A Tea Party President Would be Disastrous for America.

Counter Argument The Low Tax Fallacy Low taxation is simply a way of funneling money away from the poor and towards the rich. Not only that, it has been proven not to work in the long run, as proven rather conveniently by the two example you gave - the Post-WWI model and the Reaganite model of Reagan to Bush Jr, both of which have failed miserably. I will grant that they both lead to booms in the financial sector, as proven by the 1920s, 80s and 90s booms respectively. But all of them resulted in huge financial crashes, namely the Wall Street Crash and the credit crunch, and their subsequent depressions and recessions. This is because the concentration of wealth in the top quintile of the population results in excessive speculatory investment and increasingly irresponsible financial behaviour. This increase in activity in the non-tangible aspect of the finance sector which results from the upper classes having too much money has invariably resulted in a bubble, which then burst and took thousands or millions of innocent people with it (The Dutch Black Tulip Crisis is the earliest modern example of this, taking place in 1630s Netherlands). It refers to the overvaluing of a good that has little tangible value in the real world; in the 1920s it was shares in intermediate-sized businesses, and in late C20, it was sub-prime mortgages, both of which resulted in financial ruin for many people in the bottom eighty percent, with the top twenty percent escaping relatively unscathed, despite being the ones responsible. In fact, the opposite of what you said is true. Roosevelt and Eisenhower's presidencies, as well as Atlee, Macdonald and Wilson's premierships in the UK all saw huge periods of economic expansion or recovery, through the use of high taxes and spending, therefore espousing fundamentally socialist values of big government and 'from each according to his means, to each according to his means.' With regards to your remarks on healthcare, I forgot to make it clear at the start that I am against anything short of Universal Health Care, therefore I am opposed to Obamacare. The hospitals and systems are still fundamentally privatised, which is the reason for the poor quality of care; and your anecdote of the patient denied an operation but offered euthanasia is most likely either a complete fabrication or at best, an example of cancer treatment, which could marginally prolong life, but would not guarantee a quality of life to justify the large resource drain. In Germany, France and the UK, countries with their own versions of the Affordable Care Act enacted in 1876, 1911 and 1945 respectively, state-owned healthcare is among the best in the world, with private care available, but unable to match the cost-effectiveness of the nationalised form, as shown by private hospitals established by the current Cameron government. The far-right is fond of the 'Death Panel' accusation against nationalised healthcare, as well as unnecessary bureaucracy; but these claims have little foundation in the truth. The 'Death Panel' refers to the allocation of treatment based on need, rather than means, which is a fundamentally more utilitarian and moral way of allocating scarce resources; and that there is virtually no evidence that the bureaucracy is any worse under an NHS than under a private healthcare system. As for the constitution, it works very well as a nominal guideline for a government's operation, but interpretations of it, as well as literally taking it in its original form in late C18, a time that is completely different to early C21, tend to obstruct the practical objective of the government, which is to win elections. It was a period of social experiment, where the subjective and unpragmatic concept of 'liberty' was valued only in its economic sense, espousing the values of British economist Adam Smith, which were all very well in a time when there were no fears of climate change or the outstripping of resources, other than the Malthusian doctrine, which was embraced in Europe but not in the Americas, where there seemed to be an inexhaustible supply of land from the endless western expansion. This was a preindustrial philosophy, and did not take into account the exponential economic growth that would occur with the industrial revolution. The constitution has been used as a means to block social reform that would have meant that the USA may not be socially trapped in the 1920s. The idea that US aggression is a way of guaranteeing the freedom and safety of the US population is a severe fallacy of logic. It has been shown that the War on Terror has only encouraged more terror, and every terrorist attack since the start of it has been a direct result of US aggression against Muslims and the ME in general. The wars are merely to perpetuate the military-industrial complex, and to crush Arab Pan-Nationalism, which would restructure the power base of the world. The flagrant disregard for the lives of foreigners that you exhibited appears to have elements of eugenics and Social Darwinism, viewing the people of the USA as some sort of 'master race', whose citizens are somehow genetically superior to those of others. That view is straight from C18, and is completely irrelevant and diplomatically stupid in the modern world. Social Policy Gun Control is a hallmark of an organised modern society. A person should only own a gun for sport or employment, i.e. farmers, as in the rest of the world. The Second Amendment is completely irrelevant in a modern industrial democracy, and was not introduced to protect the people from tyranny, but to protect colonists heading west from Native Americans, whose land they were stealing. The 'People Need Guns to Protect Them From the Government' argument is facile and inaccurate. No revolution has succeeded based entirely upon hoarders of small arms. People in Occupied Europe during WWII were allowed to keep their guns, as the Germans knew that a population armed with shotguns and hunting rifles could not overpower the Wehrmacht. They were largely right, as proven by the failed Warsaw Uprising, which was performed with civilian firearms. The Maquisards on the other hand were given rifles, machine guns and explosives by the British, as well as being trained by SOE operatives in France, and even they did not succeed until Operation Overlord was in full swing. In Cuba, Castro's army was armed with Soviet weapons, including artillery guns and planes, weapons not covered by the Second Amendment. Even the American War of Independence was carried out at first by peasants armed with civilian weapons until Valley Forge, when they were equipped with French military grade weapons, crucially artillery, and given military training and reorganised into a modern European army; and henceforth won most of the engagements they were engaged in, the final coup de grace at Yorktown delivered by the French Navy. In Russia, the peasants had limited weapons, largely confined to pitchforks and hunting rifles from the previous century. To win the civil war, the Bolsheviks received the loyalty of the rank and file of the Imperial army, with the chinless aristocratic officers backing the Tsarists. They won the war by winning the support of people with military education and arms, which would not have necessarily been provided by the Second Amendment. Traditional Family Values and the persecution of homosexuals is another Nazi-esque aspect of the Tea Party. The Grassroots committal to the nuclear family represents the nostalgic views of geriatrics and people applying bronze age logic to the modern day. My parents are divorced, and are living happily in non-marital relationships which are just as stable as marital ones. The studies into Traditional Family Values and homosexuality quoted are largely quoted from 1950s experiments which drew a conclusion before the actual test, and have since been disproven.