What they resent is a deliberate socialist welfare state.
You mean a deliberate socialist corporate/banking welfare state?
Besides, that's what happens when you deliberately send good paying jobs to other countries, keep U.S. wages deliberately low, deliberately up the unemployment to 10% or more, and deliberately give all the money to big business. Remember, for the past several years, the only job sector that steadily increased was the "service" sector. How much do you think that pays? Now we have 50% of the population earning less than 51K per year. That's why they don't pay taxes! That's why they need financial help!
In the last 50 years:
Republican president - 29 years
Democratic president - 21 years
Biggest tax increase in history - Reagan (republican)
Socialist bailouts for the rich - Reagan/Bush 1980's, Bush Jr. 2nd term
Cost of socialist bailout for rich - over .5 trillion, 1.7 trillion respectively
Cost of illegal Iraq war - 800 billion and counting
War profiteering - Bush/Cheney through (at least) Halliburton
Corporations that pay taxes - almost NONE http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812
It comes from Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels' new book, soon to be released. What it shows is the difference that the President's party affiliation makes to the distribution of income during the four years of the president's term. (The distributional outcomes are shown with one year's lag.) When a Republican president is in power, people at the top of the income distribution experience much larger real income gains than those at the bottom--a difference of 1.5 percent per year going from the bottom to the top quintile in the income distribution. The situation is reversed when a Democrat is in power: those who benefit the most are the lower income groups. If you are in the bottom quintile, the difference between having a Democratic or a Republican president in office is an income gain (or loss) of more than 2 percent per year! Strikingly, compared to Republicans, Democratic presidents generate higher income gains for all income groups (although the difference is statistically significant only for lower income groups). http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/03/american-politi.html
The key question is why are some people immune to facts? http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/03/american-politi.html
Given their republican leanings, a conclusion can be drawn that the Tea Partiers are for concentrating the wealth to the top one percent. Since the middle class is near extinct, and over 50% of Americans don't earn enough to pay taxes, and the super rich insulate themselves from taxes. That leaves very few people paying taxes. Given the facts set out in the quoted paragraph above, voting Democrat is the only way to spread the wealth so that people earn enough to pay their share.
Don't Tea Partiers want those in the lower income tax brackets to earn a fair wage?
Do Tea Partiers want the very rich to bleed the rest of us dry?
Why is the battle cry "repeal everything" the Obama administration has done?
Do they really want to go back to the point we were at when Bush left office? Nearly destroyed?
What is it -really- about the left and Obama they hate so much?
Is there a "high degree of correlation between ideological blindness and political conservativism. "
When they talk about liberty and personal freedom, why is it only in relation to money?
Do they want to pay for their own roads and policemen?
Will they all please move to a deserted island?
