« Joel Hunter Leaves the Republican Party | Main | Democrats Battle for Health Care Votes »

March 15, 2010

Do You Party With Tea?

Media outlets appear confused over whether evangelicals are taking interest in Tea Party activities.

Politico says the movement is stirring fears among evangelicals.

A reeling economy and the massive bank bailout and stimulus plan were the triggers for a resurgence in support for the Republican Party and the rise of the tea party movement. But they’ve also banished the social issues that are the focus of many evangelical Christians to the background.

And while health care legislation has brought social and economic conservatives together to fight government funding of abortion, some social conservative leaders have begun to express concern that tea party leaders don’t care about their issues, while others object to the personal vitriol against President Barack Obama, whose personal conduct many conservative Christians applaud.

The Los Angeles Times sees social conservatives are putting a religious twist on tea party messages.

In news releases, mission statements and interviews, prominent social conservatives increasingly are using the small-government rhetoric popular with the tea party activists and long used by economic conservatives -- but with a religious bent.

Their websites explore the morality of debt and the risks to religious freedom posed by growing government. Like the tea party activists, they reverently invoke the Founding Fathers, but emphasize the role the founders' faith played in their writings.

Finally, The New York Times ran a piece on Friday on how Tea Party leaders don't spend time on social issues.

For decades, faith and family have been at the center of the conservative movement. But as the Tea Party infuses conservatism with new energy, its leaders deliberately avoid discussion of issues like gay marriage or abortion.

God, life and family get little if any mention in statements or manifestos. The motto of the Tea Party Patriots, a large coalition of groups, is “fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.”

What say you? Are you involved in a Tea Party activities? Perhaps you prefer coffee?


I'm a born-again Christian, pro-life Democrat and have little in common with the Tea Partiers - other than we all want less corruption in government. I would find it hard to join a party that is based on fiscal policy alone. Jesus had more to say about money than sexuality. Not that both aren't important, but a party that focuses on "my money" before all else, is not one that complements my faith. I'm looking into the Coffee Folks.

Actually the social conservatives need to be reminded if you can't have control over what you produce (if the govt decides how much of your own output you can keep) and that your earnings and savings become worthless because of the Fed and big Govt monetizing the debt...then in the end the govt decides your morality not you..remember the old USSR...their social values collapsed as their economic liberty was taken from them. Economic liberty allows for social conservatism... "conservative conservatism" leads to big govt, deficits, bankruptcy and a further loss of social values...

How can you be for "family values" and think govt should give you stuff or favor your industry it just puts your kids in debt for decades?

as for the coffee club ..started by a beltway pro central banking liberal statist..oh yeah I'm sure she has any "family values"

Go Ron Paul and the liberty movement...sound money, free markets and peace...sound good to me (oh yeah and I am socially conservative..)

While social conservatives are most concerned about issues such as abortion and marriage, they have been vocal and supportive of conservative economic and foreign policy messages within the Republican party. Their small government rhetoric is nothing new. They have been a reliable partner with the economic and defense conservatives of the party. That is one reason Huckabee did not run away with the Evangelical vote; he was not solid on economic issues. The Libertarians are not to be relied upon. They are against government involvement in all areas, while Conservatives prefer government within the limitations imposed by the Constitution. The Libertarians are so focused on their own issues that they would threaten our national security by defunding any military deployment overseas. We would have lost the Cold War had they been in power. They are also unreliable on social issues as they believe people should have so much personal autonomy that there should be no restrictions on abortion or marriage. Libertarians joined with the Left in the campaign to defeat Proposition 8 as well as the effort to make the names of those who supported it made public. That makes me concerned about some factions of the Tea Party movement. Yet I also believe these divisions are exaggerated by the press which hopes to split the Conservative vote in the next election. I also understand I can't paint all Libertarians with a broad brushstroke as Ron Paul and others are pro-life.

I'm conflicted about the Tea Party (TP). I worry that TPers are too virulent in their denunciations of President Obama: he IS our president, and he is NOT anti-American. Vitriolic public discourse in America is nothing unusual, but Christians should not be overcome by it. Also, a firm and compassionate stance for the social implications of the Gospel is necessary, and the TP is oblivious to this need.
On the other hand, I have dear friends who are TPers, including Evangelicals. I sympathize with some of their issues: I think the current healthcare bill is deeply flawed on economic grounds (needs tort reform; should give catastrophic insurance rather than mandating comprehensive, which hides costs and drives prices up; etc.). And our national debt and economy both are in dire straights. While social issues matter, the crisis at hand is economic, and TP-ers get that.
In short, it's a mixed bag; but no, I'm not a Tea Party guy myself.


No, no I don't party with tea or coffee. For a Real Party a little Wine, some Salsa music and dancing, and my wife on my lap will do just fine for me. Thank you very much for asking!


I looking for someone to explain the difference to me between the Libertarian Party and the Tea Party. Why was a new entity needed to advocate for radically smaller govt? What does the Tea Party stand for that the Libertarian Party does not?

Thanks to anyone who can explain the distinction.

"Not that both aren't important, but a party that focuses on "my money" before all else, is not one that complements my faith."

I think it's so frustrating that Democrats pigeonhole Republicans like this.I'm tired of people using other people's arguments i.e. the media, celebrities, the far left's sayings, etc. and not using the facts and formulating their own opinion. And Christian democrats use Jesus as a ploy to take money from people. Sad. Did Jesus ever physically take money from people?

It's a known fact that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats. Charity is putting your hand in your own pocket to giving to someone in you decide is in need. Liberals advocate the government putting its hand in the pocket of someone else to give to someone it decides is in need (very often this decision is based not on genuine need but political gain).

Obama is increasing our national debt by the minute. He quadrupled the deficit within one year. I don't know, is being in debt biblical?

I'm not a part of the tea movement but completely understand why conservatives and some democrats are so angry. They don't want a nanny-state...look at California for pete's sake. It's a complete mess. You have students violently protesting because their tuition is being raised and why is their tuition being raised? Well, if you continue to spend someone else's money, the money will eventually run out. And yet I highly doubt they would want to pay high taxes when they have a family to provide for.

We don't mind paying taxes, however there is a sort of injustice if you're taxing 50% of someone's income, which is what my husband and I are paying now. And we're even "somewhat" okay with it. But with Obama/Pelosi care (a complete joke), then the cap and trade "tax", then with the reverse of the tax cuts for people making over $200,000 per year... out taxes would increase to well over 60%. This is unfair. We tithe, give to charity, etc. and we would have to cut back our contributions to the Church. For what? So another government program can be implemented and then fail or become bankrupt?

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. And Obama wants to hand out tax credits like candy. Didn't his mother ever teach him that money doesn't grow on trees.

Jesus never ever forced people to give their money. He was upset about the high taxes that were implemented by Caesar. He would never say... highly tax one group of people, but don't tax another group.

I'm all for helping the helpless and the poor, but not the clueless. There are a lot of people who manipulate the system, families who are on welfare for generations, people who victimize themselves, feel entitled, and some literally just don't want to work. And sadly, the liberal party is the one that created this whole "entitlement syndrome." Their emotions got the best of them.

I am with "Upset".

Responsible Americans are the New Slaves

As Democrats prepare to ignore the people of America and ram through the largest entitlement program in history, a doctor out of Mississippi has something to say.

Dr. Roger Starner Jones, of Jackson, MS, wrote to the Clarion Ledger:

During my last night's shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B; tune for a ring tone.

Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status; Medicaid.

She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still had money to buy beer. And our President expects me to pay for this woman's health care?

Our nation's health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture - a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance.

A culture that thinks I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me.

There is a new form of slavery in America. Those who are responsible have become slaves to those who are not.

Not one culture in history with this mentality has survived indefinitely. Health care is only the beginning of what we stand to lose. (from Twiceright.com)


""Obama is increasing our national debt by the minute. He quadrupled the deficit within one year. I don't know, is being in debt biblical?""

Are these suppose to be "Facts"?? How strange that someone who starts a post with a Claim on Facts, in a millisecond turns to misinformations as a form of argument.

Begs the questions, What was the fiscal condition of the US Gov. in Jan. 20, 2001? What was it in Jan. 20, 2009?

But of course this is extremely easy to do, in a Culture that views short term memory as a virtue among many others, like for example "rumor spreading" anyone.

BTW has everybody in this Culture for forget that there was a Surplus of over 200 Billion in the US at the end of 2000?



There is no way upsetCitizen pays 50% of their income in taxes. The top marginal tax rate (not even the effective tax rate) is 35%, and if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire they'll go up a whopping 2.5%. Make your arguments without disingenuous information.

"There is no way upsetCitizen pays 50% of their income in taxes. The top marginal tax rate (not even the effective tax rate) is 35%, and if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire they'll go up a whopping 2.5%. Make your arguments without disingenuous information."

--We pay 50% TOTAL in taxes. And 2.5% does make a difference. And then with the destructive health care and energy tax that the dems are suggesting, will put us over 60%. So sad that liberals love taking other peoples money. Who are you to say how much money is okay to take from other people? Asking them to pay for something themselves is like pulling teeth.

Everyone knows that Obama spent more in 1 year than Bush spent in 8 years. He already went on more golf outings than Bush did. But God for bid if liberals ever think or say anything bad about their precious Obama.

"Consider that from Jan. 20, 2001, to Jan. 20, 2009, the debt held by the public grew $3 trillion under Mr. Bush—to $6.3 trillion from $3.3 trillion at a time when the national economy grew as well.
By comparison, from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years.
Mr. Obama's spending plan approved by Congress last February calls for doubling the national debt in five years and nearly tripling it in 10.
Mr. Bush's deficits ran an average of 3.2% of GDP, slightly above the post World War II average of 2.7%. Mr. Obama's plan calls for deficits that will average 4.2% over the next decade.
Team Obama has been on history's biggest spending spree, which has included a $787 billion stimulus, a $30 billion expansion of a child health-care program, and a $410 billion federal spending bill that increased nondefense discretionary spending 10% for the last half of fiscal year 2009. Mr. Obama also hiked nondefense discretionary spending another 12% for fiscal year 2010."


That the Economy was growing at the end of 2008 and up to Jan. 20, 2009!! Incredible!! Totally laughable if wasn't a sad Phony

The merchandise trade deficit reached a record $840 billion in 2008 before shrinking to $450 billion in 2009. The global economic downturn, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, investment bank failures, falling home prices, and tight credit pushed the United States into a recession by mid-2008. GDP contracted till the third quarter of 2009, making this the deepest and longest downturn since the Great Depression.

Not according to that in here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Which among many things places the US at the end of 2008 begining of 2009 as number 150 in the world in Real Growth Rate, with a 0.4 %.

Somebody is confusing China's growth with that of the the US

BTW, What year did China became the World's no. one Economy?

Fanaticism is sometimes a tragedy.


Something reminds me of others BIG Deficits at the end of 1988 and 1989 up to Jan. 20, 1990. Could it had been Voodoo Economics aka. Reaganomics.

One big problem with Fanaticism whether is in Sports, Politics, or Religion is that the people who gets affected by such a condition loose touch with reality.

Fanatical people, usually are unable to discern between Theory and Facts. So we have for example Evolutionists who believe their Theory to be a Law, and on and on. So goes also with Political and Economical theorists, Religious theorists like the Muslims, etc. etc. and etc.

Upset Citizen apparently fundamentally misunderstands how taxes work. Even if their RATES add up to 50%, it doesn't mean their TOTAL TAXES are 50% of their income, because the "rates" are mostly "marginal" rates, which means that each increasing tax bracket only taxes the marginal difference in income between the two brackets.

We currently have several federal tax brackets: 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%. But, someone with $200,000 in taxable income who falls into the 35% bracket DOES NOT pay a simple $70,000 ($200,000 x .35) in taxes. For example (and using round hypotentical brackets for simple calculation), that taxpayer with $200,000 in taxable income would pay the following:

($!0,000 x 10%) + ($50,000 x 15%) + ($75,000 x 25%) + ($50,000 x 30%) + ($15,000 x 35%)

OR $,1000 + $7,500 + $18,750 + $15,000 + $5,250 = $47,500.

NOT $200,000 x 35% = $70,000.

Similarly, the bulk of the federal payroll taxes ONLY tax income up to about $100,000, so even if the rate is about 7.5%, it's only ($100,000 x 7.5%) regardless of how much higher your income actually is.

And, the tax rates the TP-ers are currently screaming about are less than they were under the Reagan Administration.

One sure way to reduce your taxes is to increase your Gifts, Donations and Charities. That was a piece of advice given to me by an H&R Block agent, once all other types of Deductions/tax shelters were exhausted.

That however is not going to fit well with a Fanatical ideology, some unproven Political Theories, and with the "christian-Materialism" crowds.

As "Christian Lawyer" has demonstrated, it is simply untrue that "Upset Citizen" is taxed at a 50% rate. Additionally, I assume Upset Citizen enjoys the many deductions our lawmakers have put in place for middle class Americans. Your mortgage, charitable gifts, and child tax credits whittle down your effective tax rate significantly. Remember also that only your first $95k of income are subject to FICA tax, effectively taxing low and middle income people at a higher rate than high income people. Forget not also that capital gains taxes were cut to 15% in the Bush administration, meaning that investors and brokers pay less taxes than the typical teacher, janitor, or factory-worker. Warren Buffet has been quoted saying, "I pay less taxes than my secretary does." I don't know about other people, but thanks to the stimulus package passed last year by Obama and the Democrats (a third of which was tax-cuts) I'm currently paying the lowest federal taxes of my adult life.

Its also something of an irony that the "Tea Partiers" will decry deficits without offering any realistic perspective on tax policy. Try cutting the deficit and maintain essential government functions while "cutting taxes". Not possible.

Figures about the deficit under Obama are also skewed by presentation. Its true that Obama has increased domestic and discretionary spending, but a large bulk of the new deficit is not because of any new "welfare" program, but because the greatest recession since WW2 has greatly impacted government revenues: lower profits + more unemployment = lower tax receipts to fund government expenditures. GWB and the republican controlled congress passed the single largest unfunded government expendeture in history-- Medicare D. Left alone, Medicare D stood to add $700 Billion to the deficit. Similarly, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were kept "off the books" during the Bush administration, effectively adding a Trillion dollars to the deficit. You might be skeptical of the CBO's projection that health care reform will reduce the deficit $140 Billion dollars, but at the very least HCR is unlikely to add to the deficit in any way similar to Bush's spending.


Is more of a blessing to give than to receive. That however does not goes well with Materialistic christianites.


I know that the Marxist types do not like the Tea Party people. Christ gave the great commission to spread the Gospel. The Church should take care of their own. Render unto the King what belongs to the King, and unto God, what belongs to God. The Church has a duty to take care of their own. The Church should not get mixed up with the government by having the government take care of their members. There is a separation of church and government. We do not live in a theocracy. When the government takes our money(taxes), it leaves less money to give to the Church to fulfill its mission.