Read the following article on the Tea Party. What is the author's point? Do you agree/disagree? Why? Are other groups/ parties more consistent in belief and policy? The printed version of this article was tiltled "Tea Party - It's all about us" . Does the title difference change the message? Which is the "better" title?
22 Comments
Corey Barrett
3/24/2011 03:31:27 am
the article mostly talks about the Far-Right populist group which has troubles with social issues. also in the article is talks about how the party dislikes certain religions or ethnicities such as muslims. in my opinion the party for freedom is bad because they are just starting other problems with countries because they dont believe somethin is right
Reply
Jose rincon
3/24/2011 03:33:33 am
(goof)
Reply
Charline Arranaga
3/24/2011 03:36:50 am
So basically saying that the Tea Party is big on protecting the government. The Republicans want a budget that will be balanced and protect our government. The bill just gonna cash in on the Social Security and Medicare, because of their insurance plans in there work place.
Reply
Cole ballentine
3/24/2011 07:21:05 am
The article says that the tea party is protecting the government. And that the tea party is the biggest protector the government has ever had. It also talks about the top right group and their problems with social issues. And how the tea party doesn't want certain religions or ethnicities.
Reply
Charlie Boden III
3/24/2011 11:10:37 am
It is said in the article that the Tea Party is right wing opinionated and that they support big government. which means they do not like the way Obama is running things. the other parties, to me, seem like they are supporting the governments choices, including the republicans. the title really shows that the author is making them seem somewhat foul, or conseded.
Reply
Julian Carson
3/24/2011 01:09:03 pm
The author makes the point that the Tea Party and other conservatives are fine with supporting big government so long as it promises to benefit its members of the party who are primarily the white working class, the "us", and not to redistribute the government's resources on minorities, the "them" leaving less for "us". I agree with the author. It does seem like members of the Tea Party are more concerned with maintaining the status quo so as to continue to keep themselves living more comfortably at the cost of the minority's well-being. The Tea Party is being consistent only in their selfishness. I prefer the original print title because it better embodies the stance the Tea Party has taken on the purpose of big government.
Reply
Victor Almanza
3/24/2011 01:09:16 pm
In this article it is explaining that the Tea Party is the number one protection for the government. It might be the only one too. Many are saying that they do not want the government to get into the Medicare because they will not help the illegals and the low income people. When President Bush wanted to help with the Medicare it ended up helping them instead of us and that is what might happen again if the government gets into it.
Reply
Chris Borges
3/24/2011 01:22:45 pm
What this article is saying, is that Tea-Partiers are largely against Obamacare because the money the government spends on universal healthcare, might threaten other government programs. The reason Tea-Partiers are so against it, is because the Tea Party is made up of mostly older, white, middle classed citizens that's are about to cash in on those government programs that are being threatened ( Medicare and Social Security). Their argument is that funds are being directed to less deserving people, like the poor and possibly illegal aliens. I think this point is selfish and heartless. I'm not saying everything about Obamacare is flawless, but just because you are white and middle class, doesn't mean your the only people who deserve government funding. Obamacare, in my opinion, is a step forward in cleaning up America, and making it a safer place to live. The article portrays Tea-partiers and pretty selfish people, so the article title "Tea Part-it's all about us" is a more fitting title. I'm not saying tea partiers are bad people, but from what I read in the article, the example party members are not exactly Humanitarians.
Reply
colbt benge
3/24/2011 02:22:48 pm
this article is explaining that the tea party is completely for big government as long as they can stay on top. bu=y top i mean that all the benefits are swayed more to the working middle class. and stays away from passing on there health care who need it the most the minority's and lower class. i agree with Chris in the matter of the tea party being cut throat for caring less about the needs of the needy and focusing more on whats the best for themselfs.
Reply
gabriela acuna
3/24/2011 02:52:55 pm
in this article it is stating that the tea party is a big government protector, and they don't want to share any government programas with people who dont "deserve" it, like poor people or illegal people. i disagree withthis, i think its very selfish . everyne need help from the government!
Reply
Gabe Carlin
3/24/2011 03:53:12 pm
The author is telling us, the readers, the best way they can describe the tea party. The tea party, described as "white, middle class, older and employed" by the article, and this is very true. The tea party is worried that this so called "obamacare," which i guess is Obama's Health Care Reform, will take away money from the other programs. This is obviously true, the tea partiers (or tea baggers) are concerned with the fact that the programs this lack of money will cut is the social security, medicare, etc. the programs that will directly affect the majority of the tea partiers. I do not agree to the tea partiers' argument, because I think that free health for all americans is more important paying all this money for retirement. I think the printed article title "Tea Party-its all about us" definitely changes the meaning of the article, it starts off the article with a narcissistic tone, which immediately plants an idea in the readers mind about the tea party. I think that neither title is affective in conveying the tone or story of this article.
Reply
juan chavez
3/24/2011 04:10:37 pm
In this article it is said that the tea party is big on protecting the government, they are not happy with the way Obama is running things. what the republicans want is a balanced budget. In my opinion i think that the government should be helping everyone equally there shall not be any sort of discrimination.
Reply
Amaury Avalos
3/24/2011 04:31:33 pm
The main point of this article is to establish that the Tea Party is in favor of big government, so long as it benefits them and their medicare. It doesn't really matter whether minorites get help or not, as long as the Tea Partiers do. I agree with Chirs on this issue. The older people of right now only care about Social Security and Medicare, it isn't just Tea Partiers. However, it is wrong to cut government spending from areas that could benefit the future. Let's face it, Social Security and Medicare are not helping our future. The different title does not really make a difference to me because there will always be a group in different parties who only want what they thing is best. Prohibiting abortion might want to be legalized by large families, but what about those who want abortion because they were being raped. Who is being selfish then?
Reply
Kelsey Bills
3/24/2011 04:53:20 pm
The authors point is that the Tea Party is pro big government and that they want a balanced budget in order to protect the government. The tea partiers consist of white, middle aged, unemployed people, who are afraid the obama care will take money out of the programs that benefit them. I think the title of the printed copy fits better because although i dont think the tea partiers are bad, i think in relation to this article they are in the wrong.
Reply
Rebecca Connolly
3/25/2011 02:00:44 am
The author's point is that the tea party's opposition to obamacare stems from its ideals for big business. I agree with the author in that the blatant elitist ideology of the tea party commends social benefits for the white upper-middle, upper class. However Obamacare stands to strike the rewards
Reply
Mayra plancarte
3/31/2011 02:46:31 pm
The article it is stating that the tea party is a big government protector, and that they don't want to share any government programs with people who dont deserve it... I don't usually care about stuff like this but they've over done it ! Come on everyone needs the governments help ! Selfish.
Reply
Marissa Crump
4/1/2011 01:58:00 am
the authors point is that tea party is for a bigger goventment, and that they want to have a balanced government, i agreee with them because they are for medicare and social secrurity, and medicaid but to an extent.its not really effecting us at the moment, and older people only care about social secrerity. tea partiers are basically consisted of white, middle class, older and employed people. the title doesnt really make a huge differnce to me because every party will have its own opinion and will do whatever they think is best for them, but it also makes it seem like they are selfish. the better title is the one it has now,Tea Partiers: Hypocrites on big government? it shows its side but as well as the others.
Reply
stefan ouellette
4/1/2011 07:17:54 am
The point was that the members of the Tea Party want the government to not intervene with healthcare and other public services. in my opinion, I think there should be free healthcare, because i think that the US tries to be so different form all orf these other countries, and what they do seems to work so why not do what they do? The liberals see a split in the government while the Republicans have changed to to white working class individuals. I like the "All About US" title because it conscerns all of the citizens. i like that more than just calling people hypocrites.
Reply
Max Northrop
4/4/2011 12:56:50 pm
The article talks mainly about how the Tea Party is a protector of Big Governments. It also talks about the difference in opinion on what a governments job or qualifications are. The example used to support the idea that republicans support a big government is the obamacare plan. Though the health care plan is set to help the "general public" those who cant afford a private health care plan the tea party worries that programs such as medicare, social security, and medicade will be short funded because as predicted funds will be taken to support obamacare. Both sides of the debate claim they want whats best for the people, but whether or not that's true, or if the Tea party can be classified as hypoctitical there just is no clear cut answer.
Reply
David Martinez
4/7/2011 04:25:27 am
the article talks about how the tea party is in favor of a big goverment.they also believe that we should have a balanced budget. the authors says how the tea party consists of white middle class older employed people, so because of that they will support the balancing of the budget to protect their social security and medicare.
Reply
alejandra ramires
4/8/2011 03:37:41 am
the artical mostly talked how the Tea pary is more right. meaning that they like big governments. the tea party is mostly consist of white, middle aged.
Reply
Lily Rada
4/18/2011 09:29:43 am
This author of this article has an obvious bias view on the government, especially the Tea Party. The main point the author is approaching is the tea party and its republican allies are attempting to protect large government by balancing the budget. In other terms, regulating Social Security. Tea partiers are consist of white, middle class, older and employed people so their stand on the topic is completely biased since they are the ones next in line for receiving benefits. The Tea Party feeds off of stereotypes and that has brought them a consistent crowd of people. Props to them for manipulating the system, but it doesn't make their actions valid. I do feel the budget should be worked on, but I do not agree with the Tea Parties step to reaching equilibrium.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Mr. LPart teacher/part entertainer/ part coach/ part task master Archives
November 2014
Categories |