From Mother*...
 

Fighting Against the Tea Party

According to a New York Times poll, Tea Party supporters tend to be
Republican, white, male, married and older than 45. I'm guessing you're
not surprised.

They also told the Times they were in favor of smaller government, "even
if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut."

But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want
to cut Medicare or Social Security—the biggest domestic programs,
suggesting instead a focus on "waste."

This is always the problem, of course. It's a good bet they don't want
to cut defense spending either, and interest payments on the national
debt can't be cut. But once you take out those things, you have less
than a quarter of the federal budget left. Even if 20 percent of that
were waste—and that's an improbably high number—cutting it out would
only reduce spending by 5 percent.

Welcome to the incoherence of the Tea Party movement. They don't really
know what they want, they just know that someone, some liberal, is doing
something they don't like. But in a way, incoherence is the whole point.
The movement may have started at a grass roots level, but it's
increasingly funded by some very well-heeled right-wing groups who
figure that incoherence is a virtue. They don't really care about
government waste, after all. They mostly care about making cynical use
of shock troops who can help them put a stop to any progressive
legislation that threatens corporate special interests. They need anger
to channel, not activists with pesky ideas that might interfere with
their agenda.


* Mother Jones, of course... :)

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

From Mother*...
 

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 07:47:23 -0400, hk
wrote:

Fighting Against the Tea Party

According to a New York Times poll, Tea Party supporters tend to be
Republican, white, male, married and older than 45. I'm guessing you're
not surprised.

They also told the Times they were in favor of smaller government, "even
if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut."

But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want
to cut Medicare or Social Security—the biggest domestic programs,
suggesting instead a focus on "waste."

This is always the problem, of course. It's a good bet they don't want
to cut defense spending either, and interest payments on the national
debt can't be cut. But once you take out those things, you have less
than a quarter of the federal budget left. Even if 20 percent of that
were waste—and that's an improbably high number—cutting it out would
only reduce spending by 5 percent.

Welcome to the incoherence of the Tea Party movement. They don't really
know what they want, they just know that someone, some liberal, is doing
something they don't like. But in a way, incoherence is the whole point.
The movement may have started at a grass roots level, but it's
increasingly funded by some very well-heeled right-wing groups who
figure that incoherence is a virtue. They don't really care about
government waste, after all. They mostly care about making cynical use
of shock troops who can help them put a stop to any progressive
legislation that threatens corporate special interests. They need anger
to channel, not activists with pesky ideas that might interfere with
their agenda.


* Mother Jones, of course... :)


Another gem:

Rick Perlstein is the author of “Nixonland: The Rise of a President
and the Fracturing of America” and “Before The Storm: Barry Goldwater
and the Unmaking of the American Consensus.”

Watching the rise of the Tea Party movement has been a frustration to
me, and not just because it is ugly and seeks to traduce so many of
the values I hold dear.

“I just don’t have time for anything,” a housewife told a news
magazine in 1961. “I’m fighting Communism three nights a week.”
Even worse has been the overwhelming historical myopia. As the Times’s
new poll numbers amply confirm — especially the ones establishing that
the Tea Partiers are overwhelming Republican or right-of-Republican —
they are the same angry, ill-informed, overwhelmingly white,
crypto-corporate paranoiacs that accompany every ascendancy of
liberalism within U.S. government.

“When was the last time you saw such a spontaneous eruption of
conservative grass-roots anger, coast to coast?” asked the
professional conservative L. Brent Bozell III recently. The answer, of
course, is: in 1993. And 1977. And 1961. And so on.


Loons appealing to other loons.

From Mother*...
 

On 16/04/2010 5:47 AM, hk wrote:
Fighting Against the Tea Party

According to a New York Times poll, Tea Party supporters tend to be
Republican, white, male, married and older than 45. I'm guessing you're
not surprised.

Nope.

They also told the Times they were in favor of smaller government, "even
if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut."

Yep. 90% don't work at all. The other 10% is highly debatable. Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, just two examples but plenty more.

But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want
to cut Medicare or Social Security—the biggest domestic programs,
suggesting instead a focus on "waste."

Ah, the extortion card. Justify all tax increases on SS and not the
ACORN waste. Oh wait, lets add heath care, license to tax you over, and
over and over again.

This is always the problem, of course. It's a good bet they don't want
to cut defense spending either, and interest payments on the national
debt can't be cut. But once you take out those things, you have less
than a quarter of the federal budget left. Even if 20 percent of that
were waste—and that's an improbably high number—cutting it out would
only reduce spending by 5 percent.

How come all they want to do is cut the SS and defence, the only two
real value things they do that *ALL* people benefit from. Don't want to
touch big pork and slum vote buying!

Welcome to the incoherence of the Tea Party movement. They don't really
know what they want, they just know that someone, some liberal, is doing
something they don't like. But in a way, incoherence is the whole point.

Liberalism is great when someone else is paying for it.

The movement may have started at a grass roots level, but it's
increasingly funded by some very well-heeled right-wing groups who
figure that incoherence is a virtue. They don't really care about
government waste, after all. They mostly care about making cynical use
of shock troops who can help them put a stop to any progressive
legislation that threatens corporate special interests. They need anger
to channel, not activists with pesky ideas that might interfere with
their agenda.

You statism supporter should really take a worldly view of things. Any
time in history or elsewhere on this rock when government gets too big,
it becomes a war or problem.

Does not mater if you are republican or democrat, corruption needs to be
driven out or we might as well say to our grand kids, welcome to
government debt and tax servatude.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.