Back after a break from Newgrounds. If someone responded to a post i made before that break and I didn't respond to it, please let me know.
1) Most Americans are largely ignorant about what the government spends it's money on. Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure Americans think the largest parts of the federal budget is foreign aid and welfare, when the majority of It is entitlements and "Defense" [War]
Of course this knowledge, if we are to grant that "The Tea party" stands for fiscal responsibility (I was going to write conservatism but that would be a misnomer), tends to work in the Tea Party's favor rather than against it. (Even if members of "The Tea Party" are part of this demographic as well) How can anyone argue that the electorate keeps the government's expenditures meaningful and useful
It's not entirely different as some people on this forum [who i will not name] Who think a valid argument in defense of the federal income tax is that we need the money for education and roads. [[This argument might be valid in the case of other countries but hardly valid in the case of the US]]
2) And "Democracy" Pushers need to admit that their system is simply a cry for enlightened Oligarchy masked by the veneer of public approval, where the former element is essential whereas the latter element is preferred but entirely optional. It's not Democracy as it's explained in theory.
3) I hate to feel obligated to have to defend the Tea Party in order to defend a position advocating a more reasonably limited federal budget. I shouldn't have to, so i won't: Fuck the Tea party.
((Rand Paul is a relatively decent politician though. ))