A Tea Party President Would be Disastrous for America.

I will begin by addressing the economic viewpoints of the tea party and how they would be beneficial to the tea party. To start, I will address taxes. The tea party supports lower and/or simpler taxes. The concept of lower taxes was proven by Ronald Reagan with supply side economics as well as the economic growth behind President Harding's tax cuts following WWI. By having taxes lower, the money stays within the hands of the people. Thus, the people have more money to spend, which leads to more revenue for businesses, which gives businesses more money to pay employees, which lowers unemployment, which takes people off of welfare as well as increasing the flow of money. All of this comes from the lower taxes. Other taxes that could be lowered would be the corporate tax, which would lower the cost of goods, and overall taxes on employers, which again, leaves money to pay employees. As far as making taxes simpler in addition to being lower, many tea party members support the flat tax(everyone pays an equal percent), and fair tax(no taxes other than a national sales tax(fairtax.org)). Of course, with tax cuts, must also come budget cuts. This stage is rarely mentioned with tax cuts and it becomes the big issue of, cut revenue, increase debt. However, if you cut revenue, and cut expenses even more, an increased surplus comes. As far as where to cut, I cannot be certain, I advocate cutting welfare, the EPA, and the IRS, but many tea party members may have an entirely different plan for cutting spending. I would now like to address regulations. Regulations are bad for business. The EPA constantly creates regulations which a business must have to pay to adhere to. Where does a business get the money to adhere to these regulations? How many people have to be unemployed so that high efficiency light bulbs from China can be used in place of the ones from Tennessee that won't kill you if they get broken? Counter Arguments "The aim of the government is to win votes" The aim of the government is to make the keep the people safe and free. Does the constitution say that it can sacrifice freedom or safety of the population if it will win votes? NO! You claim that public services are important and that corporations do not care about the welfare of the patients. However, look at Obamacare. It refused to pay for an operation that could have saved a woman's life, but did offer to pay to have her euthanized. See a problem. Where is the concern for welfare here? Corporations have to remain competitive, thus service is better and prices are lower, hence, the entire theory behind capitalism. Furthermore, government services hurt to people. Since Obamacare even became an idea, employers have had to lay off people and insurance rates have skyrocketed. How is this good for the people? Obamacare does not even offer good medical care, often, people have to wait months to be seen by a doctor under Obamacare. How is this good for the people? You commented on the military. I will again address the governments sole responsibilities. To keep the people of America free. To keep the people OF AMERICA SAFE. Oh well if we have to sacrifice the safety of others to keep our people safe. It is not our job to please the world. It is our job to prevent innocent Americans dying at the hands of foreigners. As far as isolationism goes, the tea party half way supports it. Most do not support America being the Worlds Police Force. However, most do support intervention if a country poses a threat to us. Federal Reserve Bank The tea party supports a currency backed up by gold. The Federal Reserve does not do this. Some believe it should be abolished, some believe it should be reformed. Either way, a president would not hold the power to do this so it is irrelevant. Furthermore, even if the president did have the power, I could not speak for them as the party is split on this issue. I will address society and counter arguments next round.