Talk:Tea Party Caucus

Right wing to far-right, rather than far-right

I do not think the political ideology should be just "far-right", because the plain far-right rather than right-wing to far-right position is typically used on this website only for outright neo-Nazi or neo-fascist parties, such as the British National Party or Golden Dawn. JoeSmoe2828 (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

'Conflicting memberships'

At the top it claims only 4 Senate members, yet down below under "Members" it lists 15. However, several of these are clearly stated to have not joined (at least not initially) in the text of the article. Which is correct, and can we standardized across the three listings and decide who is a member and who is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzkrat (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

'Budget Proposal'

I'm not much of an editor, but I propose bringing up the Budget proposal released by the 3 Senate Tea Party Caucus members. It's the most specific path to achieving the caucus's goals that I've come across. Perhaps this could go in a larger section on significant proposed legislation, if their is anything else that can be added to such a section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.47.11 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

'Tax Resistance'

I removed the category, as it is not accurate; the Tea Party does not endorse the refusal to pay taxes. Toa Nidhiki05 00:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

'fiscal responsibility'

I deleted this and inserted "downsizing government." More accurate and objective. However, others keep trying to change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.9.19 (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Not before using "fiscal irresponsibility" as seen here. Why didn't you just use "downsizing government" first? --Jon Ace ^{T C} 04:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's make sure that we're only adding material that's found in sources that are talking about the caucus, not other elements of the Tea Party movement.   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I'm not a Tea Party partisan, but I've been following the Tea Party Movement article, and I've just seen this Caucus article for the first time. I plan to move the Political Donations section to follow the Relation with the Republican Party section (which I plan to rename Relation to the Republican Party). The section's current location seems to me to make an implicit claim that the funding is the most important aspect. Might be true, but might be true of any political group, and I haven't seen articles structured like this before. Objections? -- Jo3sampl (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC) -- Done by Brunion -- Jo3sampl (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see support in the references for "In an attempt to quell fears that Washington insiders were attempting to co-opt the Tea Party movement"--I plan to remove that phrase or move the explanatory Politico material before it. -- Done -- Jo3sampl (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The only British English I see in the article is "criticised"; I plan to change that because I think that's the best way to avoid mixing styles. -- Done -- Jo3sampl (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And -- do we really plan to keep an updated membership list?

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your last point, comparable articles have updated lists: Category:Caucuses of the United States Congress. It's a lot of work to maintain these.   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Check. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

-- Map

How about updating the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.152.219.32 (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Joe Barton, Michele Bachmann, and the Governorship of Rick Perry

From Talk:Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs ... A States' Rights Battle over Light Bulbs. Conservatives challenge the federal law requiring incandescent bulbs to be replaced with fluorescents and LEDs. The bottom line: Politicians in Texas and three other states are invoking the 10th Amendment to defy a federal law phasing out incandescent bulbs. November 10, 2011 BusinessWeek by Chris Christoff, excerpts ...

Michele Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman and Presidential candidate, was one of the first national figures to fight for the right to light up a room Thomas Edison-style. In March she introduced the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act, which sought to repeal the energy efficiency standards. Her bill went nowhere. In July her colleague, Representative Joe Barton (R-Tex.), gave it another try. His Better Use of Light Bulbs Act got 233 “yeas”—a good showing, but not enough to save the venerable bulb.

In 2007, George W. Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act, requiring light bulbs to be at least 28 percent more efficient by 2014. Three-way bulbs and some specialty versions are exempt, but otherwise the law virtually guarantees that LEDs and compact fluorescents will gradually replace incandescents, starting with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the result will be lower energy bills and less pollution.

The three largest light bulb makers—General Electric, Osram Sylvania, and Royal Philips Electronics —either don’t make regular incandescent bulbs in the U.S. or will phase them out in favor of technology that meets the new federal standards, according to the American Lighting Assn. “The future is LEDs,” says W. Lawrence Lauck, the association’s vice-president of communications. “That’s what the lighting industry is gearing its investments toward.” ... In May the Texas legislature adopted a measure almost identical to McMillin’s, despite opposition from environmental groups that argued it made Texas look like it was marching into the last century. Governor Rick Perry signed it into law in June.

See related Talk:Tea Party movement#Add Energy Policy section? Resource: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole, U.S. Lighting Energy Policy, Energy in the United States and the Energy Lobby.

99.19.47.10 (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Add LED wikilink. 99.181.150.228 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Changing Title

I would like to add "defunct" to the title, since many people do not seem to realize this. And "defunct" is the adjective used to describe its state in the main article.Tedperl (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not a good idea. We don't generally add descriptive terms to titles unless they're needed to distinguish between two subjects with the same name. So even if an organization is defunct, we don't add that to the title of the article. Unless there is a non-defunct Tea Party Caucus, there's no reason to add that to the title. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, that seems reasonable to me. I thought that I would be bold and see if I was missing something. Tedperl (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You might draw some attention to the defunct status by mentioning it in the lead though. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with you people?? The Tea Party Caucus is NOT defunct! Check the Google news feed: https://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+caucus I would suggest a re-write of the article removing all of the 'defunct' and 'was' references. The evidence given is a non-existing membership page. What does that prove?? Anyone with any sense knows full well that the Tea Party Causus is VERY active in recent times. Even the reference to 'as of October 2013' is false, there are dozens of news articles from November 2013 referencing the Tea Party Caucus and it's members. How is it possible for a movement with a large enough membership in congress to shutdown the government to be defunct? They are currently discussing another shutdown. I am shocked and ashamed to see this sort of non-sense on Wikipedia. Most schools won't allow students to site Wikipedia for exactly this reason. The first priority of anyone involved in Wikipedia should be to get this non-sense biased incorrect and misleading information permanently removed from Wikipedia. Crogon (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Still Active

The Tea Party Caucus is still active. Here are couple of links: [[1]] [[2]] Seasrmar (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Copied from main page:

Please please please update this article because the editors of Wikipedia are a trillion times smarter than me. Representatives Bachmann, Broun, Cassidy, Gingrey, Miller are no longer members of the 114th House of Representatives. The current chair of the House Tea Party Caucus is Tim Huelskamp of Kansas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.24.44.173 (talk • contribs)

I've updated the article to the best of my ability. Unfortunately, I cannot find a current member list for the 114th Congress. I'm working on a more detailed breakdown by Congress. --77.243.189.212 (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

The Tea Party makes their collective voice heard.

Headline-1: Boehner resigns: The one thing you must understand about the Speaker's decision

• http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/25/boehner-resigns-one-thing-must-understand-about-speakers-decision.html?intcmp=hphz03

QUOTE: "Boehner lost the ability to bully conservatives because outside conservative groups started making those guys heroes and household names for standing up to him. Conservatives built themselves infrastructure to fundraise for themselves when Boehner shut off K Street spigots.

And now the Speaker had closed his doors not just to social conservatives, but fiscal conservatives and war hawks. All he had left were a small group of moderates and the assistance of the Democrats.

He could not survive a motion to vacate the chair with that. He had to resign.

John Boehner is out not because of bad deals, but because of bad manners. He wanted to be Speaker of the House, but increasingly only acted as Speaker for those members of congress he liked. At first that included more Democrats than conservatives. But in the end, it included more Democrats than conservative and other Republicans combined." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Social Conservatism and Libertarianism are polar opposites

The info box has drastically conflicting information. It is impossible for an organization to be both socially conservative and libertarian. Libertarianism is based on social/cultural liberalism. Thus social conservatism is in direct objection to the libertarianism tag; thus I am removing the libertarianism tag.

Orphaned references in Tea Party Caucus

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tea Party Caucus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "McGrath":

• From Tea Party movement: McGrath, Ben (February 1, 2010). "The Movement: The Rise of Tea Party Activism". The New Yorker. Retrieved March 30, 2010.
• From Tea Party protests: Ben McGrath (February 1, 2010). "The Movement – The Rise of Tea Party Activism". The New Yorker.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)