Teabaggers aren't taken seriously

[Mader]

This President has shown time and time again that he doesn't care what the public wants or sees as priorities.

Just look at the Tea Party events. This is a huge group of people, all over the country. Yes, some are trying to organize this, will limited success, but President Obama and the White House either ignored these people or dismissed them as crazy right wingers.

What do these Tea Party People want? Fiscal responsibility, honesty in Washington, Washington not profiting personally while in office. That's it. Radical? Hardly.

[Aronnax]

OK, what if it was health care or some other issue.

Um, this President has shown time and time again that he doesn't care what the public wants or sees as priorities.

Just look at the Tea Party events. This is a huge group of people, all over the country. Yes, some are trying to organize this, will limited success, but President Obama and the White House either ignored these people or dismissed them as crazy right wingers.

What do these Tea Party People want? Fiscal responsibility, honesty in Washington, Washington not profiting personally while in office. That's it. Radical? Hardly.



I don't know why he's shown no interest in directly engaging these people.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I'm sure there are more moderate voices in the crowd but in general this group is not interested in a discussion. As a group they're convinced he's a liar and a crook and there isn't much Obama can say or do that'll change their mind.

I don't know if you actually sat through the entire state of the union address but he did talk about reducing government spending. You may not believe he was being serious but he did discuss it.

[EricJ]

Just look at the Tea Party events. This is a huge group of people, all over the country. Yes, some are trying to organize this, will limited success, but President Obama and the White House either ignored these people or dismissed them as crazy right wingers.Many of them are crazy right wingers, and they are rightly dismissed. And it isn't even necessarily because it is a conservative movement. It is an ignorant conservative movement. The arguments of the entire Tea Party have been dominated by hyperbole, fallacious appeals to emotion, straw men, false accusations, conspiracy theories, ad hominem attacks, blind emotionalism, a gross misunderstanding of history or basic political/economic concepts, and a dearth of actual, specific policy suggestions. The movement, as a whole, has repeatedly proven how uninformed it truly is (which they to frame in vageuly populist terms like "common sense approaches" and anti-elitism.) Where are the actual economic and political justifications for their arguements? Not to mention the fact that there are actual radical, fascist minorities within the movement (racists, neo-Nazis, violent militarists.)

They have compared Obama to Hitler, Stalin, the Joker. Blatantly racist rhetoric is very present. Many of them don't even believe that Obama is a citizen of the United States and that he should be impeached, after a single year in office.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Grimstad]

They EARNED the name "Teabaggers". Granted, the core of the original Tea Party movement may have been exactly what they would like us to believe they are, but they have been over run by these people we see above.

[EricJ]

They EARNED the name "Teabaggers". Granted, the core of the original Tea Party movement may have been exactly what they would like us to believe they are, but they have been over run by these people we see above.They were the people who originated the term.

[Takeru]

Teabagger.... you know what the slang for that means? I did not learn of it until I was nearing the end of high school... it is amazing what other people know. Every-single-time I hear on the news about some teabagging event, I can't help but want to laugh.

Anyways, how can you take a group seriously when they don't even seem serious enough themselves. "I'm a teabagger!" Do you know how funny that sounds to a person that knows the slang term?

If these people are to be serious, they should of learned about the name they were going to cry about for their cause. It is great that it resembles what people would consider the Boston Tea Party, but times change. Terms change, you either learn it or use it in an unintended way.

[plotthickens]

So what are the teabaggers' go-forward proposals for the country?

[Takeru]

So what are the teabaggers' go-forward proposals for the country?

The slang term? Look it up yourself, but be warned hahahahahaha.

The protests? People who believe that the government is becoming of any number of things. Socialism seems to be the big thing these days.

[Holiman]

"tea baggers" god the name alone makes me laugh. Why arent they taken seriously lets see could it be theyre nothing more than flag waving radicals who think 'cliche slogans' can take the place of honest discourse. Just as an example
What do these Tea Party People want? Fiscal responsibility, honesty in Washington, Washington not profiting personally while in office. That's it. Radical? Hardly.

I can only compare this to beauty pageant contestants wanting world peace. A politician isnt a saint and wishing we had a perfect system isnt reasonable. Instead of harping on impossible concepts why not give voice to honest debate and open dialogue instead of shouting down people whose ideas you disagree with.

So much like the concept of legalizing pot the president simple doesnt get embroiled with arguments that cannot be overcome. I simply call this prudent.

[plotthickens]

The slang term? Look it up yourself, but be warned hahahahahaha.

The protests? People who believe that the government is becoming of any number of things. Socialism seems to be the big thing these days.


Already looked it up. Wondered if we had any more specifics here, rather than people enjoying shouting "NO NO NO NO NO!" a lot at those who are constrained from telling them to go to their rooms.

[LaoTzu]

This President has shown time and time again that he doesn't care what the public wants or sees as priorities.

Just look at the Tea Party events. This is a huge group of people, all over the country. Yes, some are trying to organize this, will limited success, but President Obama and the White House either ignored these people or dismissed them as crazy right wingers..

Mader... you have to understand the formation of the Tea Party movement...
I think (don't quote) that it started as a group of concerned citizens. Good. This is the right thing...

It was, however, co-opted and politicized by radical right wingers, and corporate bosses... not to advance the issue at hand; but merely to have boots in the street "rioting" against Democrat Barack Obama....

Their movement was stolen from them by people like Dick Armey, and his Freedomworks ... PAC. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


They get about as much respect as MoveOn.Org got... because of the politicization.
Their message has been drowned out by their own side.

That's the problem... it's not the message, its that the messengers are being puppeted by private interest.

[sunlover]

Hmmmm seems that teabaggers are often referred to that way by your typical liberal. Tea party politics for the most part are similar to libertarian. Less power in the federal government, respect for state governments, individual liberties and an upoholding of the constitution.

[INTJRyan]

Hmmmm seems that teabaggers are often referred to that way by your typical liberal. Tea party politics for the most part are similar to libertarian. Less power in the federal government, respect for state governments, individual liberties and an upoholding of the constitution.

You forgot "hating darkies."

[Ray9]

The people who make up the tea party movement are seen as a direct threat to the left because they represent something the left fears and hates--people with a long history of employment who have made their way through life without government handouts. The term teabagers was created by the liberal press as a deragatory lable in deference to the annoited one, Barrack Obama. The tea party movement is symptomatic of a serious breach of confidence among middle class Americans regarding the direction the current administration is trying to lead the citizens. It's existance and popularity have caused great consternation among liberals because it portends a wholesale rejection of the policies of the Obama administration.

[Shauru]

Uhm. Let's be reasonable here. The Tea Party people don't have any coherent structure or message. It's all about less taxes, beyond that there is no coherency, no unity, no message. It's very hard to take someone seriously when they lack any apparent thought.

And saying Obama is ignoring them isn't really a matter of anything. What is he supposed to do? Greet their party leader? Meet with their representation? The Teabaggers don't have any. It's really hard to work with a group who doesn't have any sort of figurehead.

Besides, there are countless other legitimate political parties that have tried to form in this country, actually raise funds and put candidates up and they don't get recognition either.

All I see in the teabaggers are a bunch of nationalist boobs who figured going out into the street with signs and yelling was the best way to get what they want personally.It's a party of white trash rednecks who keep screaming about taxes, guns, and minorities.

And when the Tea Party held their protests, all the major news sources covered them. Yet oddly enough a Gay Rights march was held the same week, by a larger organized group, and the coverage amounted to a small mention on CNN.

[plotthickens]

The people who make up the tea party movement are seen as a direct threat to the left because they represent something the left fears and hates--people with a long history of employment who have made their way through life without government handouts. The term teabagers was created by the liberal press as a deragatory lable in deference to the annoited one, Barrack Obama. The tea party movement is symptomatic of a serious breach of confidence among middle class Americans regarding the direction the current administration is trying to lead the citizens. It's existance and popularity have caused great consternation among liberals because it portends a wholesale rejection of the policies of the Obama administration.

>citations needed<

[Shauru]

The people who make up the tea party movement are seen as a direct threat to the left because they represent something the left fears and hates--people with a long history of employment who have made their way through life without government handouts. The term teabagers was created by the liberal press as a deragatory lable in deference to the annoited one, Barrack Obama. The tea party movement is symptomatic of a serious breach of confidence among middle class Americans regarding the direction the current administration is trying to lead the citizens. It's existance and popularity have caused great consternation among liberals because it portends a wholesale rejection of the policies of the Obama administration.

Again with you. Could you pull your head out of your ass and make a realistic statement instead of the same damned rhetoric.

I'm left leaning, I voted for Obama, I hate the teabaggers. Oh and guess what!? I have worked in the food service industry for 7 years. An actual job, serving actual people. And I'm not on government handouts or welfare.

Do some freaking research and realize the whole middle class confidence issue has a lot to do with both parties.

---------- Post added 02-04-2010 at 07:21 PM ----------

This President has shown time and time again that he doesn't care what the public wants or sees as priorities.

Just look at the Tea Party events. This is a huge group of people, all over the country. Yes, some are trying to organize this, will limited success, but President Obama and the White House either ignored these people or dismissed them as crazy right wingers.

What do these Tea Party People want? Fiscal responsibility, honesty in Washington, Washington not profiting personally while in office. That's it. Radical? Hardly.

Taxes
The president correctly pointed out that he signed a number of tax cuts for individuals and businesses as part of the stimulus package, and also said this:
Obama: And we haven’t raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.
That’s true, according to Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center. But it’s not the whole story. As Obama himself later said, tax increases are coming, at least for some:
Obama: To help working families, we’ll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can’t afford it.


That was an analysis from factcheck.org

Would you care to show us any proof that Obama is ignoring the middle class or causing tax problems that the teabaggers allege? The only tax raising he seems to be favoring is that of higher income individuals.

[dogwoodlover]

NEWSFLASH: you can't accomplish much of anything through ballots and protests.

When was the last time anyone was satisfied with a politician? Show me one, honest, hard-working politician who has been elected to office, kept their promises, and gone the extra mile to represent "the people"?

Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?

[herbicidal]

Ron Paul

[plotthickens]

Ron Paul

RP didn't go indie when he didn't get the repub ticket, and he's pro-life. :thumbsdown:

[LaoTzu]

Bernie Effin' Sanders (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


FTW!!!

[mmw]

Hmmmm seems that teabaggers are often referred to that way by your typical liberal. Tea party politics for the most part are similar to libertarian. Less power in the federal government, respect for state governments, individual liberties and an upoholding of the constitution.
As a libertarian I do not want to be associated in any way shape or form with these teabaggers. There may be vague libertarian insinuations, but at the core it's just a movement of ignorance founded upon fear and racism. If all these people are so concerned about the Constitution as they claim then where the hell were they when the Bush administration was trampling all over it?

[Causa Mortis]

This President has shown time and time again that he doesn't care what the public wants or sees as priorities.

Just look at the Tea Party events. This is a huge group of people, all over the country. Yes, some are trying to organize this, will limited success, but President Obama and the White House either ignored these people or dismissed them as crazy right wingers.

What do these Tea Party People want? Fiscal responsibility, honesty in Washington, Washington not profiting personally while in office. That's it. Radical? Hardly.

There are two reasons for this:
1. As a general rule, any organization that associates itself with oral pleasure can't be taken seriously.
2. The leading voice in the movement is Glenn Beck, who is a very average intellect, a Mormon convert, admits that he doesn't check facts, and is probably bipolor.

Beck's prominence among conservatives is reflective of the intellectual decline of the party since its moderate success in the early 1980s. The intellectual voice in the party has moved from Milton Friedman (highly intellectual and highly credible) to Gerald Ford (somewhat intellectual for a politician and highly credible) to Ronald Reagan (reasonable intellect, high credibility) to Rush Limbaugh (mediocre intellect, mid-low credibility) to George Bush Jr (not even remotely intellectual, basically zero credibility) to Glenn Beck (a raving idiot, admits he doesn't even bother to check facts, probably has a personality disorder).

Along the way, the party has gone from libertarian leaning to paternalistic leaning.

---------- Post added 02-04-2010 at 06:12 PM ----------

NEWSFLASH: you can't accomplish much of anything through ballots and protests.

When was the last time anyone was satisfied with a politician? Show me one, honest, hard-working politician who has been elected to office, kept their promises, and gone the extra mile to represent "the people"?

Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?

I would not raise serious objections to the 1993-2001 Clinton-Gingrich-Greenspan governments. They were responsible, responsive, had a high degree of public (if not personal, in the case of Clinton and Gingrich) integriy, and generally were as concerned with principles as with getting re-elected.

[void]

Fiscal responsibility, honesty in Washington, Washington not profiting personally while in office. That's it. Radical? Hardly.

Because as we all know, 2003-2008 was a golden era of fiscal responsibility and transparency. There was nothing expensive or fishy about the Iraq boondoggle whatsoever. Across the board tax cuts with increased Medicaid coverage? Brilliant idea! Public education is a money sink. So much so, that we increase the budget by 40% from 2001 to 2006. A simple Google search for "spending under George W. Bush" shows that the vast liberal conspiracy is strong at work. Unconstitutional NSA wiretapping was the smallest of issues. The PATRIOT act is good for the nation.

It's merely coincidence that the Teabaggers came out of the woodwork after Obama's first month in office. There is nothing partisan about it at all. The vast majority of protestors couldn't give you a satisfactory definition of socialism if their lives depended on it, but who cares? This is America. Reading is for faggots.

[SeaCzar]

NEWSFLASH: you can't accomplish much of anything through ballots and protests.

When was the last time anyone was satisfied with a politician? Show me one, honest, hard-working politician who has been elected to office, kept their promises, and gone the extra mile to represent "the people"?

Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?

Ronald Reagan. Cut taxes. Defeated communism. Got Americans back to work. I think many members here are too young (or not yet around) to remember how fucked-up this country was when we (overwhelmingly, twice) elected Reagan. Stagflation, interest rates through the roof, high unemployment, hostages in Iran. IMHO, things were a lot worse, at least in certain respects, then than now.

The problems we have now are no more intractable than those in the past. However, it does take leadership and compromise to tackle them. Scrap the current billion dollar boondoggle that passes for "Health Care Reform" (if for no other reason than we cannot currently afford it) and start from scratch (or better yet, throw it back to the states). Finish and win the war in Afghanistan, and get the fuck out (we are on our way out of that fiasco in Iraq). This alone will save hundreds of billions of dollars. Concentrate on getting the economy back on track and people to work so you can end entitlement programs that cost hundreds of billions of dollars more. End corporate welfare and make business pay their fair share. Tax those greedy bastards on Wall Street if they continue to be paid obscene amounts of money, yet come to the taxpayer trough when the shit hits the fan.

There is enough blame to go around politically. The problem is that its much easier to sling political mud than actually do something worthwhile. Politicians, in the White House, the Senate and the House need to wake the fuck up, on both sides of the fence.

The American electorate is impatient, fed-up and pissed off. Justifiably so.

[Shauru]

Ronald Reagan. Defeated communism.

Oh come on.

There is enough blame to go around politically. The problem is that its much easier to sling political mud than actually do something worthwhile. Politicians, in the White House, the Senate and the House need to wake the fuck up, on both sides of the fence.

The American electorate is impatient, fed-up and pissed off. Justifiably so.

And yet look who still has a job?

There's nothing that's going to happen any different then any other riled up group of morons. This will fade into the darkness and the American political pool will grow just a little more stagnant. Best we can hope for is a quick ending to this opium induced fantasy called America.

[Tristan]

Oh come on.

Reagan's presidency is an interesting read. But if you don't have the time, just remember a simple 2010 political joke that would have amused him (Reagan was known for telling jokes).There are two kinds of Americans. Those who remember what the Carter years were like, and those who are about to find out.

[Dodeca]

If 9/11 was an inside job I believe the Tea baggers were responsible for it. Bush and Dick Cheney represent that personality type Tea baggers embrace. A sick twisted notion that to help our country we must abuse it by fostering hate twords our fellow citizens. Giving anthrax to Saddam to kill the Kurds then saying how evil he is for using what we gave him. Believing that God gave them a mission to torture and kill.

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.” - Mahatma Gandhi

[Shauru]

No man is capable of defeating an idea. End of story.

[rwm4768]

I always find it amusing when people claim that no conservatives complained about spending during the Bush era. One of the so-called leaders of this movement, Glenn Beck, did.

Moreover, trying to say that Bush was a fiscal conservative is plain wrong. He engaged in deficit spending, which basically contradicts fiscal conservatism. He also began a lot of the government intervention in the economy when the recession began, which is a Keynesian policy by the way. Keynesian economic policy is most definitely not fiscal conservatism.

[INTJRyan]

I always find it amusing when people claim that no conservatives complained about spending during the Bush era. One of the so-called leaders of this movement, Glenn Beck, did.

Moreover, trying to say that Bush was a fiscal conservative is plain wrong. He engaged in deficit spending, which basically contradicts fiscal conservatism. He also began a lot of the government intervention in the economy when the recession began, which is a Keynesian policy by the way. Keynesian economic policy is most definitely not fiscal conservatism.

On September 22, 2008, speaking about the bailouts Glenn Beck said:

"The 'REAL STORY' is the $700 billion that you`re hearing about now is not only, I believe, necessary, it is also not nearly enough, and all of the weasels in Washington know it."

Hmmm. What could have happened shortly after that date to completely change his mind and reverse his position? Besides Glenn Beck has still failed to address the allegations that he raped and murdered a girl in 1990. I mean where there is smoke, there's fire, right Glenn?

[plotthickens]

So, wait, the teabaggers really don't have any constructive plans?

[altoid]

They're not taken seriously?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I can't imagine why...:rolleyes:

I know this probably just represents a few bad apples, but the fact that these people seemingly weren't bothered (or at least weren't bothered enough to organize significantly) by a lack of fiscal conservatism in Washington through Bush's reign (seriously, where were you people then?) but were marching boots to the street as soon as Obama took office under the guise of "concern for fiscal conservatism" (among other things) might indicate to the outside observer that this new-found "concern" it is largely just a guise. The few "teabaggers" (hehe) I know are absolutely racist twats. Not that they're necessarily a good representation of the movement at large - I understand it's "grass roots" (at least ostensibly) and so you're going to see people of all stripes turning up at these rallies. However, at the very least, giving the movement at large the benefit of the doubt as to their motives, they have a significant PR problem they really need to get under control if they want credibility.

They could also stand to actually come up with some productive alternative ideas for these things they protest so fervently.

[freeeekyyy]

Teabaggers? Seriously? You want people to actually listen to you when you use that loaded term?

---------- Post added 02-05-2010 at 01:54 PM ----------

On September 22, 2008, speaking about the bailouts Glenn Beck said:

"The 'REAL STORY' is the $700 billion that you`re hearing about now is not only, I believe, necessary, it is also not nearly enough, and all of the weasels in Washington know it."

Hmmm. What could have happened shortly after that date to completely change his mind and reverse his position? Besides Glenn Beck has still failed to address the allegations that he raped and murdered a girl in 1990. I mean where there is smoke, there's fire, right Glenn?
Glenn Beck is an idiot. I don't trust him one bit. The only conservative radio host worth anything is Michael Medved. He may be wrong on alot, but at least he's consistent.

[INTJRyan]

Nope. Not racist at all. Just hardworking "Real Americans" who want fiscal responsibility. And a white dude back in the white house. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

The Tea Party convention kicked off last night with an explosive speech from former Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, who lambasted "the cult of multiculturalism" in the U.S.

Tancredo, at right, also called President Obama a "socialist ideologue," who was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country," according to ABC News.

"People who could not spell the word vote or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House - name is Barack Hussein Obama," he said, Fox News reports.

[saberu]

Im so sorry to say that a lot of people on this forum open their mouths about something they know nothing about.

If you think the teabagger aren't justified then you really dont understand economics or politics. Obama, the second worst president ever, is casuing sever damage... Its not even up for debate. Do some research.

To say that the teabaggers aren't smart. C'mon. The democratic party was almost completely abandon in the late 1800's until they co-opted with the international mob.
Im no republican but I would burn in hell before I betrayed this country by becoming a democrat.

The teabaggers are being taken seriously. However the executive office is playing it smart by not directly confronting them. If they were to confront them it would unite their cause, so instead the discourage affiliation by calling them stupid, militant, racsists.

I know everyone here is well meaning but you are totally playing into the liberal media because you immeadiatley start grouping the teabaggers with the republican party and george bush. Mudslinging is a distraction. If obama had any class he would stop blaming stuff on other people.

No person alive could actually serve the office of president without being corrupted. The problem is the size of government not the policies. I support any effort to reduce the size of government and the teabaggers are completely in line with my sentiments. Every party has rascists. I would choose an honest rascist over anyone evil or stupid enough to align with the teaparty opposition.

Don't expect me to cite sources either. Any information that could help you get ahead in life other people keep secret. Do some damn research from a primary source. Im not a fvcking teacher.

[Shauru]

If you think the teabagger aren't justified then you really dont understand economics or politics. Obama, the second worst president ever, is casuing sever damage... Its not even up for debate. Do some research.

It is and you haven't provided evidence.


Don't expect me to cite sources either. Any information that could help you get ahead in life other people keep secret. Do some damn research from a primary source. Im not a fvcking teacher.

No. You are another fool making unsubstantiated claims. If you can't provide evidence, you're wasting time opening your mouth.

[Dodeca]

Im so sorry to say that a lot of people on this forum open their mouths about something they know nothing about.

You have defined America as it truly is.

If you think the teabagger aren't justified then you really dont understand economics or politics. Obama, the second worst president ever, is casuing sever damage... Its not even up for debate. Do some research.

Oh there justified in there ager but Who should they be agree at Obama is a puppet compared to whats happening in the federal reserve.

To say that the teabaggers aren't smart. C'mon. The democratic party was almost completely abandon in the late 1800's until they co-opted with the international mob.
Im no republican but I would burn in hell before I betrayed this country by becoming a democrat.

So your saying democrats are traitors to america. No. F_ck n' retarded Media corporation that keep us stupid are the traitors.

The teabaggers are being taken seriously. However the executive office is playing it smart by not directly confronting them. If they were to confront them it would unite their cause, so instead the discourage affiliation by calling them stupid, militant, racsists.

Lets hope the bankers stage another 9/11. They wont get away with it this time.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
- John F. Kennedy

I know everyone here is well meaning but you are totally playing into the liberal media because you immeadiatley start grouping the teabaggers with the republican party and george bush. Mudslinging is a distraction. If obama had any class he would stop blaming stuff on other people.

Are you saying Fox is liberal. All media is controlled by the 4 networks owned by the banks. But they are not liberal. There propaganda machines to make people do what the bank want.

No person alive could actually serve the office of president without being corrupted. The problem is the size of government not the policies. I support any effort to reduce the size of government and the teabaggers are completely in line with my sentiments. Every party has rascists. I would choose an honest rascist over anyone evil or stupid enough to align with the teaparty opposition.

Thats like saying a smaller cup of poison is better than a big cup. I don't want poison I want clean watter (good policies).

Don't expect me to cite sources either. Any information that could help you get ahead in life other people keep secret. Do some damn research from a primary source. Im not a fvcking teacher.

Like who, Glen Beck. He loves this country in the same way Bush tells the truth. (Bullshit).

[DavidHasselhoff]

This thread is plagued with erroneous information, and hypocritical mischaracterizations of a group of concerned citizens that are sick of our government. If they are not being taken seriously you tell me why their figurehead, Sarah Palin. will be receiving $100,000 per episode on her new show on Fox News.

[freeeekyyy]

This thread is plagued with erroneous information, and hypocritical mischaracterizations of a group of concerned citizens that are sick of our government. If they are not being taken seriously you tell me why their figurehead, Sarah Palin. will be receiving $100,000 per episode on her new show on Fox News.
Who says Sarah Palin is anybody's figurehead, except for a few clueless neocons?

[Aronnax]

This thread is plagued with erroneous information, and hypocritical mischaracterizations of a group of concerned citizens that are sick of our government. If they are not being taken seriously you tell me why their figurehead, Sarah Palin. will be receiving $100,000 per episode on her new show on Fox News.

Because enough people will sit though commercials to watch Sarah Palin talk for Rupert Murdoc to turn a profit.

[Lansing]

Regardless of what the Teabaggers say, all I hear when their lips are moving is,

"They took our jobs!!!" (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[zibber]

Just look at the Tea Party events. This is a huge group of people, all over the country. Yes, some are trying to organize this, will limited success, but President Obama and the White House either ignored these people or dismissed them as crazy right wingers.

It's not a spontaneous uprising. These are privately funded rallies.

When I helped organize the university occupation this week and we ended up filling the hall, that was grassroots. Tea Party events are Astroturf.

[IrishGuy]

Personally, I find it very difficult to take teabaggers seriously. The group's only real consensus seems to be that they don't like the government. Their screams for fiscal conservatism seem hollow to me at best. These strike me as the people who want fiscal conservatism until they realize that being fiscally responsible will mean that the government cuts programs and raises taxes because that is what must be done to get control of government and spending. The government needs to scale down to cut costs and it needs to increase revenue to generate surpluses to pay down the debt. Only after the debt has been paid off (or a significant portion has been paid off) can taxes be reduced and the size of government be kept the same (same reduced size).

I doubt many of these teabaggers will go for that. They'll scream for smaller government until they realize that they will lose services. Then they'll scream for smaller taxes and more services and thus more deficit spending (basically the Bush years).

As an aside: someone mentioned that Reagan defeated the communists. I very much doubt that. Assuming that communism is a fundamentally flawed political/economic model then communism will eventually defeat itself (which it did; the USSR economy collapsed due to mismanagement/corruption and the like). If we assume that communism had to be "defeated" in order to ensure its non-existence then that would be an acknowledgment that communism is a legitimate and sustainable political/economic model.

[DavidHasselhoff]

Personally, I find it very difficult to take teabaggers seriously. These strike me as the people who want fiscal conservatism until they realize that being fiscally responsible will mean that the government cuts programs and raises taxes because that is what must be done to get control of government and spending. The government needs to scale down to cut costs and it needs to increase revenue to generate surpluses to pay down the debt. Only after the debt has been paid off (or a significant portion has been paid off) can taxes be reduced and the size of government be kept the same (same reduced size).
.

Comments like there are best left unsaid. I'll just let you try this one again, before I point out all of the inaccuracies.

[plotthickens]

Mader, I've not found any instance of serious constructive plans from the Teabaggers -- please let me know if this is incorrect. Unless you have serious plans, you can't be expected to be taken seriously.

[freeeekyyy]

Personally, I find it very difficult to take teabaggers seriously. The group's only real consensus seems to be that they don't like the government. Their screams for fiscal conservatism seem hollow to me at best. These strike me as the people who want fiscal conservatism until they realize that being fiscally responsible will mean that the government cuts programs and raises taxes because that is what must be done to get control of government and spending. The government needs to scale down to cut costs and it needs to increase revenue to generate surpluses to pay down the debt. Only after the debt has been paid off (or a significant portion has been paid off) can taxes be reduced and the size of government be kept the same (same reduced size).

I doubt many of these teabaggers will go for that. They'll scream for smaller government until they realize that they will lose services. Then they'll scream for smaller taxes and more services and thus more deficit spending (basically the Bush years).

As an aside: someone mentioned that Reagan defeated the communists. I very much doubt that. Assuming that communism is a fundamentally flawed political/economic model then communism will eventually defeat itself (which it did; the USSR economy collapsed due to mismanagement/corruption and the like). If we assume that communism had to be "defeated" in order to ensure its non-existence then that would be an acknowledgment that communism is a legitimate and sustainable political/economic model.
Unfortunately, in many cases I think you're entirely right. But I wouldn't judge the entire movement that way, it's pretty big, and not all of them are that clueless.

[Pachystima]

There are times that I think the whole Tea Party/Tea-bagger phenomenon is a subtle leftist plot to make those on the far right look bad.

Let's try this as a scenario: a wealthy leftist decides that the credibility of those on the far right and the religious right needs to be undermined. Being a cagey character he realizes that a news release/editorial propaganda campaign is not likely to be cost effective so he needs another idea. "Zowie", he says, "let's make the far right look bad on prime time!"

Planning ensues. First, he decides to hold "Tea Parties" in reminiscence of The Boston Tea Party where "true patriots" did their thing. The ostensible purpose of these "Tea Parties" is to protest taxes. He then hires a small group of planners and coordinators sworn to secrecy. Next, the planners hire halls or some such meeting places and, they hire actors. Once the actors are on board and sworn to secrecy, they are coached in ways to appear convincingly on TV as semi-literate, thuggish, ignorant and intolerant. Once this is done, all is ready.

They announce the tax protest meeting and call the newsies, especially the TV types with cameras, and let them know about the upcoming event. They have someone make up a bunch of offensive signs with a lot of poor grammar and spelling. They hand out the signs. At the appointed time and place, the cameras and actors show up and proceed to do their thing. For an hour or so, everyone stands around yelling and ranting and fulminating about taxes and Obama and "keeping the gubiment hands off my medicare". With any luck, a lot of real folks like the actors are portraying also show up and swell the ranks; this is serendipity since these folks don't cost the planners anything. All of this gets on camera and on the national prime-time news with suitable inanities appended by the on-camera news staff and the world is suddenly aware, or reminded, that these people exist.

The impact of such deviousness is that middle-of-the-road folks like me watch or read about these gatherings and say to ourselves "you know, compared to these people, the left-threaded crowd doesn't look too bad. At least they know how to spell."

From my point of view, this could be a real propaganda coup for the left and one that, given it's impact, would be darn cheap.

[cannotseethe]

There are times that I think the whole Tea Party/Tea-bagger phenomenon is a subtle leftist plot to make those on the far right look bad.

Yes, because the left, which is not able to have its views expressed in Congress, is, behind the scenes, so überpowerful that they can organize a faux right-wing movement that gets backing and air time from Fox News.

[saberu]

Thats like saying a smaller cup of poison is better than a big cup. I don't want poison I want clean watter (good policies).


What if my idea of clean water is not the same as yours?



"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
- John F. Kennedy

Good Stuff... I am putting this on a t-shirt

[freeeekyyy]

Yes, because the left, which is not able to have its views expressed in Congress, is, behind the scenes, so überpowerful that they can organize a faux right-wing movement that gets backing and air time from Fox News.
Really? The left is unable to express their views in congress? Maybe you haven't noticed, but both the Senate and the House of Representatives are controlled by Democrats.

[cannotseethe]

Really? The left is unable to express their views in congress? Maybe you haven't noticed, but both the Senate and the House of Representatives are controlled by Democrats.

Democrats =/= the left. It's plain (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.(Glenn+Gree nwald)) that the left controls nothing, politically speaking; as Andrew Sullivan put it (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


If one had traveled to Mars and back this past year and read this statement [essentially, that the current administration is left], what would you assume had happened? I would assume that the banks had been nationalized, the stimulus was twice as large, that single-payer healthcare had been pushed through on narrow majority votes, that card-check had passed, that an immigration amnesty had been legislated, that prosecutions of Bush and Cheney for war crimes would be underway, that withdrawal from Afghanistan would be commencing, that no troops would be left in Iraq, that Larry Tribe was on the Supreme Court, that DADT and DOMA would be repealed, and so on.

I could add a half dozen other things to that list. Issues that people who really are on the left care about have not been heard, let alone turned into policy. This administration, and this Congress, are not left in any reasonable sense; to say otherwise is to misrepresent what that word means.

[saberu]

If one had traveled to Mars and back this past year and read this statement [essentially, that the current administration is left], what would you assume had happened? I would assume that the banks had been nationalized, the stimulus was twice as large, that single-payer healthcare had been pushed through on narrow majority votes, that card-check had passed, that an immigration amnesty had been legislated, that prosecutions of Bush and Cheney for war crimes would be underway, that withdrawal from Afghanistan would be commencing, that no troops would be left in Iraq, that Larry Tribe was on the Supreme Court, that DADT and DOMA would be repealed, and so on.

Sounds like a bad dream

[vampyroteuthis]

I would choose an honest rascist over anyone evil or stupid enough to align with the teaparty opposition.

Gosh, it must be nice walking around with all that privilege. If you're not personally targeted by racism, your 'choosing' it is an oxymoron.

[rwm4768]

On September 22, 2008, speaking about the bailouts Glenn Beck said:

"The 'REAL STORY' is the $700 billion that you`re hearing about now is not only, I believe, necessary, it is also not nearly enough, and all of the weasels in Washington know it."

Hmmm. What could have happened shortly after that date to completely change his mind and reverse his position? Besides Glenn Beck has still failed to address the allegations that he raped and murdered a girl in 1990. I mean where there is smoke, there's fire, right Glenn?

I really hope you are not being serious about that rape and murder thing because it never happened. If you were being serious, I suggest that you do a little research before stating it. This article seems to state clearly the background of the situation.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Regarding what he said about the bailouts, it wouldn't surprise me. Glenn Beck is not exactly the most consistent of commentators. While I do find him entertaining, I do not believe it is a good idea to trust what he says without researching it yourself.

I just remember that one of the few times I was watching him, he became very upset at somebody accusing him of not speaking out against the fiscal policies of the Bush Administration. He likely did at some point and then changed his mind and then changed it again (and maybe one more time for good measure).

[AaronSheffield]

Anyways, how can you take a group seriously when they don't even seem serious enough themselves. "I'm a teabagger!" Do you know how funny that sounds to a person that knows the slang term?

The Tea Party movement did not initiate that description. Certain members of the media, such as Keith Olbermann, initiated the use of the phrase "teabaggers" in an attempt to be "cute" while dismissing the movement. The first references to the movement as "teabaggers" all came from media sources, not from people within the Tea Party movement itself.

As far as the signs that others have mentioned comparing Obama to Hitler, the Joker, or using monkeys to caricature him, I agree that those are ridiculous and sure signs of ignorance on the part of the protester carrying them. Just as the signs that compared Bush to Hitler, a monkey, or referred to him as "King George" were sure signs of ignorance on the part of the persons carrying them.

[rwm4768]

The Tea Party movement did not initiate that description. Certain members of the media, such as Keith Olbermann, initiated the use of the phrase "teabaggers" in an attempt to be "cute" while dismissing the movement. The first references to the movement as "teabaggers" all came from media sources, not from people within the Tea Party movement itself.

As far as the signs that others have mentioned comparing Obama to Hitler, the Joker, or using monkeys to caricature him, I agree that those are ridiculous and sure signs of ignorance on the part of the protester carrying them. Just as the signs that compared Bush to Hitler, a monkey, or referred to him as "King George" were sure signs of ignorance on the part of the persons carrying them.

Before people start claiming that members of the media didn't originate the term, here's an article that illustrates just a few of the occurrences. (Note: you can skip past the part that discusses the meaning of teabagging as a sexual term-unless of course you don't know what it means).

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And yes, I know it's from Wikipedia, but that's why they have citations now.

[jhbowden79]

This President has shown time and time again that he doesn't care what the public wants or sees as priorities.We're not a direct democracy. To the victor belong the spoils! And I'm 180 degrees from where Obama is ideologically.

It is the public that is fickle, not our politicians. They want war after 911, but change their minds when things get rough. They want socialist hand-outs, but don't want to pay for it. Americans live in friggin Candyland. Peeps-- watch what you wish for, because you may very well get it!

[ya lyublyu tebya]

Apparently, there's now a tea party convention.

I make darn good Russian tea cakes, and I want so badly to show up there in my papahka ("Cossack hat") and mink coat with a huge plate of them and glasses of black tea with raspberry jam. See how long it takes for them to chase me out for being a terrorist commie. :devilish:

(Translation: I take them about as seriously as a stubbed toe.)

[dungeonguy88]

This President has shown time and time again that he doesn't care what the public wants or sees as priorities.

Just look at the Tea Party events. This is a huge group of people, all over the country. Yes, some are trying to organize this, will limited success, but President Obama and the White House either ignored these people or dismissed them as crazy right wingers.

What do these Tea Party People want? Fiscal responsibility, honesty in Washington, Washington not profiting personally while in office. That's it. Radical? Hardly.

Well most people wouldn't have a problem discussing those kind of ideas; what they claim to stand for is hardly radical, it's usually how they go about expressing those ideas, among others, that tends to bring about the negative perceptions about them. Not to mention, there are just some outright amusing thing that they end up saying/doing (Keep Government out of my medicare, being one of the more mild examples)

On a sidenote, I would have thought of a different title for the thread; upon first reading it I couldn't help but chuckle a bit. As if the very title itself answered any discussion that come after it.

[plotthickens]

"America is ready for another revolution and you are a part of this," Palin tells Tea Party. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

How seriously are we supposed to take people calling for an armed overthrow of the American Government?

[Cooper]

Maybe we, or more correctly, those in office, should take them seriously. At least serious enough to get off their butts and do what the voters want, instead of doing nothing because someone has their nose bent out of shape. I had an interesting conversation this evening with a friend about the "Teabaggers". Something that came up was that a lot of the people that make up this movement have never been involved with politics before now. Some of them have never voted, even. They talk about, as did Palin tonight, following the Constitution, but how many have read it and understand it? How many Americans have, no matter which party? Maybe we should take them seriously enough to watch them, at least for an increase in gun purchases.....

[DavidHasselhoff]

IF the Tea Party Is not being heard or taken seriously, can someone please tell me why Republicans just took Massachusetts or the two opens seats just prior. Obama is losing political influence and is doing ALL the wrong things with the little influence he does have. The Democratic party is on a slippery slope and for now we can all hope we get a Republican who can install a new day and hope for America, or maybe just CHANGE from our current direction. There are now those of you who will say that he got us out of a recession, but he is also the reason it is taking us so long. The American people have ended a tragic decade, an attack that made everyone feel less safe and the beginning of a war that has not gone as planned
.Now President Obama is attempting to take away our freedom, and our opportunity at prosperity. I want to make the most important decisions of my life: health, finances, and future. Unfortunately since President Obama wants to infringe his progressive democratic demise in the lifes of our future and that of our children's, I am losing my controls on each of those decisions just a little bit everyday. We cannot continue to borrow money and act as if that money is really creating or saving 2,000,000 jobs, when we are just taking away private jobs and creating public jobs. Look at what got us out of our last recession, cutting taxes.

[JustMel]

Who says Sarah Palin is anybody's figurehead, except for a few clueless neocons?


Did you not hear the way they applauded her tonight when asked about "President Palin"? She's being set up to run in 2012 and since the GOP doesn't want her the Tea people are all over her yet they're "not trying to divide the Republican Party".


On a more serious note; does anyone else realize that a good portion of what Obama is doing is criticized based upon his skin color not his policies or actions? If I hear one person say "that fucking nigger" one more time I think I'll pull my hair out. No one would be carrying signs equating him with slavery if he weren't half black either. I'm not a big political person but I do watch the debates, read the articles, watch what's happening enough to know that no person who was put in office with the country in the state that it's in now would be popular with the American people. Did I vote for Obama? No. Do I think he's going to be re-elected? Maybe. Do I think I'd want his job? Hell no. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback when you weren't even in the game. I believe his health care package was a joke and hope a bastardized version isn't put into place but I also think that Bush was an idiot who cost this country a lot of money and blood unnecessarily. Look at "No Child Left Behind" that's one of the biggest fucking jokes in the past decade.

[rwm4768]

You are spot on with No Child Left Behind. In fact, I would probably say it is my least favorite thing of everything Bush did. NCLB, by the way, is another example of a non-conservative Bush policy.

I also like to refer to it as "No Child Pushed Ahead" because you just weren't allowed to learn anything that wasn't on the standardized tests. In essence, it tried to make students into a bunch of test-taking automatons.

[Grimstad]

IF the Tea Party Is not being heard or taken seriously, can someone please tell me why Republicans just took Massachusetts or the two opens seats just prior. Obama is losing political influence and is doing ALL the wrong things with the little influence he does have. The Democratic party is on a slippery slope and for now we can all hope we get a Republican who can install a new day and hope for America, or maybe just CHANGE from our current direction. There are now those of you who will say that he got us out of a recession, but he is also the reason it is taking us so long. The American people have ended a tragic decade, an attack that made everyone feel less safe and the beginning of a war that has not gone as planned
.Now President Obama is attempting to take away our freedom, and our opportunity at prosperity. I want to make the most important decisions of my life: health, finances, and future. Unfortunately since President Obama wants to infringe his progressive democratic demise in the lifes of our future and that of our children's, I am losing my controls on each of those decisions just a little bit everyday. We cannot continue to borrow money and act as if that money is really creating or saving 2,000,000 jobs, when we are just taking away private jobs and creating public jobs. Look at what got us out of our last recession, cutting taxes.

Greetings David. I am not taking issue with you personally. I think you have most eloquently voiced exactly what the Tea Party has been yelling about. I’m just curious about a few things.

First, I do agree that he is pissing away what political capital he does have. He is spending way too much effort trying to be bipartisan. I say screw the pubs. They had their chance. Democrats are pussies. Unfortunately pubs are dicks and we all know how that fits together Of course I’m speaking of the politicians, not normal people like you and me.
We have spent 8 years digging the hole we are in. Do you really expect it to turn around in one year? I don’t. I’ll be glad if it happens before the end of his first term. Seriously.

Exactly what “freedoms” is Obama trying to take away? Have you been paying attention for the last 8 years? The only thing Obama has done is NOT undo what Bush did to our freedoms. Actually, every Republican administration for as long as I can remember. Don’t get me started on prohibition. Every Dem admin eases up a little but doesn’t do away with it (cowards), and every Pub admin cracks down cuz it makes them all feel warm and fuzzy (dicks).

Opportunity at prosperity? Again, this didn’t happen in the last year. Your children’s future is already spent. Your grandchildren’s future is already spent. Obama is working on your great grandchildren’s future. The big difference here is it’s actually in the budget and not some supplemental crap that makes his proposed budget look good.

Which recession? Personally I don’t pay too much attention. My recessions lasts a couple months out of every quarter. It’s the nature of my field. At the end of the quarter, companies want to burn their budget so more work is always coming. Though the last couple years have been kind of rough but it’s been bouncing back for a few months (things are looking up). It looks like the last recession is coming to an end. The one before that in the early 2000’s. Tax cut huh? You mean where they took less out of my check but I still owed it at the end of the year? Yea, his daddy pulled that one too if memory serves.

I understand that you perceive the world exactly as you describe. But understand that my world is just as real as yours.

Sure The Tea Partiers are a noisy bunch but in no way do they represent a majority. The majority of us are basically keeping our mouths shut. We only speak up when we really don’t like the way things are going. Like in the last Presidential election. I think the last candidate with margins like Obama was Reagan. It took 4 months after the last Prez election for the TP to become noticeable. 4 months. The tea party has been around for a long time. The only reason it’s become real noticeable lately is a large influx of disgruntled Republicans. Get another Pub in the White house and they will go back to obscurity.

[IrishGuy]

Comments like there are best left unsaid. I'll just let you try this one again, before I point out all of the inaccuracies.

Why don't you just go ahead and point out the "inaccuracies."

Unfortunately, in many cases I think you're entirely right. But I wouldn't judge the entire movement that way, it's pretty big, and not all of them are that clueless.

I don't doubt that there are principled voices in the movement. However, I think they are being drowned out by all of the angry and frustrated individuals who are making opinions out of emotion rather than logic and reason. The concept of "fiscal conservatism" is a good one, I think, but until the movement actually goes out and states how they are going to balance the budget I don't think they will be taken seriously. I say this because the Republicans preached fiscal conservatism for a long time, but eventually lost the will to make the tough decisions that are required to practice it; which is why I think the Democrats were able to regain power.

Teabaggers or tea party members are going to have to come out and say "this is the part of government we need and this is the part that we do not need" in order to have a chance of success. Even then it will be difficult to convince the general public since "wasteful spending" is in the eye of the beholder. Some think the military is over funded and over-extended while others view entitlements such as social security and government health programs (such as Medicaid) as wasteful. Thus, fiscal responsibility is good and all, but turning it into actual political power and elections is something else. Right now they have attention but very little political power.


IF the Tea Party Is not being heard or taken seriously, can someone please tell me why Republicans just took Massachusetts or the two opens seats just prior. Obama is losing political influence and is doing ALL the wrong things with the little influence he does have. The Democratic party is on a slippery slope and for now we can all hope we get a Republican who can install a new day and hope for America, or maybe just CHANGE from our current direction. There are now those of you who will say that he got us out of a recession, but he is also the reason it is taking us so long. The American people have ended a tragic decade, an attack that made everyone feel less safe and the beginning of a war that has not gone as planned
.Now President Obama is attempting to take away our freedom, and our opportunity at prosperity. I want to make the most important decisions of my life: health, finances, and future. Unfortunately since President Obama wants to infringe his progressive democratic demise in the lifes of our future and that of our children's, I am losing my controls on each of those decisions just a little bit everyday. We cannot continue to borrow money and act as if that money is really creating or saving 2,000,000 jobs, when we are just taking away private jobs and creating public jobs. Look at what got us out of our last recession, cutting taxes.

I don't think you can directly associate Republicans and tea party members. The tea party movement is larger than that. They are angry with the government not just Democrats. I'd also like to point out that the democratic candidate (I can't remember her name) was kind of like John Kerry; we're not entirely sure she has a pulse. So you can chalk-up that victory to Republican resurgence, or a really crappy Democratic candidate.

Tax cuts may alleviate a recession in the short term, but unless the government is scaled down with the tax cuts it is a zero-sum game. You just eliminate one recession in the present by setting your self up for an even bigger one in the future simply because governments cannot run up debt indefinitely. Thus, those tax cuts and the increased deficits that came with them did not really solve the problem, since taxes will have to be increased and the government scaled down to pay off the debt in the future. This is what economists mean when they say that "government debt strangles the private sector." It won't strangle the private sector today but it will in the future. Frankly, the future is near.

[zibber]

Democrats =/= the left. It's plain that the left controls nothing, politically speaking; as Andrew Sullivan put it

"If one had traveled to Mars and back this past year and read this statement [essentially, that the current administration is left], what would you assume had happened? I would assume that the banks had been nationalized, the stimulus was twice as large, that single-payer healthcare had been pushed through on narrow majority votes, that card-check had passed, that an immigration amnesty had been legislated, that prosecutions of Bush and Cheney for war crimes would be underway, that withdrawal from Afghanistan would be commencing, that no troops would be left in Iraq, that Larry Tribe was on the Supreme Court, that DADT and DOMA would be repealed, and so on."

I could add a half dozen other things to that list. Issues that people who really are on the left care about have not been heard, let alone turned into policy. This administration, and this Congress, are not left in any reasonable sense; to say otherwise is to misrepresent what that word means.

Thank you!

People keep yelling "leftist" and "socialist" in the context of "freedoms being taken away" and "big government". The actual left is only about "taking away" the freedom to exploit others for personal gain and only wants a "big government" in the sense that in a pure democracy (unlike this bourgeois parliamentary democracy), everyone is the government.

The actual left does exist, but is nowhere near the white house. It's funny how the "Tea Party" (blegh) uses revolutionary rhetoric, though.

[DavidHasselhoff]

Why don't you just go ahead and point out the "inaccuracies."

I don't think you can directly associate Republicans and tea party members. The tea party movement is larger than that. They are angry with the government not just Democrats. I'd also like to point out that the democratic candidate (I can't remember her name) was kind of like John Kerry; we're not entirely sure she has a pulse. So you can chalk-up that victory to Republican resurgence, or a really crappy Democratic candidate.

Tax cuts may alleviate a recession in the short term, but unless the government is scaled down with the tax cuts it is a zero-sum game. You just eliminate one recession in the present by setting your self up for an even bigger one in the future simply because governments cannot run up debt indefinitely. Thus, those tax cuts and the increased deficits that came with them did not really solve the problem, since taxes will have to be increased and the government scaled down to pay off the debt in the future. This is what economists mean when they say that "government debt strangles the private sector." It won't strangle the private sector today but it will in the future. Frankly, the future is near.

President Obama sure wasted a lot of political capital by campaigning hard for the democratic candidate and once again falling short. There is so much irony in that seat in the Senate, as Kennedy was a huge proponent of healthcare reform, and his seat ended up costing Obama his victory.

Apparently you have not noticed the growth of our government, and the HUGE deficits we are adding. We need to scale back the size of the government, accomplish a reasonable health care reform, and create jobs in the private sector without using the TARP money.

[Josephine1012]

Teabagger.... you know what the slang for that means? I did not learn of it until I was nearing the end of high school... it is amazing what other people know. Every-single-time I hear on the news about some teabagging event, I can't help but want to laugh.

Anyways, how can you take a group seriously when they don't even seem serious enough themselves. "I'm a teabagger!" Do you know how funny that sounds to a person that knows the slang term?

If these people are to be serious, they should of learned about the name they were going to cry about for their cause. It is great that it resembles what people would consider the Boston Tea Party, but times change. Terms change, you either learn it or use it in an unintended way.

Economist obliged actually To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence.

As an economic conservative, I take great offense at the way people present their point of view. Being racist and an asshole will hardly help you get your point across. It's like you can have a great point about fiscal responsibility and all but when you run around with ridiculous posters, you completely obscure it.

[Angel1]

Between 1787 and 1789, the United States underwent a second revolution. This revolution was neither armed nor violent. The appropriate way to alter the United States Articles of Confederation were not used to switch to the United States Constitution. This is therefore a revolution. Liberals need not be terribly concerned about calls for revolution; the same angry people who call for revolution are also rational and many of them know that there is a way for us to achieve our goals legally without concerning the federal government. This way is known as a Constitutional Convention which if applied for by two thirds of the states congress is obligated to give. No amendment has ever been proposed by constitutional convention because congress has ALWAYS caved to the mounting pressure when faced with the potential for a convention. Does the word revolution imply illegal activity? Yes, but then the whole point is that people are just that angry. The point is that people are angry enough to be contemplating illegal revolution.

[Josephine1012]

Between 1787 and 1789, the United States underwent a second revolution. This revolution was neither armed nor violent. The appropriate way to alter the United States Articles of Confederation were not used to switch to the United States Constitution. This is therefore a revolution. Liberals need not be terribly concerned about calls for revolution; the same angry people who call for revolution are also rational and many of them know that there is a way for us to achieve our goals legally without concerning the federal government. This way is known as a Constitutional Convention which if applied for by two thirds of the states congress is obligated to give. No amendment has ever been proposed by constitutional convention because congress has ALWAYS caved to the mounting pressure when faced with the potential for a convention. Does the word revolution imply illegal activity? Yes, but then the whole point is that people are just that angry. The point is that people are angry enough to be contemplating illegal revolution.

People are angry because the economy is collapsing and they are angry because they expect a huge expense as a result of ObamaCare (the current bill just gives more money to the insurance companies... Great!). These are valid concerns, but one has to wonder why people are expressing some racist bullshit instead.

Majority of the people are sheep and educate themselves by watching Glenn Beck and John Stewart (depending on which way you swing), not saying that Jon Stewart is nearly as bad as Glenn Beck but there is a common theme of twisting the truth while making politics more accessible to common Joe.

[nacht]

People are angry because the economy is collapsing


Amazing how they just suddenly started caring about this as opposed to when expenditures were through the roof for the previous eight years.


and they are angry because they expect a huge expense as a result of ObamaCare


The bills that according to the CBO lower the deficit?

On a side note, I'm always amazed that when Obama is criticized for not being more involved in the bill's creation, it is still being called "ObamaCare," how does that work out, exactly?


(the current bill just gives more money to the insurance companies... Great!).


Patently false (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).


These are valid concerns, but one has to wonder why people are expressing some racist bullshit instead.


Now we get to the meat of it. We can have a legitimate debate about healthcare, the economy, and a thousand other things. There are legitimate points and a legitimate discussion to be had, but the problem is that we can't clear the air of outright lies (e.g., "death panels"), talk of (armed) revolution, and what you aptly "racist bullshit."


Majority of the people are sheep and educate themselves by watching Glenn Beck and John Stewart (depending on which way you swing), not saying that Jon Stewart is nearly as bad as Glenn Beck but there is a common theme of twisting the truth while making politics more accessible to common Joe.

Even with the caveat, this is false equivalency. The difference is that the Daily Show, as John Stewart is the first to point out, is a show "followed by puppets making crank phone calls (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)." (No longer true, but the point remains).

Glen Beck's TV show is on Fox News, and was on CNN before that. If Glen Beck wants to move his show to Comedy Central, we can talk about saying how the shows are in some way equivalent in "twisting the truth while making politics more accessible." He can run it after the Colbert Report.

[LaoTzu]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The first national convention of the Tea Party movement drew around 600 people from all walks of life.

Workshops included "US Govt Bankruptcy - Facts for Citizens Who Don't Have Finance Degrees" and seminars such as "Comparisons between the current administration and the Marxist dictators of Latin America".

600 people... wow. That's funny... but not why I posted.

The first workshop is good. Americans need more of that, no matter their political stripe.
But the second seminar makes you out to be a bunch of r-tards.... Obama a Marxist Dictator.... come on god dammit... get a clue. THAT is precisely the kind of thing that gets you no respect. Regardless of if you really believe it (which if you do, there is no hope for you at all), that kind of shit is going to get people to write you off and ignore you so fast it'll make your head spin. Then you come here and whine of conspiracy...

Change from within

Most tea partiers say they do not want to form a new political party, but change politics from within the existing structure.

"The goal is to take over the carcass of the Republican party and reform it according to its original principles. They were good principles, ones we all believed in," says Dr Eichenbaum.

"The party left those behind and went off in the wrong direction. We're going to use the Republican party to take back control of Congress and re-establish the constitution as the law of the land."

This is a noble and GOOD thing for everyone. THIS is rational, normal, and necessary. I bid you good luck in your endeavors. I wouldn't sign up, but I wouldn't mind if you chose to.


If the TeaBaggers want to be taken seriously, they have to build from the ground up...and put a stop to anyone who deigns to become a figurehead of the movement. Otherwise, you are just a yin to the MoveOn.org yang; and nothing will be accomplished but the furthering of your own frustrations.

[IrishGuy]

President Obama sure wasted a lot of political capital by campaigning hard for the democratic candidate and once again falling short. There is so much irony in that seat in the Senate, as Kennedy was a huge proponent of healthcare reform, and his seat ended up costing Obama his victory.

Apparently you have not noticed the growth of our government, and the HUGE deficits we are adding. We need to scale back the size of the government, accomplish a reasonable health care reform, and create jobs in the private sector without using the TARP money.

This doesn't even address my statement. Once the incumbent is gone the incumbent advantage is gone. It's a free for all and a level playing field. It would only be ironic if Kennedy had lost the election, which he didn't; because he was dead. Kennedy's democratic replacement was damn near a corpse herself; to say Obama could save that even if he was still really popular is questionable. Also, local politics do not necessarily reflect national politics. People who would vote for Obama in a national election may not vote for him in a congressional election. Why not? Because the attractiveness of a candidate to a population is dependent on how well the candidate presents his or herself and how well their opponent presents his or herself.

Most of Obama's political capital has been lost through the squabbling regarding health care, congressional deadlock, and the end of the "honeymoon" period when the political hopes from every election (not just Obamas) meet reality. The Massachusetts election was just insult to injury, but not the primary cause of his reduction in popularity.

I have noticed the growth in government and I don't like it. Where did I say we need to grow the government? I said we need to scale back the government and raise taxes to pay off the national debt. The alternative to raising taxes is to inflate our way out of debt (value reduction) by printing money which is basically a flat tax on everyone. Either way the debt we already have needs to be addressed. Balancing the budget today is only a partial solution as it does not eliminate the debt already accumulated; we need to run surpluses or devalue our currency.

You want job creation but ignore the fact that the government has to pay off its debt somehow. Higher taxes will hurt job creation, but so will more debt accumulation (since it guarantees higher taxes/inflation in the future). You see there is no way out of it except to bite the bullet for 20 years.

My point is that you seem to want to spur job creation by cutting taxes. Bush did that and it didn't work. Why not? He didn't reduce the size of the government; he increased it and increased deficits and spending. So you want a smaller government? What exactly are you going to cut? Pick something. What you'll find is that what you want to cut is what the other side wants to keep and what you want to keep is what they want to cut. This is where voter frustration is coming into play, but it is also where the biggest challenge to the success of the tea party movement lies. The tea party must reconcile those differences in order to reduce the size of government. Can the tea party reconcile those differences? They have yet to prove it.

[zibber]

I'm kind of flattered that the word Marxist is used in a derogatory way by idiots; I think I'd start to worry if it wasn't.

[ya lyublyu tebya]

The first national convention of the Tea Party movement drew around 600 people from all walks of life.

Workshops included "US Govt Bankruptcy - Facts for Citizens Who Don't Have Finance Degrees" and seminars such as "Comparisons between the current administration and the Marxist dictators of Latin America".

600? I can make 600 tea cakes... I'm not entirely certain on the slang meaning of "teabagger," and I seriously, seriously do not want to know, but the image I get of the "tea parties" is a bunch of fat, white guys sitting on pink, plastic kiddie chairs around a plastic kiddie table with a lace tablecloth, sipping tea from flowery teacups and talking about how Obama is a big meanieface. (No offense to fat, white guys in general, of course.)

So, yes, once they stop with the racist signs and talk of revolutions and actually do something productive, rather than making big scenes at town hall meetings, people will stop thinking of them as something better suited for their little daughters' and nieces' playrooms (or sons' and nephews', if they like girly toys), or... whatever the slang meaning is. Do they even have one specific, common goal other than "Obama r bad" and "Get a Republican in office?"

[thod]

There is no such thing as a teabagger. It is an umbrella term for all numerous groups whose only area of commonality is their objection to the current administration. Since the current administration is considered left wing, by them, one could argue they are right wingers. They will get no where and achieve nothing because they have no homogeneity. They will schism into numerous sects each with its own agenda and policies. They cannot agree on any policies beyond that of opposition. You could not elect a teabag party because you need to know what they do believe in and what policies they propose rather than what they oppose.

[Angel1]

You could not elect a teabag party because you need to know what they do believe in and what policies they propose rather than what they oppose.
We can't elect someone without knowing what they are actually proposing? Should I take this proposition to a conclusion, then I would be forced to help remove (by legal challenge) Obama from the White House on the grounds that John McCain or someone else is our real president. Unfortunately for this country, you can elect someone without knowing what they really propose to do. More than half of the voters in 2008 elected Barrack Obama on one word, "Change." We didn't know what his policies really were; I rest my case.

[themuzicman]

1) The term 'teabaggers' was intended as a derogatory label, first used by the very liberal Gwen Ifill (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). But, for some reason, using a term that is sexually degrading to describe a large movement of people was let go with a single apology.

2) Some tea party attenders have adopted the title as a reminder of how the left can be as offensive as it wants (and many leftists continue to use the term, in spite of how offensive it is) and aren't held accountable by the leftist media.

3) No one has actually bothered to figure out what the tea party movement is about (as evidenced by this thread), and the leftist media have simply taken the most ignorant and inane elements they can find and attempted to paint the tea party movement with them. (No, I did not and do not attend tea party events, nor do I consider myself to be one of "them.")

If you want evidence:

If 9/11 was an inside job I believe the Tea baggers were responsible for it. Bush and Dick Cheney represent that personality type Tea baggers embrace. A sick twisted notion that to help our country we must abuse it by fostering hate twords our fellow citizens. Giving anthrax to Saddam to kill the Kurds then saying how evil he is for using what we gave him. Believing that God gave them a mission to torture and kill.

There it is.

1) Tea party attenders didn't like a lot of what Bush and Cheney did, either.
2) The tea party is about issues, not about hate. (OTOH, calling them teabaggers reveals hatred of them... which is quite ironic.)
3) Stating that GWBush gave anthrax to Saddam with the purpose of killing Kurds is ignorant on about 8 different levels.
4) The tea party attenders never endorsed torturing and killing people.

It is the ignorance of the left that is killing this nation. Maybe you all should try some of the "tolerance" and "understanding" you keep preaching.

[void]

We can't elect someone without knowing what they are actually proposing? Should I take this proposition to a conclusion, then I would be forced to help remove (by legal challenge) Obama from the White House on the grounds that John McCain or someone else is our real president. Unfortunately for this country, you can elect someone without knowing what they really propose to do. More than half of the voters in 2008 elected Barrack Obama on one word, "Change." We didn't know what his policies really were; I rest my case.

Citation needed. Sure, a number of people interviewed by the "liberal media" could spout nothing but Change, but it is debatable if these constituted the majority. Conversely, hordes of McCain/Palin supporters could spout nothing but "Mavrick!", "you betcha!" and "America fuck yeah!".

Obama's proposals were posted in excruciating detail on his campaign website throughout the campaign. So it's a bald faced lie to claim that the nation as a whole didn't know what his proposed policies were.

[plotthickens]

1) It is the ignorance of the left that is killing this nation. Maybe you all should try some of the "tolerance" and "understanding" you keep preaching.

This is neither a tolerant nor an understanding argument.

[nacht]

1) The term 'teabaggers' was intended as a derogatory label, first used by the very liberal Gwen Ifill (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). But, for some reason, using a term that is sexually degrading to describe a large movement of people was let go with a single apology.


It doesn't help that last year in April there was a movement to send tea bags in the mail to the white house. It also doesn't help that they started using "tea bag" as a verb (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).


2) Some tea party attenders have adopted the title as a reminder of how the left can be as offensive as it wants (and many leftists continue to use the term, in spite of how offensive it is) and aren't held accountable by the leftist media.


This implies a great deal more thought that likely went in to the process, considering how widespread the terminology became very quickly.


3) No one has actually bothered to figure out what the tea party movement is about (as evidenced by this thread), and the leftist media have simply taken the most ignorant and inane elements they can find and attempted to paint the tea party movement with them. (No, I did not and do not attend tea party events, nor do I consider myself to be one of "them.")


Whatever it was originally about--which is actually about a set of protests by Ron Paul supporters--it has been increasingly co-opted into something quite different. Even if this was merely a matter of media conflation, perceptions become reality and we end up with a large number of people joining for reasons other than the reasons it got started, or with only a vague understanding of what those principles might mean.

[Josephine1012]

Amazing how they just suddenly started caring about this as opposed to when expenditures were through the roof for the previous eight years.

That isn't the point. The issue is the disparity between reality and its perception. Bush got quite a bit of criticism in his time, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of money was spent during Mr. Obama's first year of presidency. Here are some figures


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



The bills that according to the CBO lower the deficit?

On a side note, I'm always amazed that when Obama is criticized for not being more involved in the bill's creation, it is still being called "ObamaCare," how does that work out, exactly?

What difference does it make what we call it? It is the bill that Mr. Obama sees as the corner stone of his time in the office and is fighting very intently on getting it past. I'm not the one for name calling. I'm just calling what it is commonly named in a lot of reputable sources (Economist, for example)


Patently false (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).


Sigh

FiveThirtyEight.com is a nonpartisan[1] polling aggregation website with a liberal-leaning blog created by Nate Silver. ref (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

A blog does not constitute a reputable source and I don't feel like wading through any article that has "batshit crazy" in its title. That is precisely the type of thing I try to avoid.

What I know of the bill is: It does little to regulate insurance companies, so don't expect any competition across the state lines. The insurance company lobbyists actually support it because it puts more money in their pocket since people who do not purchase health insurance will be fined. The public option that the administration was so fond of is not listed. Further more it increases number of people who will qualify for medicaid and medicare, which is hurting the people who are currently qualified to receive that aid. Since the money will have to be spread more thinly when the doctor rate already should have been raised 10 years ago (currently very few good doctors will accept patients with medicaid because the rates are so low)




Now we get to the meat of it. We can have a legitimate debate about healthcare, the economy, and a thousand other things. There are legitimate points and a legitimate discussion to be had, but the problem is that we can't clear the air of outright lies (e.g., "death panels"), talk of (armed) revolution, and what you aptly "racist bullshit."


Well, YOU can always try. That would be doing your part. Notice that your arguments are presented in a much more militant manner than mine. Starting with your opener about Bush being the problem, which has nothing to do with people being unhappy with the current administration. When you start exchanging punches expect to be in a fight.


Even with the caveat, this is false equivalency. The difference is that the Daily Show, as John Stewart is the first to point out, is a show "followed by puppets making crank phone calls (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)." (No longer true, but the point remains).

I'm not sure how, please clarify?


People watch Jon Stewart for political news whether its on comedy central or not. Whether that is his intention or not has no relevance to my point, since people are still doing that.


Glen Beck's TV show is on Fox News, and was on CNN before that. If Glen Beck wants to move his show to Comedy Central, we can talk about saying how the shows are in some way equivalent in "twisting the truth while making politics more accessible." He can run it after the Colbert Report.
I don't support Glenn Beck or fox news, so you're preaching to the choir. I don't think Glenn Beck needs to have a show anywhere, but if he must have one the most appropriate place place would be Comedy Central.

[themuzicman]

It doesn't help that last year in April there was a movement to send tea bags in the mail to the white house. It also doesn't help that they started using "tea bag" as a verb (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Do you even know why they sent tea bags to congress?

This implies a great deal more thought that likely went in to the process, considering how widespread the terminology became very quickly.

Not necessarily. Someone making the statement in written form in the right place after the fact would have had a similar effect.

Whatever it was originally about--which is actually about a set of protests by Ron Paul supporters--it has been increasingly co-opted into something quite different. Even if this was merely a matter of media conflation, perceptions become reality and we end up with a large number of people joining for reasons other than the reasons it got started, or with only a vague understanding of what those principles might mean.

Really? What has it been co-opted into? Why is it that you accept media conflation and perception? Where is the evidence that a large number of people joined for reasons other than the reasons it got started? A couple dozen signs out of a million people?

Seriously?

[nacht]

That isn't the point. The issue is the disparity between reality and its perception. Bush got quite a bit of criticism in his time, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of money was spent during Mr. Obama's first year of presidency. Here are some figures

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


That's a rather textbook example of how to lie with a graph. Note the word "average": It is comparing the first year of Obama's presidency to the average of 8 years for Bush and Clinton, 4 years for the previous Bush, 8 years for Reagan, etc.

Let's also note the trend. If we use this as our baseline for evaluating president's economic policies, then the best presidents were... Clinton, Johnson, and Kennedy. In that order. Following that it is Nixon, and then Carter. In fact, of the last ten presidents, the only democrat in the bottom half is... Obama. Who, as was mentioned, hasn't even completed a term with which to take an average, and inherited a substantially worse situation than any of the predecessors mentioned.

Now, one needs to understand the source of my criticism, rather than trying to twist it into merely a matter of rhetoric. "People are angry that the economy is collapsing" is a specious statement. The "economy was collapsing"--multiple times--under Bush. It also has had numerous other collapses (see also, stagflation) over the past 50 years. This is not news, nor is it particularly important to the point, which is why is this new. Ron Paul started this concept of a tea party 3 years ago with the abolishment of the federal reserve as a core issue, but suddenly people start signing on with Obama with concerns about health care reform--when proposals have decreased the deficit--rather than the federal reserve or the economy?

It illustrates how the "tea party movement" has become an umbrella group for people who don't like Obama, rather than people who have legitimate concerns about the economy.


What difference does it make what we call it? It is the bill that Mr. Obama sees as the corner stone of his time in the office and is fighting very intently on getting it past. I'm not the one for name calling. I'm just calling what it is commonly named in a lot of reputable sources (Economist, for example)


Blaming something on Obama and then criticizing him for not being involved in it is hypocritical. Health care reform is a key part of his agenda, the specifics of the bill are not and were not proposed by him. There is such a thing as separation of powers. Call it "DemocratCare," if you must, but ObamaCare is a clear misnomer.



Sigh

FiveThirtyEight.com is a nonpartisan[1] polling aggregation website with a liberal-leaning blog created by Nate Silver. ref (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

A blog does not constitute a reputable source and I don't feel like wading through any article that has "batshit crazy" in its title. That is precisely the type of thing I try to avoid.


I am well aware of the nature of 538. A logical fallacy is still a fallacy (see also, ad hominem circumstantial and associative fallacy). Do you have a criticism of the analysis, or merely the source? If you would prefer, I can point to the CBO's own analysis which indicated that the bill will lower the deficit (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), or the Kaiser Family Foundation's side-by-side comparison (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) of the bills, or the bill itself which even a basic and cursory reading of will indicate that it does far more than "just gives more money to the insurance companies," which you assert.

538's analysis incorporates these elements and includes its sources as well, and makes a good summary of "things that this does other than giving more money to insurance companies." Dismissing it based merely on the source is simply fallacious.


What I know of the bill is: It does little to regulate insurance companies, so don't expect any competition across the state lines.


False. It does quite a bit to regulate insurance companies in what they can and cannot use for setting premiums, along with several other areas (e.g., throw a dart at sections 2711--2714 of the senate bill, among others). The insurance industry is also already quite heavily regulated, so claims about how it "does little to regulate insurance companies" lack sufficient specificity to be meaningful.


The public option that the administration was so fond of is not listed.


Nor is it especially necessary for meaningful values of reform.


Well, YOU can always try. That would be doing your part. Notice that your arguments are presented in a much more militant manner than mine. Starting with your opener about Bush being the problem, which has nothing to do with people being unhappy with the current administration. When you start exchanging punches expect to be in a fight.


My argument has never been that "Bush [is] the problem," it is that people seem to be blaming Obama for problems that were prevalent under Bush, frequently even more so than under the current administration. Recently we had a wash of posters making claims about how their problem with Obama was that he "increased the debt limit to unprecedented levels that can never be paid off," when the increases were relatively small compared to the near doubling of the debt limit in the previous administration.

Point blame where it is due. We can fault Obama for many things, but it is inappropriate to blame him for not overturning 100 years worth of legislation around taxes in under a year. Tea Parties would better focus their efforts where they were originally focused--with the Ron Paul Revolution™--than trying to turn this into being about Obama or making him a symbol of the problem. Unfortunately, they have almost universally opted to go for the latter approach and have adopted individuals such as Palin as figureheads.



I'm not sure how, please clarify?

People watch Jon Stewart for political news whether its on comedy central or not. Whether that is his intention or not has no relevance to my point, since people are still doing that.


If you bill something as comedy and happen to base that comedy in reality, you aren't operating on the same tier as someone who bills their comments as fact.

It is like the difference between the Daily Show and Mad Money. If Stewart tells me the state of the economy is stable, it should not be viewed in the same light as if someone on CNBC--a news organization--who states explicitly "In this person we trust [on issues of money]" makes the same statement.

Similarly, if Jon Stewart twists or is unfair in his analysis of the news, so what? He's on Comedy Central, he makes no bones about how his show is a comedy show. He was the one who originally pointed out that his show was followed by Crank Yankers.

Can you really say the same about Glen Beck, who is on Fox News, was on CNN before that, and who's general ravings about doom and destruction are not meant to be taken as "funny" or in any way not "serious."


I don't support Glenn Beck or fox news, so you're preaching to the choir. I don't think Glenn Beck needs to have a show anywhere, but if he must have one the most appropriate place place would be Comedy Central.

Now this I agree with ^_^ If he wants a show on comedy central, then we can compare what he is doing to Jon Stewart. Until then, it is the difference between Eddie Izzard making errant comments about theology and Dawkins making errant comments about theology.

[Josephine1012]

That's a rather textbook example of how to lie with a graph. Note the word "average": It is comparing the first year of Obama's presidency to the average of 8 years for Bush and Clinton, 4 years for the previous Bush, 8 years for Reagan, etc.

Let's also note the trend. If we use this as our baseline for evaluating president's economic policies, then the best presidents were... Clinton, Johnson, and Kennedy. In that order. Following that it is Nixon, and then Carter. In fact, of the last ten presidents, the only democrat in the bottom half is... Obama. Who, as was mentioned, hasn't even completed a term with which to take an average, and inherited a substantially worse situation than any of the predecessors mentioned.

Now, one needs to understand the source of my criticism, rather than trying to twist it into merely a matter of rhetoric. "People are angry that the economy is collapsing" is a specious statement. The "economy was collapsing"--multiple times--under Bush. It also has had numerous other collapses (see also, stagflation) over the past 50 years. This is not news, nor is it particularly important to the point, which is why is this new. Ron Paul started this concept of a tea party 3 years ago with the abolishment of the federal reserve as a core issue, but suddenly people start signing on with Obama with concerns about health care reform--when proposals have decreased the deficit--rather than the federal reserve or the economy?

It illustrates how the "tea party movement" has become an umbrella group for people who don't like Obama, rather than people who have legitimate concerns about the economy.



I think you're misunderstanding my point and my intentions. You're swayed by the fact that I consider myself an economic conservative/moderate. That does not mean that I'm interested in assigning blame along the party lines. My goal is to understand where the situation originated from. I will not run around saying every republican was an awesome president and every democrat was a bad president based on party lines or something equally stupid. So bringing in all that makes no difference to the current argument since I have no intention to prove anything using party lines.

People are upset - that's a fact, otherwise they wouldn't be protesting.

You can say people were upset about the war during the last administration - that is also a fact, but does nothing for the current discussion.

Obama has spent a lot of money (take it for what it is), I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it goes a long way to explain why people are upset (see point one).

Do people have the right to be upset? Well, hard to tell since we can't possibly have all the information that the white house has, but... If you're a conservative when it comes to the size of the government and taxes, high spending probably won't make you all hot and bothered. The point I'm trying to make is rather than highlighting the actual issue, people jump into name calling and worry about whether or not Obama took his shoes off when visiting a mosque. To me that is the silliest way to go about the issue.



Blaming something on Obama and then criticizing him for not being involved in it is hypocritical. Health care reform is a key part of his agenda, the specifics of the bill are not and were not proposed by him. There is such a thing as separation of powers. Call it "DemocratCare," if you must, but ObamaCare is a clear misnomer.


I'm not sure where in my post you saw me criticize Obama for not being involved with the bill etc, etc. Those are not my words, you're drawing assumptions about my views based on your prejudices.


I am well aware of the nature of 538. A logical fallacy is still a fallacy (see also, ad hominem circumstantial and associative fallacy). Do you have a criticism of the analysis, or merely the source? If you would prefer, I can point to the CBO's own analysis which indicated that the bill will lower the deficit (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), or the Kaiser Family Foundation's [url=To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.]side-by-side comparison[/i] of the bills, or the bill itself which even a basic and cursory reading of will indicate that it does far more than "just gives more money to the insurance companies," which you assert.

538's analysis incorporates these elements and includes its sources as well, and makes a good summary of "things that this does other than giving more money to insurance companies." Dismissing it based merely on the source is simply fallacious.

I'm dismissing it based on the title, which to me implies that the source is biased, any reputable source does not have to use such "catchy" adjectives in the title in order to get attention. I limit my reading to Economist, and occasionally WSJ. I stay away from blogs, because I don't have time to triple check the data that they give and look for fallacies. Also, I'm pretty green when it comes to Econ and I don't feel like I can always catch bullshit unless I stick with well known and reputable sources. I want facts and I don't want opinions drawn on facts that are twisted just enough to make the opinion seem valid.

I'm sure you can judge my argument based on me admitting that I lack experience, but I will not claim false competence just to win an internet debate.


False. It does quite a bit to regulate insurance companies in what they can and cannot use for setting premiums, along with several other areas (e.g., throw a dart at sections 2711--2714 of the senate bill, among others). The insurance industry is also already quite heavily regulated, so claims about how it "does little to regulate insurance companies" lack sufficient specificity to be meaningful.

The main issue with insurance companies, they dictate the amount of time a person can spend with the doctor. They never pay the rate they are actually charged, which forces medical staff to charge insurance companies outrageous rates to get at least some money from them. As a result a person who does not have insurance, or has a high deductible is charged those same rates (otherwise it's insurance fraud). Case in point my dinky knee brace which looks like it should cost $300 tops, was charged to my insurance company at $600 the insurance company paid $240. Guess how much it would have cost me if I had to pay it out of pocket? These things are not taken care of. Its true, as part of the bill insurance companies can not discriminate based on existing conditions, or drop a person based on that.. That is indeed a step in the right direction, but the money they lose on that they make on the forced insurance for everyone else.

I'm all for everyone having insurance, but what they really need to do is stop catering to the lobbyists and allow for competition between state lines. This was not done, not because it's a bad idea but because of the special interests groups.


My argument has never been that "Bush [is] the problem," it is that people seem to be blaming Obama for problems that were prevalent under Bush, frequently even more so than under the current administration. Recently we had a wash of posters making claims about how their problem with Obama was that he "increased the debt limit to unprecedented levels that can never be paid off," when the increases were relatively small compared to the near doubling of the debt limit in the previous administration.

Point blame where it is due. We can fault Obama for many things, but it is inappropriate to blame him for not overturning 100 years worth of legislation around taxes in under a year. Tea Parties would better focus their efforts where they were originally focused--with the Ron Paul Revolution™--than trying to turn this into being about Obama or making him a symbol of the problem. Unfortunately, they have almost universally opted to go for the latter approach and have adopted individuals such as Palin as figureheads.


Whether it's appropriate or not, that is his cross to bear. I don't support that, but I'm merely saying that's the place where he find himself at the moment. Fair or not is inconsequential. It's like if you end up in a deep hole because someone pushed you there. Yeah, it isn't fair that you got pushed, but you're still in a hole and you need figure a way out.




If you bill something as comedy and happen to base that comedy in reality, you aren't operating on the same tier as someone who bills their comments as fact.

It is like the difference between the Daily Show and Mad Money. If Stewart tells me the state of the economy is stable, it should not be viewed in the same light as if someone on CNBC--a news organization--who states explicitly "In this person we trust [on issues of money]" makes the same statement.

Similarly, if Jon Stewart twists or is unfair in his analysis of the news, so what? He's on Comedy Central, he makes no bones about how his show is a comedy show. He was the one who originally pointed out that his show was followed by Crank Yankers.

Can you really say the same about Glen Beck, who is on Fox News, was on CNN before that, and who's general ravings about doom and destruction are not meant to be taken as "funny" or in any way not "serious."



I guess what I'm trying to say is, his intentions are not important. People are too lazy to do their own research and they turn to the most accessible things. Comedy is accessible to most and does not require a Ph. D. I find that a lot of more liberal people use Jon Stewart (I'm picking on Jon Stewart because I really don't watch enough tv to know others) as their source, and the same type of conservative people rely on Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (both of these guys are enough of an eye sore that you can't ignore them either).

I don't like Jon Stewart, but not as strongly as I dislike Glenn Beck. I do find that both are smart enough to know that they can easily manipulate the masses. I do agree that Jon Stewart being on Comedy Central alleviates him personally of that responsibility, but it doesn't change the fact that most of the people in our nation are educated by similar types of shows which makes them think that everything is black and white and does not encourage them to do their research.

The above paragraph is my personal opinion and I don't claim it to be a proven fact, but it sure seems about right.

[Snowdragon]

Many of them are crazy right wingers, and they are rightly dismissed. And it isn't even necessarily because it is a conservative movement. It is an ignorant conservative movement. The arguments of the entire Tea Party have been dominated by hyperbole, fallacious appeals to emotion, straw men, false accusations, conspiracy theories, ad hominem attacks, blind emotionalism, a gross misunderstanding of history or basic political/economic concepts, and a dearth of actual, specific policy suggestions. The movement, as a whole, has repeatedly proven how uninformed it truly is (which they to frame in vageuly populist terms like "common sense approaches" and anti-elitism.) Where are the actual economic and political justifications for their arguements? Not to mention the fact that there are actual radical, fascist minorities within the movement (racists, neo-Nazis, violent militarists.)

They have compared Obama to Hitler, Stalin, the Joker. Blatantly racist rhetoric is very present. Many of them don't even believe that Obama is a citizen of the United States and that he should be impeached, after a single year in office.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Gee, wonder why they're not taken seriously. I liked it better when they would wave their gory signs with the words "SAVE THE BABIES" printed on the bottom.

[Causa Mortis]

No one has any response to my claim that the party has been on a steady decline in terms of its credibility and intellectual rigor? That the party's ascension began in the 1970s with Milton Friedman (Nobel prize winner, revolutionary ideas in economics, significantly contributions to epistemology, etc) as its intellectual helmsman, and that its been on a slow, steady decline in terms of rigor and credibility since then, to the point where its intellectual leadership today resides with druthering idiots like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck? That the party has moved from leaning towards classical liberalism to leaning (rather heavily) towards paternalism?

I can't believe no one wants to take issue with this.

[IrishGuy]

No one has any response to my claim that the party has been on a steady decline in terms of its credibility and intellectual rigor? That the party's ascension began in the 1970s with Milton Friedman (Nobel prize winner, revolutionary ideas in economics, significantly contributions to epistemology, etc) as its intellectual helmsman, and that its been on a slow, steady decline in terms of rigor and credibility since then, to the point where its intellectual leadership today resides with druthering idiots like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck? That the party has moved from leaning towards classical liberalism to leaning (rather heavily) towards paternalism?

I can't believe no one wants to take issue with this.

I agree that the intellectual segment of the Republican party (in particular) has been decimated over the last 20 years. The cause of this is the "moral majority." Once the Republicans began to pick up the ideology of the moral majority during the Reagan years I think the Republican party developed a lesser interest in economic affairs and a greater interest in social issues such as religion, abortion, anti-homosexual policies, and abstinence only sex education. Thus, the party of Business and Economics became the party of Religion and Big Business. Anyone who fit the economic principles but didn't stand up to the religious scrutiny was driven out or given less attention.

They drove me out......

[Pachystima]

I agree that the intellectual segment of the Republican party (in particular) has been decimated over the last 20 years. The cause of this is the "moral majority." Once the Republicans began to pick up the ideology of the moral majority during the Reagan years I think the Republican party developed a lesser interest in economic affairs and a greater interest in social issues such as religion, abortion, anti-homosexual policies, and abstinence only sex education. Thus, the party of Business and Economics became the party of Religion and Big Business. Anyone who fit the economic principles but didn't stand up to the religious scrutiny was driven out or given less attention.

They drove me out......

From where I stand, about the only intellectual or philosophical activity I see from the Republicans is their efforts to justify greed, selfishness and punishment as moral behavior. I say this as a person with generally conservative leanings and feel that there is no place in the Republican Party for a true conservative at present. It seems to me that the Republican Party is presently more of a life support system for corporate America than it is a political party.

[plotthickens]

... a greater interest in social issues such as religion, abortion, anti-homosexual policies, and abstinence only sex education. Thus, the party of Business and Economics became the party of Religion and Big Business.

And guns. Prurience and violence. They're separating those who still believe in parties into those who ponder and pander and those desiring instant gratification.

Yeay Indies!

[Jason]

There's too much going on in this thread for me to make a comment that somehow encapsulates everything without leaving me exposed to accusations that I didn't address one thing or another. But that's all right, because my main purpose simply is to declare my support for the Tea Party movement's general sentiments, which center on fiscal responsibility, limited government, and reverence for the U.S. Constitution.

Folks on both sides of the traditional ideological spectrum criticize the movement for lacking centralization and a discernible leadership structure, but it's not clear to me that these features would necessarily achieve the goals that Tea Party activists are pursuing. Indeed, most of the more prominent members (excluding careerist tag-alongs who try to use the movement for their own interests) are middle-American nobodies who would prefer to live their lives out of the spotlight. If anything, the decentralized nature of the Tea Party movement and its numerous, regionally-differentiated groups highlight the importance and relevance of America's original form of government, which is republican federalism. It's why, I think, someone like Scott Brown can receive Tea Party support in Massachusetts, while a more socially conservative candidate will be equally supported by the same general movement in, say, Wyoming or Texas. So long as Scott Brown remains faithful to limited government, his more liberal opinions on social issues are of little concern to residents in red states.

That's simply been my observation of the Tea Party movement. Sure, there are fringe activists that are always ripe for cherry-picking by news media, but you'll find versions of them in every group, regardless of ideology. I think an honest assessment will reveal that this movement is composed largely of honest, hardworking Americans of the old don't-tread-on-me variety. Some are well-read, others not so; but I've never been one to worship at the feet of the credentialed. I listen to folks like my parents, who may not be able to articulate their preference for limited government in the same lucid manner as Madison or Jefferson, but their spiritedness is well-directed and I find that comforting.

[eagleseven]

They aren't taken seriously?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Then how'd this guy wind up as Edward Kennedy's replacement?

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 07:53 PM ----------

No one has any response to my claim that the party has been on a steady decline in terms of its credibility and intellectual rigor? That the party's ascension began in the 1970s with Milton Friedman (Nobel prize winner, revolutionary ideas in economics, significantly contributions to epistemology, etc) as its intellectual helmsman, and that its been on a slow, steady decline in terms of rigor and credibility since then, to the point where its intellectual leadership today resides with druthering idiots like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck? That the party has moved from leaning towards classical liberalism to leaning (rather heavily) towards paternalism?

I can't believe no one wants to take issue with this.
Because it's largely true. I'd also argue that the Democratic Party has been hijacked by a group of leftists who pretend that economics hasn't progressed since 1940, but that's another thread.

Luckily for us non-leftists, Obama is too incompetent to pass any of his serious initiatives.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 08:25 PM ----------

Do they even have one specific, common goal other than "Obama r bad" and "Get a Republican in office?"
It worked for the hope and change crowd...though now hope and change isn't working so well for them.

[Causa Mortis]

Heritage is *NOT* a reputable source. Its Fox news with circular citations.

[eagleseven]

Heritage is *NOT* a reputable source. Its Fox news with circular citations.
How about the Congressional Budget Office (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Tack that onto the $12.3 trillion we already owe...

[Tristan]

So leaving the messenger aside, do you guys disagree with the message? Are the teabaggers wrong? Is government spending fully under-control and appropriate for this country's needs?

[plotthickens]

So leaving the messenger aside, do you guys disagree with the message? Are the teabaggers wrong? Is government spending fully under-control and appropriate for this country's needs?

In such important matters, it's not enough to just point and say "that's not good!". One must have answers as well. The TBs don't have any answers that I've seen. It's not problem solving, it's pointing out that the king is naked (no, really? wow) and then patting one's self on the back for the amazingly good work.

Lots of people are complaining. I will back the first folks who come up with solutions.

[INTJRyan]

In such important matters, it's not enough to just point and say "that's not good!". One must have answers as well. The TBs don't have any answers that I've seen. It's not problem solving, it's pointing out that the king is naked (no, really? wow) and then patting one's self on the back for the amazingly good work.

Lots of people are complaining. I will back the first folks who come up with solutions.

Republicans are full of solutions. Especially on health care. For example:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes. That is real. I mean who wouldn't be behind such a well thought out plan.

[LaoTzu]

That's a really interesting graphic.... but it doesn't tell the whole story. (But then what 'fact' from the GOP really tells the whole story anyway....)

Get it from the horse's mouth...
Those estimates are not intended to be a prediction of actual budget outcomes; rather, they indicate what CBO estimates would occur if current laws and policies remained in place. Toward that end, CBO’s projections presume no changes in current tax laws or spending programs.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lucid]

So leaving the messenger aside, do you guys disagree with the message? Are the teabaggers wrong? Is government spending fully under-control and appropriate for this country's needs?

No, there are certainly aspects of their message that I agree with. However, the fact that they didn't come out when Bush cut taxes on the rich and put us $1 trillion back in debt, or when the war in Iraq deepened that debt further, makes me skeptical of their message. Where was their outrage when Haliburton won that no-bid contract and then electrocuted soldiers with shoddy work? And where were they during Regan's Star Wars program? If they're worried about government takeovers why doesn't the illegal wiretapping started by Bush and continued by Obama seem to bother them?

These things makes me think that their problems are less about the federal deficit or about responsible government spending and more with the specific type of spending and, even more than that, with who is currently in the white house.

I disagree with right-wingers strongly on social matters, but the only problem I really have with them on financial matters is the fact that they appear to be wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate interests. For that matter, so are most left wing politicians as well.
And they appear to be interested in providing for other countries what they deem to be "socialism" or "communism" when applied here at home. I'd rather my tax money be spent in a way that benefits me.

I think the Tea Baggers fear and loathing is misplaced. The problem, in my opinion, isn't that we're being taxed at all, it's that such a large portion of our taxes appear to be going to programs that don't actually help most Americans. Medicare and SSI are really the only exceptions that make a dent in the budget and they don't help anyone under 65.

I think if the Tea Baggers become better informed the moderate ones might be useful allies in taking the US government back from corporate interests, which is what I think is the major problem with it. All this talk of Hitler and socialism is just so much smoke and mirrors. Most of the Tea Baggers, it seems, don't understand what they're against and appear to be focused mostly on issues of race and religion.

It'd be nice to see the original Tea Party take its movement back. Or start a new one.

[Hamburglar]

It is ironic to me that boomers compose the largest share of tea-baggers. They grew up in one of the largest periods of government expansion (which was paid for by their parents) only to turn to their progeny and say, "Nah, we 'aint gonna pay for it". This is exactly what happened with the Reagan Revolution. He convinced many centrist Americans that "Government Was the PROBLEM" and cut taxes to show them how much more "free" they could be w/some more change jingling in their pocket. Well, here we are 30 years later, living in the euphoria of luxury with our low rates of taxation. Yet, when the economy has failed, what do we have to show for it??? A mountain of debt and tremendous demand for the social programs that were bemoaned by the very people who now utilize them. God Bless America.

[AnnoyingPony]

The Teabaggers, from what I've heard, are supported by Sarah Palin, which kind of ruins their chances of ever being taken seriously, ever. Having Sarah Palin in your political party is kind of like Hannibal Lecter showing up at your gourmet cooking class. It just totally ruins how other people perceive it.

[xanodel]

I do agree with Lucid on her points.

Personally, I do take teabaggers seriously. Why? Because some aspect of them really reminds me of the buildup to the French revolution in the 1700's. If you give them enough leadership, they might just start...lopping heads off.

[Night Runner]

I do agree with Lucid on her points.

Personally, I do take teabaggers seriously. Why? Because some aspect of them really reminds me of the buildup to the French revolution in the 1700's. If you give them enough leadership, they might just start...lopping heads off.
Nah, there aren't nearly enough of them. That, and we still have the middle class - it tends to be a great buffer against little things like revolutions. Teabaggers just get a disproportionate amount of attention and media coverage, that's all.

[Lucid]

Teabaggers just get a disproportionate amount of attention and media coverage, that's all.

Mostly because of their ridiculous signs.

[Night Runner]

I'd say it's mostly because their views seem to coincide with the agenda pushed by the FOX news. (Coincidence, I'm sure.) Ergo the coverage.

[Paul Siraisi]

Tea Partiers may not be taken seriously now--and yes they're full of ignoramouses.

But what other game is there in town?

What if more Libertarians and Independents started aligning with that 'I don't care, I'm sick of this' attitude that gets TPs in the news? May be American politics would finally evolve a little...first time since Lincoln.

[Synchronicity]

What if more Libertarians and Independents started aligning with that 'I don't care, I'm sick of this' attitude that gets TPs in the news? May be American politics would finally evolve a little...first time since Lincoln.

I think we've all pretty much got that attitude... but nobody knows it because we don't bother to make it known. Who would listen? I mean, it's not like we've got a party to represent us. A real party, I mean.

[Lucid]

I think we've all pretty much got that attitude... but nobody knows it because we don't bother to make it known. Who would listen? I mean, it's not like we've got a party to represent us. A real party, I mean.

I don't think anyone in the middle or working classes has a party to represent them. Whatever their views.

[sunlover]

This President has shown time and time again that he doesn't care what the public wants or sees as priorities.

Just look at the Tea Party events. This is a huge group of people, all over the country. Yes, some are trying to organize this, will limited success, but President Obama and the White House either ignored these people or dismissed them as crazy right wingers.

What do these Tea Party People want? Fiscal responsibility, honesty in Washington, Washington not profiting personally while in office. That's it. Radical? Hardly.

When you're an "elitist" you don't normally concern yourself with the views of the "common" person. He's closer to an impeachment than re-election.

[Holiman]

Politics is about money, pure and simple. The tea baggers or libertatrians might be a strong movement but they dont have enough money behind them to get even a Senator elected at the present time. Those whom think that any election results can be linked to this grass level movement is fooling themselves.

The republicans are still leaderless and directionless with any concept other than obstructionism that tactic doesnt seem to be working against them at this time however. There are only 2 true choices in politics today to make real change would require something other than a movement of the masses, it would require money.

The supreme court has now made it easier for big business and unions to better buy elections placing another nail in the coffin that is our representative goverment. However either R or D will be decided by economic conditions more than any other single factor.

[Night Runner]

When you're an "elitist" you don't normally concern yourself with the views of the "common" person. He's closer to an impeachment than re-election.
Which part of growing up in a single-parent family and then succeeding against all odds is elitist?
What would be the official reason for the impeachment? He broke no laws. If his predecessor managed to not get impeached, Obama is safe.

[wongfoo]

At the moment I believe very few people are unhappy with Obama, and the ones that are are being more outspoken than ever about it.

As a libertarian I understand the anger regarding Obama and his political choices thus far, however, I believe that we as the American people need to take more responsibility regarding the country's current state.

[LaoTzu]

.... we still have the middle class - it tends to be a great buffer against little things like revolutions.

The middle class is bearing a lot of the burden... what with the wealth gap widening, and seemingly no social responsibility being shown from the upper class.
There are slight warning bells re: revolution; but I agree that it's far from being realized.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Inequality in America has reached historical highs. Throughout human history, this level of disparity has proven intolerable, almost always leading to political upheaval. Though many believe that America will never face a second revolution, that our politics are stable, in It Could Happen Here, Yale School of Management senior faculty fellow Bruce Judson makes the case that revolution is a real possibility here, driven by a thirty-year, unprecedented rise of inequality through six presidencies, three Fed chairmen, three recessions, and many years of expansion.

The last time inequality rivaled current levels was in 1928, just before the Crash and the Great Depression. Today we are in worse shape, divided into a tiny plutocracy of super-rich, on the one hand, and a fragile, indebted, unprotected "former middle class" on the other. As Judson shows, revolutions can occur suddenly, as happened with the Soviet Union's 1991 dissolution, and America today exhibits the central precursors to a collapse—extreme economic inequality and an increasingly impoverished middle class. He makes the most disturbing case yet for why our economics are leading us inevitably toward a devastating crisis. When Franklin Roosevelt faced a similar situation, he was saved by World War II. This time, the conflict may be at home, not abroad.

[eagleseven]

At the moment I believe very few people are unhappy with Obama, and the ones that are are being more outspoken than ever about it.
55% of voters disapprove of Obama's performance, while 43% approve.

Ignoring the leaners, 43% strongly disapprove, while only 22% strongly approve.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

For comparison, Bush's approval didn't fall below 43% until 2006.

---------- Post added 02-28-2010 at 01:09 AM ----------

What would be the official reason for the impeachment? He broke no laws. If his predecessor managed to not get impeached, Obama is safe.
Obama's breaking the same constitutional limitations that his predecessor breached, and so the people who wanted to impeach Bush, should want to impeach Obama.

A meaner version of the Patriot Act was just passed (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), for example. This one, via the "lone wolf" clause, enables the FBI to go after individuals unaffiliated with any known terrorist ring.

[Warrior]

At the moment I believe very few people are unhappy with Obama, and the ones that are are being more outspoken than ever about it.

As eagleseven pointed out, the polls (every one I have seen) show the majority of Americans disapprove of the job Obama is doing and his policy stances. Polls do show, however, that Americans think he is an okay guy on a personal level. I don't know why.

. . . . I believe that we as the American people need to take more responsibility regarding the country's current state.

This is certainly true. The American people have no one but themselves to blame for the current state of affairs.

[xanodel]

The polls might also be a reflection of how people are dissatisfied with the general social and economic conditions right now. It also doesn't help that Obama campaigned on Change, and people might have expected more than he can deliver. So the general expectation loss gets shoved on him, logically because he's the leader.

He's inherited a pretty bad mess. I'll be pleasantly surprised if he can get *anything* done.

[Causa Mortis]

The polls might also be a reflection of how people are dissatisfied with the general social and economic conditions right now. It also doesn't help that Obama campaigned on Change, and people might have expected more than he can deliver. So the general expectation loss gets shoved on him, logically because he's the leader.

He's inherited a pretty bad mess. I'll be pleasantly surprised if he can get *anything* done.

Then to date, you have little to be pleasantly surprised about. He's caved on health reforms because of Glenn Beck. He caved to watering down the stimulus with meaningless tax cuts. He caved on health care (so far). He reappointed Bailout Ben, who big banks love but who has failed miserably at containing unemployment and inflation. He hasn't made substantive progress on regulation of the derivatives markets, nor resolving too big to fail.

So, to date all we've had is tuck-tail and running, and we're what, 14 months into his presidency? Did he think all the special interests at the trough of the Bush administration were just going to go away without a fight as soon as he showed up?

---------- Post added 02-28-2010 at 11:45 PM ----------

Polls do show, however, that Americans think he is an okay guy on a personal level. I don't know why.

Probably because he's not the dishonest, violent, corrupt, bullshitting aristocratic idiot who left office 14 months ago?

[nacht]

55% of voters disapprove of Obama's performance, while 43% approve.

Ignoring the leaners, 43% strongly disapprove, while only 22% strongly approve.


Serious cherry picking. First: Rasmussen has a pretty significant house effect (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). If we look at Gallup's most recent poll over the same period (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), the results are 50% approve and 42% disapprove. If we look at the Fox poll (which has a smaller sample size), we get 47% approve and 45% disapprove, well within the margin of error.

Second: Rasmussen is still using likely voter models, which may be vaguely useful for predicting the next election (I doubt it, likely voter models are notoriously assumption prone, really tend to be skewed in off-years, and tend to be less accurate farther out and more accurate closer to the election, but that's another topic) but doesn't really tell us about the US support for Obama or what the 2012 election would look like. By contrast, Fox is using registered voters, Gallup is evaluating adults, either of which from an evaluation standpoint of support is far superior to a likely voter model this far before an election.

Pollster's trendline conglomerate places it at 48.1% approve, 46.7% disapprove.


For comparison, Bush's approval didn't fall below 43% until 2006.


Clinton's job approval rating was 36% in 1993, it ended at among the highest of any modern presidents since Eisenhower.

You are also wrong (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Bush's approval was solidly under that number in late 2005. In short: approval ratings are not asymptotic.



Obama's breaking the same constitutional limitations that his predecessor breached, and so the people who wanted to impeach Bush, should want to impeach Obama.


Citations needed. I have yet to see evidence that Obama has entered war under false pretenses. Regardless of whether Bush did this, that is the primary accusation against him, followed by accusations of torture.


A meaner version of the Patriot Act was just passed (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), for example. This one, via the "lone wolf" clause, enables the FBI to go after individuals unaffiliated with any known terrorist ring.

If it is exactly the same as it was before, it is hard to justify calling it "meaner."

---------- Post added 03-01-2010 at 01:15 AM ----------

As eagleseven pointed out, the polls (every one I have seen) show the majority of Americans disapprove of the job Obama is doing

Selection and confirmation biases are frightening things.

Gallup: 50% approve 42% disapprove (2/23-25)
Fox: 47% approve 45% disapprove (2/23-25)
Gallup: 51% approve 43% disapprove (2/20-22)
ARG: 48% approve 46% disapprove (2/17-20)
Gallup: 48% approve 45% disapprove (2/17-19)
Newsweek: 48% approve 40% disapprove (2/17-18)
Gallup: 50% approve 41% disapprove (2/14-16)
YouGov/Polimetrix: 51% approve 44% disapprove (2/13-16)
PPP: 48% approve 47% dispaprove (2/13-15)
Gallup: 53% approve 40% disapprove (2/11-13)
Gallup: 50% approve 43% disapprove (2/8-10)
CBS/Times: 46% approve 45% disapprove (2/5-10)
YouGov/Polimetrix: 48% approve 47% disapprove (2/7-9)
Pew: 49% approve 39% disapprove (2/3-9)
ABC/Post: 51% approve 46% disapprove (2/4-8)
Gallup: 51% approve 41% disapprove (2/5-7)
Gallup: 49% approve 44% disapprove (2/2-4)
Democracy Corps: 47% approve 47% disapprove (2/2-4)

Some of these are within the margin of error, and there are a few that are within the margin of error going the other way. Regardless, all of these polls show that the plurality--if not the majority--of US Americans approve of the job Obama is doing.

Reiterating: Looking at a trendline aggregate we see an approval of 48.1% with 46.7% disapproval. If we remove Zogby, Rasmussen, and Democracy Corps (the ones who are using problematic likely voter models in the last month), the numbers are 49.4% approve and 43.1% disapprove.


and his policy stances.


You have a stronger case here, but it still falls apart on closer inspection. When asked if people would support "the government creat a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans" they responded 57% for and 40% against as of last October. They may disapprove of how he is handling it, or of what the house/senate have put forward, but frequently the problem seems to be that it [i]isn't enough like his perceived (or actual) policy stances for what they want.

[eagleseven]

If we remove Zogby, Rasmussen, and Democracy Corps (the ones who are using problematic likely voter models in the last month), the numbers are 49.4% approve and 43.1% disapprove.
I would argue that "likely voter" polls are inherently more valid than "general American" polls, given how only roughly 50% of Americans regularly vote. What is the value in polling those who are virtually unaware of anything outside their locality and are not politically active?

Perhaps we ought to poll adolescents, as well?

The fact that both Zogby and Rasmussen, two of the largest polling companies, favor the "likely voter" method is telling.

[nacht]

I would argue that "likely voter" polls are inherently more valid than "general American" polls, given how only roughly 50% of Americans regularly vote.


First, it depends on what you are trying to measure. If you are trying to measure general trends in public opinion, LV models are useless because "voters" are not a random sample of the population, and the LV model skews things substantively.

Second, even if you are trying to measure how the tide of voters opinions are swaying, LV models are useless this far out from the election because there are too many things that can influence what would make a "likely voter" 8-9 months prior to the election. It is why when predicting the last presidential elections aggregate models tended to favor A or RV models further out and LV models within the last month or two before the election.


What is the value in polling those who are virtually unaware of anything outside their locality and are not politically active?


Are you interested in what the majority of Americans think, and on what basis do you believe that people who do not fit with Rasmussen's likely voter model (not just any LV model, but specifically Rasmussen's) are "virtually unaware of anything outside their locality and are not politically active."


Perhaps we ought to poll adolescents, as well?


Depends on what you are trying to measure. Regardless, placing faith in an LV model you don't know the details of how it works reeks of confirmation bias. I'm pretty sure you don't even know the criteria that Rasmussen uses, so why do you trust it over the vast majority of pollsters, who believe that polling RVs or Adults is a more accurate measure this far out from an election?


The fact that both Zogby and Rasmussen, two of the largest polling companies, favor the "likely voter" method is telling.

As opposed to Gallup, also one of the largest polling companies? Or Quinnipac, one of the largest and better funded academic polling groups? I could just as accurately say "The fact that both Gallup and ARG, two of the largest polling companies, favor polling all adults is telling" and be just as accurate. Gallup is one of the oldest and best established polling organizations in the country, yet you arbitrarily dismiss their data point because it doesn't fit with your predetermined conclusions. It is still cherry picking and engaging in confirmation bias.

[zibber]

So leaving the messenger aside, do you guys disagree with the message? Are the teabaggers wrong? Is government spending fully under-control and appropriate for this country's needs?

No, it's not under control. Under serious pressure from Goldman-Sachs agents (among others), the US government gave hundreds of billions of dollars to banks. Don't talk to me about health care, though. Let's talk about that first.

[Darth Brooks]

On of the things that amazed me about the budget issues is how much is being spent on the military. There are multiple charts out there but this is from PBS, which I hope can be seen as fairly neutral.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

tl;dr version. In 2007 the USA outspent the rest of the world.

The USA has been on a war footing for a very long time and it's expensive. The easiest way to lower some of the budget is to win/finish the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Iraq looks like it's finishing up but Afghanistan is still being slugged out. There are issues with corruption is both countries and it will take time.

I realize that it looks less insane when you look at % of GDT.

[eagleseven]

On of the things that amazed me about the budget issues is how much is being spent on the military. There are multiple charts out there but this is from PBS, which I hope can be seen as fairly neutral.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

tl;dr version. In 2007 the USA outspent the rest of the world.

The USA has been on a war footing for a very long time and it's expensive. The easiest way to lower some of the budget is to win/finish the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Iraq looks like it's finishing up but Afghanistan is still being slugged out. There are issues with corruption is both countries and it will take time.

I realize that it looks less insane when you look at % of GDT.
No doubt our military spending is excessive, but it is dwarfed by entitlement spending.

Federal 2009 Budget:

23% Military
39% Social Security and Medicare Entitlements
17% Non-SS, Non-Medicare Entitlements
12% Discretionary Spending (pork)
5% Debt Interest
4% TARP

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Shauru]

I'd love to see the look on most Teabaggers faces when someone steps out from congress and says. "We cut taxes 39%! None of you get any more Medicare or social security." And I wonder how many of them right now are on unemployment. Chop that tax money and wow, the rest of us should be fine. :D

[lurk]

The thing glossed over by the spending numbers is the source of funds. Social Security is (in theory) a pay-as-you-go proposition. So on the one hand if you cut off the 39% of spending, you also forgo 12.5% of everyone's gross salaries. Of course this begs of the question of all the people who've contributed over the decades.

[Tristan]

In such important matters, it's not enough to just point and say "that's not good!". One must have answers as well. The TBs don't have any answers that I've seen. It's not problem solving, it's pointing out that the king is naked (no, really? wow) and then patting one's self on the back for the amazingly good work.

Lots of people are complaining. I will back the first folks who come up with solutions.

The group didn't form over a solution, though, so I guess it's screwed in your eyes. It formed to protest this federal bid for power. Most people in this country who pay attention to politics have their own views of how to resolve the country's problems. We have that thread running (INTJ solution to national debt? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)), for instance. You never see protestors of any sort propose answers in their yelling and screaming, but it's easy enough to figure out what teabaggers are likely thinking. If they are opposed to spending increases, it follows that they probably want severe austerity measures. If they are opposed to increasing the size of the public health dole, it follows that they probably want to see it deflated. They don't likely accept the premise that the government can make a good impact on health or the general welfare by expanding. Logically, this leads to a set of solutions even if they aren't the point of the protests.

I'm sure that if the teabaggers had a really clear positive agenda, rather than a negative one, it wouldn't make a bit of difference to anyone who despises them. Probably make it worse. Positive agendas are for dangerous men and corporations. People would just accuse the teabaggers all the more of being AstroTurfed, corporate or partisan pawns.

[Holiman]

Take some time to listen to those actually at the rallies and then feel free to support them some more cause theyre just honest americans all right.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.