with you complimentary. Up and down the land, working class, middle class and upper class people are united in thinking that we are not really represented. If any party said that it would scrap the five bins every household needs and scrap planned congestion charges etc., it would win a massive majority. But these things will never happen. Only in America can things like that happen. None of the parties are ideal, but the Tories are by far the best of a bad bunch.

That's what has happened in America. None of the parties are ideal there either, which is why a populist grassroots party has sprung up out of nowhere.

Riven, I'm not saying it is fair. the US system does need changing. But those who have paid for health insurance there, don't want a system where you are condemned to die because of not being allowed to get a life-saving cancer drug due to your postcode. Or also where thousands of pensioners will go blind, after paying national insurance all their lives, because of the postcode lottery

Thousands lose sight due to NHS postcode lottery

I have heard US broadcasters flabbergasted by what they see as socialist rationing by bureaucrats. They don't want that system.

I don't want to see that here either. I want the French system, a mix of private and state. Lots of our people go to France to be treated within weeks as opposed to being stuck on our waiting lists.

French govt pays higher per capita on health than we do. And on top of that the majority of people buy additional insurance, so even more money spent. And you get a two tier system for the population. I suspect that if the same amount (govt money + insurance money) was spent on the existing NHS we could have what they have.

Short waiting lists + all mod cons and latest treatments costs a lot of money, there's no two ways about it.

I thought this thread was a non-starter - but this is all fascinating stuff.

One thing though - Claig - you describe the Tea Party as not being backed by large donors - this New Yorker article seems to link David and Charles Koch with Tea Party funding. I appreciate that a lot of the article seems to be conjecture rather than fact, but the Tea Party appear to be well funded, and that's coming from somewhere. No different from any mainsteam politics, I suppose.

Yes, all of our people want our taxes spent on health and education. But we have seen Labour blow lots of our money and still not achieve results. They also blow money on pet schemes that the people would not back. Sir Philip Green is looking at ways of making our money go further, by getting government to drive better bargains and make our money go further. We are all happy to pay tax, but we object to it being wasted to pay council bosses £200,000 to impose two-weekly bin collections on us, while fining pensioners £100 for not shutting their bin lids. Let's cut the waste and the fatcats and put money into health and manage it effectively so that we don't get £200,000 hospital chiefs presiding over some of the scandals of patients not even being fed and dying of dehydration, when they are supposed to be cared for.

Hassled, you are right. Nothing comes out of nowhere. The movement must be being funded by someone. But it gets less funding than Obama got from Wall Street, for example.

Erm, with the private sector running healthcare, you think that will be the end of "fatcats"? That's just nuts.

The recent hospital where there was a scandal over many many avoidable deaths due to poor patient care was a foundation hospital. There aren't many of them at the moment. This is the model that the tories have chosen for all of our hospitals.

Claig you never answer questions.

Do you agree with universal healthcare, paid for by the taxpayer (something I can guarantee the tea party does not agree with).

Do you agree with execution?

Do you agree with gun ownership being an inviolable right?

Do you agree that disadvantaged people should be supported by the state, to a minimum standard of living?

Do you believe that it is acceptable for a wealthy country to have such a high maternal mortality rate?

I want the French system. I want these quangos and their beanos to study the french system and report on it and implement it here. I bet there are less fatcats there, but if there aren't then let's sort that out and get rid of the fatcats, it's not impossibel, it's our money, we can do it.

There have been tons of scandals in our hospitals. I haven't got time to google all of them, but there isn't a shortage of scandals and £200,000 bosses presiding over them and in some cases being aware of what was going on.

I don't agree with everything the Tea Party says, I don't even know everything they say, but they are an example of a vibrant democracy where millions of people are fed up of not being listened to and represented by their politicians.

I don't live in the United States, so some of those questions have nothing to do with me. They are solely for the people of the United States to decide and are nothing to do with me.

For our society I agree with universal healthcare, I don't agree with execution, I don't believe in gun ownership, I agree with a welfare state, and think that a wealthy country should not have such a high maternal mortality rate. But those are things fior the people of the US to decide. I also think we should take the beam out of our own eye and look at why more women die in pregnancy in the UK than in the much poorer country of Albania.

ISNT - I think several countries effectively combine private health with public health provision. I suspect that their success is not just due to the size of total spend - but also the 'free market' impact on efficient allocation of resources.

And, I can understand why some Americans are spooked by the idea that, in the UK, you can 'pay in' to the welfare system all your working life and yet be denied treatment on cost grounds, when you need it.

Not that I think the US system is in anyway better and the tales of insurance running out and the fate of the uninsured are pretty horrible.

The French system would involve more taxpayers money being spent on healthcare than at the moment, + creating a two tier system, that is what you want?

I am also confused as to why you think that private healthcare companies don't have bosses on big salaries. They do, and much more than £200K.

Well I for one would much rather the decision about what treatment I can have be made with a pro ate company with no interest in me as an individual, than be made by a government commitee with no interest in me as an individual. The thought that the money saved would go to shareholders just gives me warm fuzzies.

The maternal deaths figures are both disgraceful and misleading as there are no international figures on how they are recorded.

Are you trying to say that the US govt do not track how many women die as a consequence of childbirth?

So in fact the US maternal birthrate might be really low?

It is widely accepted that the US has a shocking maternal mortality rate, why deny it?