The Misinformed Tea Party Movement

[bascule]

This Bruce Bartlett column slams the tea party movement for something I think most people already realize, namely that teabaggers have rather distorted views of reality:

 

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

 

Teabaggers think taxes are considerably higher than they actually are, and also many believe taxes have gone up under Obama. At the same time, they complain about the "bailouts", by which they mean both TARP (passed under Bush) and the Stimulus, passed under Obama, which included massive tax cuts.

[moth]

tea baggers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_s-lvpRj00

 

no doubt this is cherry picked but it matches up with the crap i've been getting in my e-mail from old (right wing)army buddies.

it's already been yanked off youtube once so check it out soon if you can.

 

these are no doubt the same suckers who thought bush was a washington outsider (not a third generation polititian), a successful buisnessman, and a swell guy.

 

okay maybe he's a swell guy(i doubt it)

[Pangloss]

If we have this conversation again on Monday, will they still be "teabaggers", given that the health care plan includes $400 billion in new taxes?

[Phi for All]

It seems like once they've made it all the way to the capital, even if they learn they're wrong they can't just go back home, so they'll still argue that, "it's just wrong". This is a classic example of how education should be the first line of defense in any war.

 

Can Obama appoint an Ignorance Czar?

[Pangloss]

True.

[moth]

If we have this conversation again on Monday, will they still be "teabaggers", given that the health care plan includes $400 billion in new taxes?

 

if they still choose to recieve their "news" by spoon-feeding rather than seeking multiple inputs, then yes.

[bascule]

If we have this conversation again on Monday, will they still be "teabaggers", given that the health care plan includes $400 billion in new taxes?

 

I don't know, will that bring the total amount of tax the government collects as a percentage of GDP up to the 40-42% they claim?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

However, speaking of the healthcare bill, here's the latest NewLeftMedia video of the teabaggers final healthcare protest:

 

pilG7PCV448

 

Granted this video is selectively edited like Jaywalking, but it's amazing how many of the people turned out to protest the healthcare bill while freely admitting "I have no idea what's in the healthcare bill"

[ParanoiA]

Wow, a sample size of 57 in one location, one day? Seriously? Anyone who believes that's a relevant sample size for anything more than The Daily Show is in dire need of a lesson on the scientific method.

 

But hey, if that passes the test here on SFN, then this CNN poll should blow everyone away with a whopping sample size of 124, more than double of that above - wow, talk about accuracy!

 

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/17/rel4b.pdf

 

According to this poll, 40% are college graduates and 66% earn more than $50K per year. I wonder if any of them were asked those questions above...

 

 

Seriously though, I believe they are generally more rural and suburban type folk (the stereotypical "southern" culture more or less). I don't believe they are all that educated, but of course their cause is not formed by an intellectual appeal either. It's formed by real life experience - their payroll witholdings, their income taxes, their property taxes, sales taxes - money they pull directly out of their wallet or never see arrive in their wallet in the first place on payday.

 

You can post all the polls and columns you want and pretend you're miles above their intellect and it still isn't going to erase their memory of what comes out of their wallet for Uncle Sam.

 

And in terms of the healthcare bill they don't like exchanging freedom for security. You don't get either when you try it. (Hmm...seems like there was a fella that said that years ago...people love quoting that from him when it comes to war but they conveniently forget it when it comes to anything else...I wonder who that was..?)

 

As an aside, I find it kind of funny that when someone gets teabagged, that implies they are "catching" as opposed to "pitching". I would think the label of a teabagger, the pitcher, is a disparagement to whomever is catching. And I think that's the socialistic collective they're organizing against. Go teabaggers.

[Phi for All]

Seriously though, I believe they are generally more rural and suburban type folk (the stereotypical "southern" culture more or less). I don't believe they are all that educated, but of course their cause is not formed by an intellectual appeal either. It's formed by real life experience - their payroll witholdings, their income taxes, their property taxes, sales taxes - money they pull directly out of their wallet or never see arrive in their wallet in the first place on payday.

I certainly don't fault them for standing up to be counted. Heaven knows we need more people to do that so the lobbyists don't have a monopoly on the politician's time. But if their cause truly is formed by real life experiences, why do they think Obama is taxing them more than Bush did? They can't truly be comparing their pay stubs from 2008 with their pay stubs from 2010 (unless these are really wealthy rurals and suburbanites).

 

Why are they attributing to Obama the things that were passed under Bush? This is clearly an example of being misinformed, and it seems that a big part of the misinformation comes from watching only FOX News, where stupid ideas and sound bytes seem smarter when they come at you really fast with no one to correct the mistakes. They get ObamaSlam 24/7 and just don't bother with those messy facts from any other source.

[ParanoiA]

I certainly don't fault them for standing up to be counted. Heaven knows we need more people to do that so the lobbyists don't have a monopoly on the politician's time. But if their cause truly is formed by real life experiences, why do they think Obama is taxing them more than Bush did? They can't truly be comparing their pay stubs from 2008 with their pay stubs from 2010 (unless these are really wealthy rurals and suburbanites).

 

Why are they attributing to Obama the things that were passed under Bush? This is clearly an example of being misinformed, and it seems that a big part of the misinformation comes from watching only FOX News, where stupid ideas and sound bytes seem smarter when they come at you really fast with no one to correct the mistakes. They get ObamaSlam 24/7 and just don't bother with those messy facts from any other source.

 

Well, I certainly agree on the Fox news bit effecting them more profoundly. Before Fox, there wasn't alot of conservative opinion and slant to counter the liberal opinion and slant that still dominates the networks.

 

Back to that first point though, my opinion is that their real life experiences are what lead them to a generalized anti-government mentallity. Most of the teaparty movement identifies itself as conservative/libertarian, but "Independent" in terms of party, so that you get this effect of republicans being the lesser evil of the two.

 

I hope you're not referring back to that 57 sample size pretend column on teabagger mentallity when you ask about them believing Obama is taxing them more. I think they believe Obama will tax them more due to the healthcare bill, not so much that he is.

 

Of course, you also get the brain dead in any of these groups and they say silly things like Obama is taxing us more, or Bush caused Katrina.

[The Bear's Key]

Wow, a sample size of 57 in one location, one day? Seriously? Anyone who believes that's a relevant sample size for anything more than The Daily Show is in dire need of a lesson on the scientific method.

No, the lesson is: think a wee deeper before you post, maybe?

 

57 people from a crowd of 300-500 with fairly similar views is a pretty good sample: it'd be like interviewing 11%-19% of all progressive liberals in a tri-state area of the East Coast, for a good sample of progressive liberal views. So for tea baggers, if we go with 400 tea baggers at the event, it'd be 14%.

 

Probably would've been more, but I'm sure people declined to be interviewed.

 

Keep in mind people in the crowd likely traveled a good distance to attend, so they're going to be a pretty hardcore representation of devoted Tea Baggers -- making such a poll even more accurate, I'd hazard.

 

But I'm glad you did say it like that, unintentinally I presume, but still it'll be a good illustration of the kind of logic twisting (intentionally I presume) Fox uses to convince viewers.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well, I certainly agree on the Fox news bit effecting them more profoundly. Before Fox, there wasn't alot of conservative opinion and slant to counter the liberal opinion and slant that still dominates the networks.

How about some facts to back up that last part? It would appear the source for that is..."conservatives" themselves.

 

Note the quotations. i.e. are they real conservatives?

 

Didn't anyone in early life teach you how others might pretend to be your friend? I think it's been the case here for a lot of things you've said lately, coming from who-knows-what questionable sources.

 

It comes to mind from a great blog by Cap'n Refsmmat. Mentions a guy who claims the following is supposedly true of atheists....

 

Someone once graciously said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” However, it seems that some contemporary atheists don’t share such honorable convictions. When they learned about this publication they threatened lawsuits,

book burnings

, and even censorship in vowing to tear the Introduction out of the book. If the Special Introduction has indeed been removed from this publication, you may view it freely on

http://www.livingwaters.com

to learn what some don’t want you to know.

(emphasis mine)

 

 

Then the Cap' does some private investigating...

One would thus expect to see throughout the Internet various threats of book-burningsand so on. Comfort’s website

quotes

atheists as saying

“Perhaps we should just call for a book burning!”

, among other things (Comfort). Of course, a Google search of that particular phrase, and the other phrases he quotes on his website, reveals that the only uses of those phrases on the Internet are in pages quoting the Special Note.

(again mine)

 

We've noticed it happening quite a lot in the world you like to call "just a different veiwpoint/opinion".

 

In other words, there are people dedicated to getting conservatives to believe some twisted view of reality. Such people have vast reserves of money for hiring talented writers and liars. You should really consider more painstakingly who you trust.

Edited March 20, 2010 by The Bear's Key
Consecutive posts merged.

[Phi for All]

Well, I certainly agree on the Fox news bit effecting them more profoundly. Before Fox, there wasn't alot of conservative opinion and slant to counter the liberal opinion and slant that still dominates the networks.

I don't mind the slant so much as the outright misrepresentation and the conflict of interest when a "news organization" helps stage such protests in order to further misrepresent the intent and outcomes. The intent should be less commercial, less corporate; it's simply Americans exercising their right to dissent, but with FOX behind it, it becomes something less... healthy.

 

Back to that first point though, my opinion is that their real life experiences are what lead them to a generalized anti-government mentallity. Most of the teaparty movement identifies itself as conservative/libertarian, but "Independent" in terms of party, so that you get this effect of republicans being the lesser evil of the two.

 

I hope you're not referring back to that 57 sample size pretend column on teabagger mentallity when you ask about them believing Obama is taxing them more. I think they believe Obama will tax them more due to the healthcare bill, not so much that he is.

My reference was to your comment about real life experiences, not what they think Obama *might* do. Why weren't they protesting Bush II taxes if their taxes now are relatively the same? Why weren't they protesting when Bush II pushed for the bailouts? Why didn't they protest the use of the word "czar" when Reagan first appointed one, or when Bush I appointed more of them?

[ParanoiA]

No, the lesson is: think a wee deeper before you post, maybe?

 

57 people from a crowd of 300-500 with fairly similar views is a pretty good sample: it'd be like interviewing 11%-19% of all progressive liberals in a tri-state area of the East Coast, for a good sample of progressive liberal views. So for tea baggers, if we go with 400 tea baggers at the event, it'd be 14%.

 

Last I checked, there were more teabaggers than a crowd one day in DC. I think we have something like, 50 states full of humans, some of which are tea party fanatics. We're easily talking thousands. So yes, 57 in one spot, in DC, one day, doesn't say squat about the thousands of teabaggers all over the US.

 

Or are you trying to make believe they are a traveling esoteric tea party gang?

 

Besides, my 124 slaughters that pathetic 57 anyway.. And 40% of them are college grads, which trumps the general population. I, of course, demand a better sample and proceedure before I'm buying the latest spin piece.

 

How about some facts to back up that last part? It would appear the source for that is..."conservatives" themselves.

 

You want me to source perceived liberal and conservative bias as factual? Can that even be done? Do I need to provide a source for my opinion of the color blue as well?

 

It serves your anti-Fox position anyway, so I'm not sure why you're challenging my perception. Fox news pimps conservative pundit after pundit, with conservative commentators one show after the next. O'reilly, Hannity, Greta, Beck, Stossel, Brit Hume, Megyn Kelly...jeez do I need to go on? And do you ever remember this kind of conservative onslaught on TV, on one channel, before Fox news?

 

That's the point. Conservatives haven't had this kind of "support", if you will, in media so they are profoundly effected by it - in my opinion, which I will not source thank you.

 

Didn't anyone in early life teach you how others might pretend to be your friend? I think it's been the case here for a lot of things you've said lately, coming from who-knows-what questionable sources.

 

You've lost me here. I have literally no idea what you're on about here and how in the world you got there. How about dropping the baggage and stick to what I've actually posted?

 

Oh jeez, don't tell me you've canned and labeled me a conservative...I thought I earned more respect here than that.

Edited March 20, 2010 by ParanoiA

[Phi for All]

No, the lesson is: think a wee deeper before you post, maybe?

The Bear's Key, this kind of veiled personal attack on another member's intelligence is completely unnecessary here.

[ParanoiA]

I don't mind the slant so much as the outright misrepresentation and the conflict of interest when a "news organization" helps stage such protests in order to further misrepresent the intent and outcomes. The intent should be less commercial; it's simply Americans exercising their right to dissent, but with FOX behind it, it becomes something less.

 

Yeah, and I'm still bitter about it. I'll never forgive Fox for this, nor their marginalization of statesmen that counter their conservative status quo. That they hired Stossel, is a small concession that doesn't go real far. Beck is not a libertarian, he's a theotarian (I think I made that word up, but I'm not sure), so he doesn't count, and strikes very heavily against them.

 

My reference was to your comment about real life experiences, not what they think Obama will do. Why weren't they protesting Bush taxes if their taxes now are relatively the same? Why weren't they protesting when Bush II pushed for the bailouts? Why didn't they protest the use of the word "czar" when Reagan first appointed one, or when Bush I appointed more of them?

 

Ok, I've failed to make myself clear. I mean that their real life experiences provide the anti-government "the-man-always-gets-his-first" mindset. But that alone, doesn't motivate a tea party. The second punch is the Fox effect which provides the socialism klaxon for the healthcare bill. They are already resentful of the government to some degree, at least with taxation and economic liberty (lord knows the conservative ones care very little about civil liberty) so when Fox rallies them over the Healthcare Bill and how it 1) forces people to buy products 2) from an exchange set up by that same government they don't trust 3) and versions that except union shops from having their "cadillac" plans taxed - it very rightly motivates them.

 

And of course, Fox doesn't sound the Klaxons when republicans trash the budget, make excuses for intrusive military actions and trample our civil liberties - only when democrats do it. So I think that's why they were never motivated before.

 

I'm extremely concerned about this bill, probably more than any other in my life. I'm genuinely offended and I've found myself soul searching on how I can effect change in this world, like through my artistic efforts or writing. I've never, ever been like that before. I've always just remained a cynic, comfortable in the George Carlin vain of it's-all-bullshit and it's-all-going-down-and-we-deserve-it. The more I read and learn, the more offended I have become at just how far we have drifted away from tolerance and individual choice and liberty. We just don't hold those in higher esteem anymore. This hijacked tea party movement, whether I like it or not, is the closest thing to a libertarian movement I've seen in my lifetime.

 

I can't imagine I'm the only one who feels that way.

[bascule]

And in terms of the healthcare bill they don't like exchanging freedom for security.

 

Something tells me these people were cheering on the PATRIOT act 8 years ago

[moth]

i admitted the interview i linked to was cherry-picked,what struck me was the apparent coordination between the (debunked on snopes) e-mails i've been getting and the grievances of the people being interviewed.

 

as for who raises taxes, wasn't the deficit spending under bush a stealth tax increase? people don't seem to think about the difference between lowering taxes and lowering the tax rate while increasing spending, but borrow and spend costs more in the long run.

 

the same is true of cutting tax rates and borrowing and spending under obama, though obama is not borrowing to start a war but to finish 2 wars, so it seems different.

it's like he had less of a choice in the matter.

[Phi for All]

Yeah, and I'm still bitter about it. I'll never forgive Fox for this, nor their marginalization of statesmen that counter their conservative status quo. That they hired Stossel, is a small concession that doesn't go real far. Beck is not a libertarian, he's a theotarian (I think I made that word up, but I'm not sure), so he doesn't count, and strikes very heavily against them.

Agreed.

 

Ok, I've failed to make myself clear. I mean that their real life experiences provide the anti-government "the-man-always-gets-his-first" mindset. But that alone, doesn't motivate a tea party. The second punch is the Fox effect which provides the socialism klaxon for the healthcare bill. They are already resentful of the government to some degree, at least with taxation and economic liberty (lord knows the conservative ones care very little about civil liberty) so when Fox rallies them over the Healthcare Bill and how it 1) forces people to buy products 2) from an exchange set up by that same government they don't trust 3) and versions that except union shops from having their "cadillac" plans taxed - it very rightly motivates them.

OK, I get you. And it makes sense but this is why FOX is so dangerous, imo. FOX cherry-picks with a corporate conservative agenda, one that let's them scream about unions while promoting deregulation, and rant about big government while approving multi-war mock security at the trillion dollar level.

 

And of course, Fox doesn't sound the Klaxons when republicans trash the budget, make excuses for intrusive military actions and trample our civil liberties - only when democrats do it. So I think that's why they were never motivated before.

Agreed.

 

I'm extremely concerned about this bill, probably more than any other in my life. I'm genuinely offended and I've found myself soul searching on how I can effect change in this world, like through my artistic efforts or writing. I've never, ever been like that before. I've always just remained a cynic, comfortable in the George Carlin vain of it's-all-bullshit and it's-all-going-down-and-we-deserve-it. The more I read and learn, the more offended I have become at just how far we have drifted away from tolerance and individual choice and liberty. We just don't hold those in higher esteem anymore. This hijacked tea party movement, whether I like it or not, is the closest thing to a libertarian movement I've seen in my lifetime.

 

I can't imagine I'm the only one who feels that way.

I'm sure you're not the only one. I'm not happy with the bill either, but for a very different reason than you. I think the government is the best place for my healthcare dollars to stay until my doctor needs access to them. I don't mind insurance for my car or home because they have fixed values, but the health of a nation is an intangible that needs as much of our money as possible without insurance companies vulturing away strips of it for profit and then denying us the coverage we were banking on.

[The Bear's Key]

Yes, you're right, you should think a wee bit deeper before you post perhaps?

Sure, I'll try my best.

 

Last I checked, there were more teabaggers than a crowd one day in DC. I think we have something like, 50 states full of humans, some of which are tea party fanatics. We're easily talking thousands. So yes, 57 in one spot, in DC, one day, doesn't say squat about the thousands of teabaggers all over the US.

Dedicated teabaggers -- so much so the crowd got together, and likely from distant places. I'd say that qualifies as a good sample to draw from.

 

Besides, my 124 slaughters that pathetic 57 anyway

No, it doesn't.

 

The 1,023 adult they interviewed is more representative, but the 124 interviewees labeled Tea Party activisists is not the same as people who go to DC for a rally. Most of that 124 were labeled activists if the interviewee...

Took any other active steps to support the Tea Party movement, either in person or through e-mail or on the internet

So if they forwarded an email it'd likely qualify. Not what I'd call a huge activist.

 

 

You want me to source perceived liberal and conservative bias as factual? Can that even be done?

That, no. But what I asked, yes.

 

Just facts to back up the claim that liberals opinion and slant dominates the networks, or even has before.

 

Must be thousands of factual tidbits laying around since it's claimed so much. I'd just like a tiny sampling of it. Not even 57 or 124 bits of fact or evidence. You know, something a little more concrete than just saying so.

 

 

You've lost me here. I have literally no idea what you're on about here and how in the world you got there.

Easy. What are the odds that it's people of questionable ethics who might've convinced you to be extremely concerned about this bill? (as you said, probably more than any other in your life) What are the odds they're legit and not just riling you up for their benefit?

 

That's also why I asked for evidence of the liberal opinion and slant dominating the networks, because obviously you heard that from somewhere, as lots of people in the U.S. have -- but is the claim true?

 

Or propagandic lies? Much as the guy in the Cap's blog, accusation without base.

 

I'm not looking for scattered instances of liberal bias only -- since you claimed they dominate, it should be relativley easy to point out.

 

But if that won't convince you it's fine, here's another: that claim you keep making of how liberals progressives were the first to abuse the Supreme Court in the New Deal era? That accusation is made a countless number of times in the U.S., and here by you and jackson33, however it doesn't fit reality.

 

If you found out the things making you angry were just a fabrication, I'd be curious to know -- what'd be your next move?

 

ParanoiA, I'm with you on the liberties thing, and strongly oppose being forced to pay health insurance, but if you'd think I'll vote in an extremist to fix the problem, count me out.

 

And first, let's make sure we're on the same page of realiy for things to be upset about. i.e. real things, not polished crap made to sound good with lost of $$ behind its writing and commentating.

 

 

The Bear's Key, this kind of veiled personal attack on another member's intelligence is completely unnecessary here.

I'll keep that in mind, although, it wasn't veiled, nor a personal attack, or even a matter of intelligence -- but I can see how it seemed that way, and if so my apologies to Paranoia.

 

That occasionally happens when I see an intelligent person speaking without thinking it over. A person can do that, without having any bearing on their intelligence level. What especially matters is something of monumental importance to the person, yet it appears they hadn't bothered to dig as monumentally for a semblance of accuracy.

 

Paranoia, you're intelligent. What I meant is just look deeper than a shallow outlook presented to us about reality.

[Pangloss]

the same is true of cutting tax rates and borrowing and spending under obama' date=' though obama is not borrowing to start a war but to finish 2 wars, so it seems different.

it's like he had less of a choice in the matter.[/quote']

 

I think that's a pretty good distinction. It's also worth noting that many Republicans support President Obama with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan, most prominently among them former Vice President Cheney, who otherwise seems to have very little common ground with the current President. Their support exists not only in terms of our continued presence there but in terms of how the administration is handling these conflicts in general.

 

It is, perhaps a bit ironically, one of the few areas not tinged by partisanship at the moment.

[Phi for All]

I'll keep that in mind, although, it wasn't veiled, nor a personal attack, or even a matter of intelligence -- but I can see how it seemed that way, and if so my apologies to Paranoia.

It came off as a flaming attack that invited a retaliation (which it did). Glad to know it wasn't intended as derision.

 

That occasionally happens when I see an intelligent person speaking without thinking it over.

See, this is where it comes off as derisive and insulting. It's presumptuous and personal for you to claim that someone wasn't thinking when they posted. You can attack the stance but this comes off as attacking the person.

 

It's also worth noting that many Republicans support President Obama with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan, most prominently among them former Vice President Cheney, who otherwise seems to have very little common ground with the current President. Their support exists not only in terms of our continued presence there but in terms of how the administration is handling these conflicts in general.

 

It is, perhaps a bit ironically, one of the few areas not tinged by partisanship at the moment.

Perhaps because Cheney's future is tied to a prolonged military presence in the Middle East? Cheney was pretty partisan a year ago when he warned that Obama's policies were raising "the risk to the American people of another attack."

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure Dick Cheney's future is tied to anything other than a heart monitor at the moment.

 

 

 

... and I don't mean his medical condition.

[Mr Skeptic]

it's amazing how many of the people turned out to protest the healthcare bill while freely admitting "I have no idea what's in the healthcare bill"

 

In fact, my main complaint against the healthcare bill is exactly that: I have no idea what's in the healthcare bill.

[The Bear's Key]

See, this is where it comes off as derisive and insulting. It's presumptuous and personal for you to claim that someone wasn't thinking when they posted. You can attack the stance but this comes off as attacking the person.

True dat. I have no way of knowing/verifying the amount of thought someone put into anything, or whether it's a simple oversight which happens to all of us. So it was a bit presumptuous of me.

[Phi for All]

I'm not sure Dick Cheney's future is tied to anything other than a heart monitor at the moment.

 

 

 

... and I don't mean his medical condition.

ROFL. I don't think those machines have the necessary superconductivity to work with the temperature of Cheney's heart!

 

In fact, my main complaint against the healthcare bill is exactly that: I have no idea what's in the healthcare bill.

The last thing I heard was that the pre-existing condition exclusions were only being abolished for those 19 years and younger. That's when I had to take a break from following the bill (for health reasons).

 

If I thought the Tea Party Movement was about voters being vocal and holding politicians accountable about real issues, I'd be behind them 100%. But so far it just seems like partisan rhetoric and misinformed FOXiness at work. I hear criticism without constructive alternatives. I hear Republican talking points like socialization (when some of these people think Fascism is related) and big government and over-regulation, and people claiming we have the best healthcare system in the world (we have the best doctors, imo, but where would they go if we socialized medicine?). It looks like a roused bunch of rabble to me. I have yet to hear the ones who aren't suburban/rural FOX-only-watchers say anything worthy of a legitimate citizen's movement.

 

I hope it's my fault for not digging deeper.

 

True dat. I have no way of knowing/verifying the amount of thought someone put into anything, or whether it's a simple oversight which happens to all of us. So it was a bit presumptuous of me.