I was an original Tea Party person. There were many events that I believe lead to its creation but the tipping point was the TARP and Stimulus Acts. The idea that in the worst financial times we'd spend amounts of money which is hard to comprehend to 'save' the economy just didn't feel right. Hundreds of millions of dollars went to projects in a bill that was impossible to have read in the amount of time they passed it. Most of us also strongly believe in the failure of a company. The thought of TBTF (too big to fail) was not just nonsense but vulgar to many. If a private company is too big to fail than in essence you are saying they own us - they run the show.
The Tea Party has grown and morphed since the origins. Many of the basic ideas and people are still there, but so many that jumped on board pushed it toward a new GOP movement. We didn't want a slightly more conservative GOP, we wanted a Tea Party Candidate. Rand Paul may be one of the few.
The 'left' attacked and laughed at the Tea Party as quickly and hard as they could. I watched so many hours of liberal talk show hosts and analysts hoping for good debates. I challenge you to find a good back-and-forth between the two sides. The left shied away from the big issues - the only ones many of us cared about in the first place. Some eventually discussed them; Bill Maher (and many others) think that well we bailed them out so now they should bail us out. The sad part is that he's serious. He was for the bail-outs and now for the rich bailing out the government. E.g. there is a mansion in your neighborhood who employees the locals; he spends too much and has nothing left so he asks everyone to chip in to keep him rich; they agree because he creates all their jobs; he gets bailed out. A year later the locals are all poor and in debt so they ask for a bailout from the rich guy, seeing that he can afford it; he agrees... do you see it Bill? I hate to just throw the word out there, but you just defined socialism to a 'T'. Neither side has motivation to strive forward if they can't fail and if they will pool together when they run out of money.
(side: I can't believe I honestly thought of him as an intelligent man when I was younger. He's not, he's not open so he doesn't grow. I'd be willing to bet he hasn't changed his mind on an issue in 20 years - meaning he has known the perfect combination all along - the most intelligent man on earth, no? His pure disgust for the right is sickening. Anderson Cooper asked him recently about the last debate and you can see it in his eyes - he truly hates them before they say a word. He believes they are bad people with the only goal of destroying his country and hurting people. I guarantee he watches democrat debates and loves every second, every word out of those amazing people trying to save us all. Hey Bill, is it easier to stand in front of a crowd and promise everyone of them every single thing they want (I'm looking at you Obama), or to tell someone you won't bail them out or cover their expenses forever or buy their house for them? )
Let us blame Bush again. The president and so many on his side have pulled this card way too often. 1. As if the problems hadn't already begun before him. 2. If instead we had 8 years of Obama and then 4 of Bush we'd be in basically the same place. Go look at their voting records. Name 3 major issues/bills that one would have done that the other would never do. TARP/stimulus bills would still have passed. We'd still be sending troops to die in the same countries. We'd be drone bombing terrorists. Gitmo would be open. The Bush tax cuts would exist. The deficit would be growing massively. The only major difference I can think of would be ObamaCare - which if the polls are correct the majority of Americans aren't thrilled about anyway. (May not even be constitutional to force someone to buy a product from a private company - well it isn't - the debate is the Commerce Clause which can sound convincing but is wrong; chicken and egg issue there, it would be like telling every company they have to make orange hats and then claiming that if everyone in the country doesn't buy orange hats the entire thing will fail. The argument is true but backwards.) Overall they are far more alike than the media usually portrays. Not just that but those like Paul Begala and Cornell Belcher ride a similar boat as Bill Maher - they would still praise an Obama but are ashamed to have to call Bush one of our Presidents; far worse they would virtually never consider even the possibility that the other side was right on an issue.
OWS has some good roots/views
I like Occupy Wall St. because they are right to pressure Wall st. - at least the bankers, some hedge fund hotshots etc... ;I liked the Tea Party because they know the government spending is the most damaging/crippling part being done to us.OWS tends to think corps/banks are mostly to blame and that they run the country. Many Tea Party people feel the government/Fed is screwing us over. The answer is in the middle - but the root is on the government side. Not sure where it goes from here but the pressure is building from both sides.