News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[Al68]

Paul is in a tough spot. His position requires him to make an intellectual argument which really amounts to saying "yes" to the question: "Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate?" I do not doubt that this is his position, nor do I find it vile.

Everyone's answer to that question is yes, in at least some cases.

As an example, movie producers discriminate based on race (and gender, etc.) when hiring an actor to play a specific role. Muhammad Ali, for example. Should they be forced to hire Stallone instead instead of Will Smith, because he's more qualified if we ignore race?

 

[CAC1001]

There are a couple more important principles you missed:

4) All problems (complexity be damned) have simple "common sense" solutions.

You find this theme repeatedly prominently by many of the (IMO) airheads like Beck, Palin, Bachmann and O'Donnell, (not so much by the those in the lonely corner occupied by Paul), as well as in websites run by different tea party groups.

For instance, www.teaparty.org summarizes its core beliefs with the slogan "Common Sense Constitutional Conservative Self-Governance".

Agree partially. Remember, the Tea Party is only organized around a loosely-defined set of core beliefs ("common sense conservative principles" as you mentioned they often say). For core beliefs, I think such a view is fine. One can create specific policy plans based around such ideals. But that isn't the Tea Party's goal, as that would require centralization, which they do not want.

Now for specific politicians and pundits, such as Beck, Palin, Bachmann, O'Donnell, etc...then yes, going on just "common sense conservative principles" doesn't cut it.

5) Obama is always wrong.

Agree here (on them having that view).

I don't think this requires much explanation. The rapidity with which the Tea Partiers badmouthed Scott Brown is a good indicator of this sentiment.

I wasn't aware they had bad-mouthed Scott Brown.

 

[CAC1001]

I find it hard to believe that the hysteria which fuels the Birthers (which form a serious part of the Tea Party(ies), and other such nitwits is absolutely a reaction to our first black president. I believe that hysteria is enhanced by the dismal economic situation, but it's my personal belief that history is going to identify this as a time of relatively (to the previous 2 or 3 decades) racist reaction.

There are the occasional racist and birther here or there, but this type of movement would have arisen if it was Harry Reid, Biden, or Nancy Pelosi as President, if they were governing in the current manner the Democrats are.

I think Glenn Beck's huge D.C. rally was a prime example of how the movement is not racist, as the whole thing basically turned into a peaceful church picnic.

On the contrary in fact, I think one problem for the Tea Party movement is that too many on the political Left, and among the black population, cannot stand seeing criticism of a black President, and thus interpret any kind of protest as racism.

Remember, we just came through eight years of some of the most vile, hate-filled rhetoric said about George W. Bush, but during that time, the attitude was that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Now if one dissents, it seems patriotism is the lowest form of racism.

It's true... and even though I disagree with his philosophy it's still disturbing to see him dance around the core issues he believes in because to do otherwise would render him politically inert. Frankly, I think this is why the right-wing (not Republican per se) movement has so much traction: it's a simple monolithic ideology. The conservatism of decades ago, like the liberal views that Democrats still can't organize are fundamentally more complex, AND filled with career killing concepts.

Both the right-wing and the left-wing are simple ideologies. People who really get into the complexities on policy are usually center-left or center-right, but rarely to the extreme of either.

 

[airborne18]

The Tea Party does not exist and is not a grassroots anything. The Tea Party is a business.

The 9/12 Patriots are the real crowd. They are the birthers. And it is basically the anti-abortion wing of the GOP that is mad that abortion has fallen off the radar. The problem with abortion is that most women under 40 are pro-life.

The 9/12 Patriots are the mobs you see, and not the tea party. The tea party only comes around during election time, the 9/12 patriots are a hardcore wingnut group.

The tea party pays the bills for the wingnuts in the 9/12 Patriots. And the tea party comes and goes. The reason is that the Tea Party does not address social issues, so the wingnuts will show up for the money backing, but not for the party.

 

[nismaratwork]

The Tea Party does not exist and is not a grassroots anything. The Tea Party is a business.

The 9/12 Patriots are the real crowd. They are the birthers. And it is basically the anti-abortion wing of the GOP that is mad that abortion has fallen off the radar. The problem with abortion is that most women under 40 are pro-life.

The 9/12 Patriots are the mobs you see, and not the tea party. The tea party only comes around during election time, the 9/12 patriots are a hardcore wingnut group.

The tea party pays the bills for the wingnuts in the 9/12 Patriots. And the tea party comes and goes. The reason is that the Tea Party does not address social issues, so the wingnuts will show up for the money backing, but not for the party.

Hmmm, I believe you, but damn it's hard to keep track. Business and mob... what a great synergy...

@CAC1001: Frankly I don't think this movement would have arisen if we had another white man in office, and the economy were not in the midst of tanking. It's the combination of those two factors that I believe unsettles people who would otherwise be calm enough to think, but now are essentially inflamed by the mob element airborne18 refers to.

I'm not saying that widespread racism = millions who go home thinking "I hate that black guy", but I think it does have a psychological effect. People seem unsettled by this black man, and when you add economic turmoil all they express is hatred, distrust, and channel into pre-loaded bandwagons like the Tea Parties. You add in the manufactured fear that he's a "secret muslim", and that gives you a window into the other element of cultural fear: people are deeply unsettled by Islam right now. I don't think that this country would be in such a state if you knocked down a leg of that triangle, but as it is, people are scared, and frightened people tend to go to their baser natures.

For 8 years people have been told by an administration, and news (not just Fox, although they are the least subtle) to BE AFRAID, there's one and a half wars on, and the fear-mongering just gets ramped up. Be afraid of Islam, be afraid of terrorists, be afraid of the end of "the American way of life" (a fluid notion)... and now with so many having lost financial security they are viscerally terrified. People in that situation look to external factors to justify the level of fear and uncertainty, and some don't identify the correct targets, so we have Birthers, and bigots, and Evangelicals who've stopped thinking entirely in favor of "feeling".

In the sense that fear and the reaction to it are fundamentally grassroots, I guess you could say that the Tea Party is a "grassroots" movement, but not from an organizational standpoint. The fear works its way up, and there are always people ready to make a buck or get some power through the generation and exploitation of that fear.

 

[Al68]

Frankly I don't think this movement would have arisen if we had another white man in office, and the economy were not in the midst of tanking. It's the combination of those two factors that I believe unsettles people who would otherwise be calm enough to think, but now are essentially inflamed by the mob element airborne18 refers to.

I'm not saying that widespread racism = millions who go home thinking "I hate that black guy", but I think it does have a psychological effect. People seem unsettled by this black man, and when you add economic turmoil all they express is hatred, distrust, and channel into pre-loaded bandwagons like the Tea Parties.

Yeah, there has never been any political opposition to white Presidents with similar agendas.

One might think on a science forum there would be more interest in honest debate instead of hate-mongering about the supposed motives of others.

 

[CAC1001]

Hmmm, I believe you, but damn it's hard to keep track. Business and mob... what a great synergy...

@CAC1001: Frankly I don't think this movement would have arisen if we had another white man in office, and the economy were not in the midst of tanking. It's the combination of those two factors that I believe unsettles people who would otherwise be calm enough to think, but now are essentially inflamed by the mob element airborne18 refers to.

The economy may have something to do with it, but I do not see them as "inflamed."

I'm not saying that widespread racism = millions who go home thinking "I hate that black guy", but I think it does have a psychological effect. People seem unsettled by this black man, and when you add economic turmoil all they express is hatred, distrust, and channel into pre-loaded bandwagons like the Tea Parties.

From what I have seen, there hasn't been much hatred at the Tea Parties. I also do not get why you think people seem "unsettled" by a black man being President.

You add in the manufactured fear that he's a "secret muslim", and that gives you a window into the other element of cultural fear: people are deeply unsettled by Islam right now. I don't think that this country would be in such a state if you knocked down a leg of that triangle, but as it is, people are scared, and frightened people tend to go to their baser natures.

The Tea Party is not made up of the "Obama is a Muslim!" "Obama was not born in the USA!" crowd. Sure, some of those types inhabit it, but not the majority.

For 8 years people have been told by an administration, and news (not just Fox, although they are the least subtle) to BE AFRAID, there's one and a half wars on, and the fear-mongering just gets ramped up. Be afraid of Islam, be afraid of terrorists, be afraid of the end of "the American way of life" (a fluid notion)... and now with so many having lost financial security they are viscerally terrified. People in that situation look to external factors to justify the level of fear and uncertainty, and some don't identify the correct targets, so we have Birthers, and bigots, and Evangelicals who've stopped thinking entirely in favor of "feeling".

Where did the Bush administration tell everyone to "be afraid" and engaged in fearmongering?

And yes, there are Birthers, and bigots, during the Bush years, we had a share of crazies too.

In the sense that fear and the reaction to it are fundamentally grassroots, I guess you could say that the Tea Party is a "grassroots" movement, but not from an organizational standpoint. The fear works its way up, and there are always people ready to make a buck or get some power through the generation and exploitation of that fear.

The thing is, the Tea Party is not grounded in fearmongering. These are not rallies of angry white yahoos being revved up by speakers who know how to work a crowd and get everyone paranoid.

It seems just that some people cannot understand why the people would calmly protest the current government. It isn't logical in their mind, so it must be something else, like fear, or racism, or anger, or something.

 

[airborne18]

Hmmm, I believe you, but damn it's hard to keep track. Business and mob... what a great synergy...

@CAC1001: Frankly I don't think this movement would have arisen if we had another white man in office, and the economy were not in the midst of tanking. It's the combination of those two factors that I believe unsettles people who would otherwise be calm enough to think, but now are essentially inflamed by the mob element airborne18 refers to.

I'm not saying that widespread racism = millions who go home thinking "I hate that black guy", but I think it does have a psychological effect. People seem unsettled by this black man, and when you add economic turmoil all they express is hatred, distrust, and channel into pre-loaded bandwagons like the Tea Parties. You add in the manufactured fear that he's a "secret muslim", and that gives you a window into the other element of cultural fear: people are deeply unsettled by Islam right now. I don't think that this country would be in such a state if you knocked down a leg of that triangle, but as it is, people are scared, and frightened people tend to go to their baser natures.

For 8 years people have been told by an administration, and news (not just Fox, although they are the least subtle) to BE AFRAID, there's one and a half wars on, and the fear-mongering just gets ramped up. Be afraid of Islam, be afraid of terrorists, be afraid of the end of "the American way of life" (a fluid notion)... and now with so many having lost financial security they are viscerally terrified. People in that situation look to external factors to justify the level of fear and uncertainty, and some don't identify the correct targets, so we have Birthers, and bigots, and Evangelicals who've stopped thinking entirely in favor of "feeling".

In the sense that fear and the reaction to it are fundamentally grassroots, I guess you could say that the Tea Party is a "grassroots" movement, but not from an organizational standpoint. The fear works its way up, and there are always people ready to make a buck or get some power through the generation and exploitation of that fear.

Do some searches on youtube. The tactic is the same all over, they go to the townhall events and shoutdown the congressperson with the birther nonesense.

Tea party events have almost no turnout, the 9/12 Patriot events with the wingnuts have a large turnout.

 

[Gokul43201]

I wasn't aware they had bad-mouthed Scott Brown.

I live in Massachusetts - maybe it's not well known. I'll see if I can dig up something to cite.

Edit: Here's one - http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/05/22/former_allies_tee_off_on_brown/

Senator Scott Brown yesterday drew scorn from former admirers who had hailed the Massachusetts Republican as a new voice for the conservative cause but now say he has abandoned them by joining Democrats to advance President Obama’s plan to overhaul the financial system.

As quickly as they had latched onto his campaign four months ago, they repudiated him yesterday through a flurry of blog posts, editorials, and Facebook messages.

“His career as a senator of the people lasted slightly longer than the shelf life of milk,’’ said Shelby Blakely, executive director of New Patriot Journal, the media arm of the Tea Party Patriots, which includes various Tea Party groups around the country. “The general mood of the Tea Party is, ‘We put you in, and we’ll take you out in 2012.’ This is not something we will forget.’’

 

[CAC1001]

I live in Massachusetts - maybe it's not well known. I'll see if I can dig up something to cite.

Edit: Here's one - http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/05/22/former_allies_tee_off_on_brown/

I don't know why the Tea Party people would feel that way; it was obvious from the start that Brown was not a strict conservative if I remember correctly; I believe he said he was okay with government healthcare, but just at the state level, not on the national level.

Also I think he is pro-choice?

 

[nismaratwork]

Yeah, there has never been any political opposition to white Presidents with similar agendas.

One might think on a science forum there would be more interest in honest debate instead of hate-mongering about the supposed motives of others.

I hadn't noted that white presidents with similar agendas opposition was so nearly psychotic. The Birther movement alone is pretty damned unique...

 

[nismaratwork]

The economy may have something to do with it, but I do not see them as "inflamed."



From what I have seen, there hasn't been much hatred at the Tea Parties. I also do not get why you think people seem "unsettled" by a black man being President.



The Tea Party is not made up of the "Obama is a Muslim!" "Obama was not born in the USA!" crowd. Sure, some of those types inhabit it, but not the majority.



Where did the Bush administration tell everyone to "be afraid" and engaged in fearmongering?

And yes, there are Birthers, and bigots, during the Bush years, we had a share of crazies too.



The thing is, the Tea Party is not grounded in fearmongering. These are not rallies of angry white yahoos being revved up by speakers who know how to work a crowd and get everyone paranoid.

It seems just that some people cannot understand why the people would calmly protest the current government. It isn't logical in their mind, so it must be something else, like fear, or racism, or anger, or something.

Re: bolded portion: Actually, that's a fairly accurate description of this, "The country is being being destroyed" and Glenn Beck's "turn back to god" crap. I understand calm protest, and even angry protest... your last statement is sophomoric.

 

[WhoWee]

As Obama's popularity declines - it must be the fault of right wingnuts - not that a lot of people that normally sit on the sidelines have now taken an interest in their Government? Is that the consensus here?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/Barack-Obama-Presidential-Job-Approval.aspx

This is a Physics Forum...what happens when you have an action ("Change")? Don't you get a reaction ("other Change"). Surprise! Obama's action didn't happen in a vacuum.

 

[nismaratwork]

As Obama's popularity declines - it must be the fault of right wingnuts - not that a lot of people that normally sit on the sidelines have now taken an interest in their Government? Is that the consensus here?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/Barack-Obama-Presidential-Job-Approval.aspx

This is a Physics Forum...what happens when you have an action ("Change")? Don't you get a reaction ("other Change"). Surprise! Obama's action didn't happen in a vacuum.

True... Obama's actions happened in the wake of two disastrous wars and the worst economic situation since the great depression.

 

[WhoWee]

True... Obama's actions happened in the wake of two disastrous wars and the worst economic situation since the great depression.

...and his response was to push through the largest spending Bills in history - that nobody had time to read?

 

[Gokul43201]

This is a Physics Forum...what happens when you have an action ("Change")? Don't you get a reaction ("other Change"). Surprise! Obama's action didn't happen in a vacuum.

Actually you get a reaction even if there's no action. Many on the Left are disillusioned with Obama because he did not deliver enough change.

Say what you might about the effects of the stimulus bill, but the size and composition was pretty close to median values suggested by a sample of 55 economists (people that study this field for a living) polled by the WSJ. While some economists preferred no stimulus, others, like Krugman and Romer (who resigned recently - speculation is that the WH wasn't listening to her enough), were recommending a whole lot more that $1T.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123195389790581947.html

 

[nismaratwork]

...and his response was to push through the largest spending Bills in history - that nobody had time to read?

You stated that Obama's actions didn't occur in a vacuum... I'm not justifying those actions, just providing some air for that vacuum. Oh, and the whole "didn't have time to read" is far too common to be used as anything but propaganda. If you disagree with the legislation, fine, but give the talking points a rest and focus on the substance.

Personally I think it's premature to dismiss the bills passed as failed or successes... as usual history needs time to asses. The fact remains that this disastrous situation wasn't caused by Obama, nor Bush Sr. or Clinton... 8 years of W.'s stewardship did this, and yet people are screaming at Obama as though upon his election the economy suddenly took a nosedive.

 

[CAC1001]

I hadn't noted that white presidents with similar agendas opposition was so nearly psychotic. The Birther movement alone is pretty damned unique...

During President Bush, we saw people call him a Nazi, there was the 9/11 "Truther" movement, there was even a fake documentary made about George W. Bush supposedly being assassinated, and a novel written about him being assassinated.

Re: bolded portion: Actually, that's a fairly accurate description of this, "The country is being being destroyed"

Haven't seen any Tea Parties with people acting as such. If there was any real such footage of this, the media would have had a field day with it. They had hoped to do this with Glenn Beck's big rally in D.C., but there wasn't much to cover.

and Glenn Beck's "turn back to god" crap. I understand calm protest, and even angry protest... your last statement is sophomoric.

My last statement is just how I see it. I really think a lot of people simply cannot stand seeing the President criticized. Or they just don't understand it. I think Harry Reid exeplified this when he said, "I don't know how any Hispanic person could ever vote Republican." In these people's minds, how on Earth could the people be against Barack Obama's policies to give everyone healthcare, education, fix the environment, etc...

Personally I think it's premature to dismiss the bills passed as failed or successes... as usual history needs time to asses. The fact remains that this disastrous situation wasn't caused by Obama, nor Bush Sr. or Clinton...8 years of W.'s stewardship did this, and yet people are screaming at Obama as though upon his election the economy suddenly took a nosedive.

Now that is a sophomoric statement. You need to do some research into the causes of the economic crisis. Remember, just as has been pointed out that all these people acting as if there are simple "common-sense" solutions to problems like the economy, which is a deeply complex issue as this type of crisis is unprecedented, well also the same goes regarding the causes of the crisis. One could fill a shelf with books on the crisis and still wouldn't know everything. The idea that "Bush did it" is way over-simplifying the whole issue.

BTW, after 2006, Bush kind of became a lame-duck with the Congress going Democrat.

 

[CAC1001]

Actually you get a reaction even if there's no action. Many on the Left are disillusioned with Obama because he did not deliver enough change.

Say what you might about the effects of the stimulus bill, but the size and composition was pretty close to median values suggested by a sample of 55 economists (people that study this field for a living) polled by the WSJ. While some economists preferred no stimulus, others, like Krugman and Romer (who resigned recently - speculation is that the WH wasn't listening to her enough), were recommending a whole lot more that $1T.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123195389790581947.html

Here is an interesting article by John Cochrane on Krugman (his response to Krugman's criticism of him), along with some interesting tidbits on the subject of stimulus overall: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/krugman_response.htm

 

[nismaratwork]

During President Bush, we saw people call him a Nazi, there was the 9/11 "Truther" movement, there was even a fake documentary made about George W. Bush supposedly being assassinated, and a novel written about him being assassinated.

The 9-11 "truthers" aren't partisan... Birthers for the most part are right wing christians. The former is just the usual conspiracy nuts... you have sitting members of congress and other public officials who wanted to "just see [Obama's] birth certificate." If the same were done with the notion of a 9-11 conspiracy that person would be out of a job.

Haven't seen any Tea Parties with people acting as such. If there was any real such footage of this, the media would have had a field day with it. They had hoped to do this with Glenn Beck's big rally in D.C., but there wasn't much to cover.

Acting as such? We're talking about words, not actions, and while Beck's rally was simply an entreaty to "turn back to god" and satisfying his messianic complex, his radio and TV show (and following) are based around that central theme: the republic is dying.

My last statement is just how I see it. I really think a lot of people simply cannot stand seeing the President criticized. Or they just don't understand it. I think Harry Reid exeplified this when he said, "I don't know how any Hispanic person could ever vote Republican." In these people's minds, how on Earth could the people be against Barack Obama's policies to give everyone healthcare, education, fix the environment, etc...

Harry Reid is a twit, you're not getting an argument from me there, and the Democrat's capacity to take their base for granted and then lose is hardly debatable. You saying that people can't stand protest of the president is absurd, and nothing you've said above even begins to address that.

Now that is a sophomoric statement. You need to do some research into the causes of the economic crisis. Remember, just as has been pointed out that all these people acting as if there are simple "common-sense" solutions to problems like the economy, which is a deeply complex issue as this type of crisis is unprecedented, well also the same goes regarding the causes of the crisis. One could fill a shelf with books on the crisis and still wouldn't know everything. The idea that "Bush did it" is way over-simplifying the whole issue.

BTW, after 2006, Bush kind of became a lame-duck with the Congress going Democrat.

Bush becoming a lame duck was kind of meaningless since what he did was to get various balls (and wars) rolling. I love that the jury is still out on Bush's stewardship, but less than 2 years into Obama's presidency you're ready to flip the switch the on electric chair. The economy is complex, and certainly Bush didn't create the housing bubble, but he did his level best to deregulate what he could. The lack of effective regulation in law and practice can be held responsible for a number of economic issues, never mind the latest disaster with BP.

As bad as the economy would have been without W., the addition of wars, deregulation, and turning the country to social wedge issues instead of PROACTIVE legislation has made this far worse than it had to be. If you feel otherwise, well, I've seen what passes for your economic analysis elsewhere, and I'm not impressed in the least. Gokul has been filleting you and Al for days now.

 

[Al68]

I hadn't noted that white presidents with similar agendas opposition was so nearly psychotic.

Well, not nearly as psychotic as the opposition to rejecting Marxist ideology in favor of economic liberty shown by power hungry politicians and many in this forum. Of course my guess is that most are perfectly aware that they are forfeiting the legitimate debate by resorting to the logical fallacy of making claims about the motives of those they oppose, but do so anyway in the hopes of convincing people who don't know any better.

Crying "racism" is a perfect example of such logical fallacy.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, not nearly as psychotic as the opposition to rejecting Marxist ideology in favor of economic liberty shown by power hungry politicians and many in this forum. Of course my guess is that most are perfectly aware that they are forfeiting the legitimate debate by resorting to the logical fallacy of making claims about the motives of those they oppose, but do so anyway in the hopes of convincing people who don't know any better.

Crying "racism" is a perfect example of such logical fallacy.

No Al... saying that racism is the cause of Obama's lack of popularity is a logical fallacy, but that isn't what I SAID. I'm talking about social reaction to his presidency, not his policies. I don't believe that opposition to healthcare or bailouts had anything to do with race for instance... you've either misunderstood my point or are being intentionally obtuse.

Now, your claim of "Marxist ideology" IS the type of logical fallacy that you're referring to, in what is a damned amusing bit of irony.

 

[CAC1001]

Bush becoming a lame duck was kind of meaningless since what he did was to get various balls (and wars) rolling. I love that the jury is still out on Bush's stewardship, but less than 2 years into Obama's presidency you're ready to flip the switch the on electric chair.

Not me.

The economy is complex, and certainly Bush didn't create the housing bubble, but he did his level best to deregulate what he could. The lack of effective regulation in law and practice can be held responsible for a number of economic issues, never mind the latest disaster with BP.

This is incorrect. President Bush did not seek to deregulate, he increased regulation. He signed Sarbannes-Oxley, which has turned out to be overly-burdensome for many public companies. He also sought to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

As for BP, I don't understand that situation much, but from what I've heard, it was not due to a lack of regulation. Big Oil is extremely regulated. What it was was corruption. BP was bribing the Minerals Management Service and they were looking the other way while BP skirted regulations.

What that would tell us is that it wasn't a problem of lack of regulation so much as just ignoring regulations and the overseers not doing their job.

As bad as the economy would have been without W., the addition of wars, deregulation, and turning the country to social wedge issues instead of PROACTIVE legislation has made this far worse than it had to be.

Wars didn't do it, and deregulation where it did occur actually might have helped save the economy when the crisis occurred (for example, removing the barrier between investment banks and commercial banks allowed Bank of America to be able to purchase Merrill-Lynch when the crisis occurred). Others claim the removal of this barrier contributed to the cause of the crisis (opponents will point out Europe never had such a barrier).

Still others say it was bad monetary policy on the part of the Federal Reserve. Others say it was Fannie and Freddie.

As for proactive legislation, I think Bush did plenty of it: He expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs, he signed increased regulation on the financial system due to the scandals resulting from the Dot Com bubble, he tried to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, he created No Child Left Behind (because of the belief that the education system needs more federal control), he tried to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he engaged in a whole suite of anti-terror policies that changed how the nation handles terrorism from being a law enforcement issue to a national security/military issue (many which Obama has continued), etc...in many ways, agree or disagree with his policies, I think he was very proactive.

 

[Al68]

No Al... saying that racism is the cause of Obama's lack of popularity is a logical fallacy, but that isn't what I SAID. I'm talking about social reaction to his presidency, not his policies. I don't believe that opposition to healthcare or bailouts had anything to do with race for instance... you've either misunderstood my point or are being intentionally obtuse.

Now, your claim of "Marxist ideology" IS the type of logical fallacy that you're referring to, in what is a damned amusing bit of irony.

Not quite, actually just the opposite. I used the term "Marxist ideology" to make it clear that it's the ideology of my opponents instead of their motives that I'm arguing against. It really amounts to an implicit assumption of good motives.

Now you might call it hyperbole, but that's a different kind of logical fallacy, one that we all commit, and one that I admit to. Using the word "psychotic" is obviously more of a hyperbole than "Marxist ideology" to describe someone with the same basic underlying ideology as Marx, even if their political agenda is less extreme.

 

[turbo]

Not quite, actually just the opposite. I used the term "Marxist ideology" to make it clear that it's the ideology of my opponents instead of their motives that I'm arguing against. It really amounts to an implicit assumption of good motives.

Now you might call it hyperbole, but that's a different kind of logical fallacy, one that we all commit, and one that I admit to. Using the word "psychotic" is obviously more of a hyperbole than "Marxist ideology" to describe someone with the same basic underlying ideology as Marx, even if their political agenda is less extreme.

That's the same kind of tactic used by Gingrich when said in a National Review interview recently that Obama's actions only make sense when seen in the context of a Kenyan anti-colonial world-view. Gingrich is not unintelligent, and his words are carefully calibrated. Key leaders in the GOP are playing a dangerous game, and it may well come back to haunt them when voters are reminded of the smears and lies ahead of the general election.

 

[CAC1001]

That's the same kind of tactic used by Gingrich when said in a National Review interview recently that Obama's actions only make sense when seen in the context of a Kenyan anti-colonial world-view. Gingrich is not unintelligent, and his words are carefully calibrated. Key leaders in the GOP are playing a dangerous game, and it may well come back to haunt them when voters are reminded of the smears and lies ahead of the general election.

That whole bit about Obama adhering to a Kenyan anti-colonial worldview that Mr. Gingrich is mentioning comes from Dinesh D'Souza's new book: "The Roots of Obama's Rage" http://www.dineshdsouza.com/

 

[nismaratwork]

Welcome to PF, where playing pathetic word games and using such hyperbole is transparent to 99% of the userbase. When I say "psychotic" it's clear exaggeration, but "Marxist ideology" and "Socialism" are being thrown around without a bit of irony or hyperbole. Biiiiig difference. As turbo-1 has pointed out, this is the kind of gaming that is being used, and certainly it works on a workable fraction of the public, but don't expect to spout it here and get anywhere.

As for deregulation, Bush gutted agencies such as the EPA and others. As we've seen, the issue isn't the law on the books, but the money, manpower, and authority from the executive which makes regulation possible. Under 30 years of Dem and Rep governments, agencies such as MMS are just left to rot.

CAC1001: So what? Gingrich is no fool, and the source of his theories is less important than his choice to deploy them in the manner he has.

This debate, which is about the Tea Party has really been summed up by airborne18 as far as I can tell: the Tea Party is an opportunistic feeder like any party, and then you have the 9-12 patriots who are wingnuts. Done.

I have to say, I love the "anti-colonial" worldview that includes 50,000 troops in Iraq and a surge in Afghanistan...

I think I'm starting to lose my patience with this thread... if something interesting comes up, I'll comment, but this is just endless circular reasoning and feeble partisan arguments.

 

[CAC1001]

As for deregulation, Bush gutted agencies such as the EPA and others.

Which ones? Also, how did they contribute to the financial crisis?

As we've seen, the issue isn't the law on the books, but the money, manpower, and authority from the executive which makes regulation possible. Under 30 years of Dem and Rep governments, agencies such as MMS are just left to rot.

Left to rot, or left to get too corrupt? No expert, but could one problem be that since there are just so many regulatory agencies these days, it is impossible to keep track of them all, and thus watch them all closely? And thus many fall prey to corruption that otherwise would not occur if watched closely?

CAC1001: So what? Gingrich is no fool, and the source of his theories is less important than his choice to deploy them in the manner he has.

Was not defending Gingrich's saying Obama adheres to that worldview, I have no opinion on that argument as I haven't looked into it much. I was just pointing out that the idea wasn't Newt Gingrich's himself, it is from a book by a conservative author.

 

[mheslep]

There are a couple more important principles you missed:

4) All problems (complexity be damned) have simple "common sense" solutions.

You find this theme repeatedly prominently by many of the (IMO) airheads like Beck, Palin, Bachmann and O'Donnell, (not so much by the those in the lonely corner occupied by Paul), as well as in websites run by different tea party groups.

For instance, www.teaparty.org summarizes its core beliefs with the slogan "Common Sense Constitutional Conservative Self-Governance".

5) Obama is always wrong.

I don't think this requires much explanation. The rapidity with which the Tea Partiers badmouthed Scott Brown is a good indicator of this sentiment.

Valid points for certain talking heads but I think you are self selecting who the Tea Party is in opposition to the only substantive evidence I know of - election results of people with substantial Tea Party backing. Beck and Palin are (currently) elected to nothing, running for no office. Bachmann has been in office long before there was any concept of a Tea Party. Any loon can put up a web site, especially for a non chartered grass roots group. On the other hand we have Paul, who is running for office, won his primary, is likely to win the general, yet he's in the lonely corner? I suggest Brown is a valid face of the Tea Party as he was elected, not some talking head elected to nothing who criticizes him. Also see actual candidates Miller(Ak), Rubio(Fl), Kelly (Az 8th), McMahon (Conn), etc - all with strong self identified Tea Party support per polls. Do they meet 4),5)? I'd say some of the old school Republicans in Congress (i.e. Boehner) are more likely to meet 4),5) than most Tea Party candidates, spouting the same old R good, D bad machine politics junk.

 

[mheslep]

As for deregulation, Bush gutted agencies such as the EPA and others. ...

Hardly.
http://www.epa.gov/history/org/resources/budget.htm

 

[mheslep]

That whole bit about Obama adhering to a Kenyan anti-colonial worldview that Mr. Gingrich is mentioning comes from Dinesh D'Souza's new book: "The Roots of Obama's Rage" http://www.dineshdsouza.com/

Well the primary source material is the President's own words in his autobiography, Dreams of My Father.

I realized that who I was, what I cared about, was no longer just a matter of intellect or obligation, no longer a construct of words. I saw that my life in America — the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I'd felt as a boy, the frustration and hope I'd witnessed in Chicago — all of it was connected with this small plot of Earth [in Kenya] an ocean away, connected by more than the accident of a name or the color of my skin. The pain I felt was my father's pain. My questions were my brothers' questions. Their struggle [in part against the history of colonialism in Kenya], my birthright.

brackets mine.


I'm not that interested, but I'd say its hardly extreme to at least speculate the above is the basis of a "Kenyan anti-colonial world-view."

 

[BobG]

For 8 years people have been told by an administration, and news (not just Fox, although they are the least subtle) to BE AFRAID, there's one and a half wars on, and the fear-mongering just gets ramped up. Be afraid of Islam, be afraid of terrorists, be afraid of the end of "the American way of life" (a fluid notion)... and now with so many having lost financial security they are viscerally terrified. People in that situation look to external factors to justify the level of fear and uncertainty, and some don't identify the correct targets, so we have Birthers, and bigots, and Evangelicals who've stopped thinking entirely in favor of "feeling".

In the sense that fear and the reaction to it are fundamentally grassroots, I guess you could say that the Tea Party is a "grassroots" movement, but not from an organizational standpoint. The fear works its way up, and there are always people ready to make a buck or get some power through the generation and exploitation of that fear.

You should really separate the administration and the news portions of adiministering fear.

The Bush administration did tend to capitalize on the fear of terrorism and harped on how his administration had protected from terrorist attacks, but there's a huge departure in the Bush aministration's views about Islam, Arabs, foreigners in general (i.e. - illegal aliens) than the current movements that have sprouted up. In fact, even being a Republican, Bush took some serious criticism for being too soft on illegal immigration and for supporting Arab ownership of a firm handling security at US seaports. Bush also tried very hard to prevent 9/11 from turning into a war against Islam, even attending services in mosques.

Some of the current fear of Islam, fear of illegal aliens overrunning our country is something completely different than what we experienced in the Bush administration (although it was already starting up with the likes of Tancredo, et al).

And the current movement is something completely different than what the old Republican Party establishment would have preferred, given their dismay over many of the upsets in primaries.

The lack of organization and control within the tea party movement is what has allowed the loonies to seem to take a legitimate seat at the table (and the lack of organization and control is why I said they have a similar style as the hippie movement did).

 

[WhoWee]

You stated that Obama's actions didn't occur in a vacuum... I'm not justifying those actions, just providing some air for that vacuum. Oh, and the whole "didn't have time to read" is far too common to be used as anything but propaganda. If you disagree with the legislation, fine, but give the talking points a rest and focus on the substance. QUOTE]

This is where I totally disagree. The average voter is very tired of hearing that NOBODY reads the Bills and the Bills are 2,000 pages and all of the nonsense is stuffed in there and it's the other guys fault that special interests were funded.

Many of the Tea Party people I've spoken with want a clean sweep of Washington - Dems and Repubs.

 

[turbo]

This is where I totally disagree. The average voter is very tired of hearing that NOBODY reads the Bills and the Bills are 2,000 pages and all of the nonsense is stuffed in there and it's the other guys fault that special interests were funded.

Many of the Tea Party people I've spoken with want a clean sweep of Washington - Dems and Repubs.

The average voter is not aware that every member of Congress has advisors and staff-members to scour these bills (at our expense). The fiction that the actual congressman or senator has not been able to "read the bill" is crap. They never do that anyway. They have staff-members to do that for them, and administrators and advisors to condense the results so they can spit out sound-bites. Do you think that millionaires (Senators) sit up all night reading bills? Get a life!

 

[WhoWee]

The average voter is not aware that every member of Congress has advisors and staff-members to scour these bills (at our expense). The fiction that the actual congressman or senator has not been able to "read the bill" is crap. They never do that anyway. They have staff-members to do that for them, and administrators and advisors to condense the results so they can spit out sound-bites. Do you think that millionaires (Senators) sit up all night reading bills? Get a life!

They are expected to do their jobs. They need to be more accountable for their work product. If the Bills are too large and complicated - then they need to make them smaller and more manageable. If this means they have to spend more time debating and voting - GOOD - it's their job (not interviewing Colbert and taking junkets).

 

[Al68]

Welcome to PF, where playing pathetic word games and using such hyperbole is transparent to 99% of the userbase. When I say "psychotic" it's clear exaggeration, but "Marxist ideology" and "Socialism" are being thrown around without a bit of irony or hyperbole. Biiiiig difference. As turbo-1 has pointed out, this is the kind of gaming that is being used, and certainly it works on a workable fraction of the public, but don't expect to spout it here and get anywhere.

It's not a "word game". The ideology I oppose is shared by Marxists, socialists, and Democrats. Would you prefer "economic authoritarianism"?

It may not seem obvious to you, but the resemblance of things routinely said by Democrats and the writings of Marx and other socialist propaganda is uncanny. It's the kind of thing that is far more obvious to someone who doesn't share those views.

 

[Gokul43201]

Valid points for certain talking heads but I think you are self selecting who the Tea Party is in opposition to the only substantive evidence I know of - election results of people with substantial Tea Party backing.

Do you not see the circularity of your definition?

I'm not self selecting (I'm not selecting at all - I named all the big Tea Party people I knew anything about). I honestly do not know the others you mentioned besides having come across the occasional mention here or there. I'm going simply by what the news reporting conveys of the Tea Party. And as far as I can tell, Sarah Palin has given prominent appearances (keynote speeches, etc.) at most of the big nationwide Tea Party events. She is virtually their figurehead, from where I'm watching. I know of Brown since I'm in Mass,. and I know about Paul, because he's been getting some news attention over the last couple months. Beck, of course, led the biggest Tea Party rally ever, and probably has more influence over election day decisions of way more people than all the other names you mentioned.

PS: As for the teaparty.org website, I didn't think that was a site run by some random loon. For starters, the url isn't thisisteapartyxoxo.com or somesuch. And they've even got real world office locations in CA and TX with a third one on the way. But I could still be completely wrong. Do you believe that looking for "common sense" solutions to problems is not a primary guiding principle of the movement?

 

[edward]

The average voter is not aware that every member of Congress has advisors and staff-members to scour these bills (at our expense). The fiction that the actual congressman or senator has not been able to "read the bill" is crap. They never do that anyway. They have staff-members to do that for them, and administrators and advisors to condense the results so they can spit out sound-bites. Do you think that millionaires (Senators) sit up all night reading bills? Get a life!

Right Turbo-1

Reading a legislative bill or law is done by aids so that a simple summary can be provided in a timely manner.

The legalese in laws is tedious to read mostly due to references back and forth. A bill may have wording on page 300 that refers to a sub section on page 380. The Arizona Revised Statutes has three pages devoted to defining a traffic light.

Republicans complained about the length of the Health care bill, but did they really read it? They do appear to know what is in it.




The ten longest bills in the last ten years.

Word Count Bill Sponsor Status

314,900 Affordable Health Care for American Act Rep. John Dingell [D, MI-15] Approved by House

314,832 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 2005 Rep. Don Young [R, AK-1] Bill is Law

314,573 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] Submitted in Senate

296,111 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 Rep. James Kolbe [R, AZ-5] Bill is Law

276,849 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 Rep. Nita Lowey [D, NY-18] Bill is Law

274,559 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Rep. John Boehner [R, OH-8] Bill is Law

258,205 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 Rep. Ike Skelton [D, MO-4] Bill is Law

250,286 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7] Bill is Law

246,984 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 Rep. Bill Young [R, FL-10] Bill is Law

226,492 Energy Policy Act, 2005 Rep. Joe Barton [R, TX-6] Bill is law

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1375-For-Bills-in-Congress-How-Long-is-Long-

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not that interested, but I'd say its hardly extreme to at least speculate the above is the basis of a "Kenyan anti-colonial world-view."

This of course explains why I, a native Californian raised in Los Angeles, so completely relate to Obama's world view and domestic agenda. He is the probably the first politician I have ever really understood on a personal level. DAMN! I never knew I was driven by a Kenyan anti-colonial world-view!

I think Mr. Gingrich's confusion has more to do with his age than colonialism.

 

[edward]

This of course explains why I, a native Californian raised in Los Angeles, so completely relate to Obama's world view and domestic agenda. He is the probably the first politician I have ever really understood on a personal level. DAMN! I never knew I was driven by a Kenyan anti-colonial world-view!

I think Mr. Gingrich's confusion has more to do with his age than colonialism.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

1) That government is too large

Perhaps. But this ignores the real problems that we face. And the tea party would have us undo a century of legislation because they think life was somehow better a hundred years ago. Well, it wasn't.

2) That Washington is broken,

I think so too. That's why I elected Obama and send him money. This is also why I oppose those in the tea party who would take us back a century. The key to fixing Washington is not to take us back the days of the horse and buggy.

3) The ideals of limited government and fiscal conservatism

Limited government is what helped to create the mess we're in. I doubt that anyone wants more government than we need. The fallacy on the part of tea party is the assumption that the best government is no government. We know better.

The cry for fiscal conservatism during the greatest economic crisis since the depression, is irrational. If there was ever a time for government spending, now is the time. Obama had no choice if he was to protect the nation from a disaster. And keep in mind that Bush was the one who actually socialized the banking system when he took over Freddie and Fannie. In fact, probably the world's more ardent free-marketeer, Henry Paulson, along with Ken Bernanke, one of the world's foremost experts on the depression, first led the charge to bail out the banking system. As I said, we had no choice. The tea partiers just don't get that. They are complaining about the hands that pulled them from the fire. And if they think they are anrgy now, how would they feel if we were looking at 25% unemployment as a baseline, and a failed global banking system that would take a decade to rebuild? They don't get that either.

When the tea partiers cry about his health care agenda, they neglect the fact that we face an even greater crisis if we do nothing. They are simply ignoring the facts. The entire basis for their movement is rooted in fantasy; much of which has been fed by the lies and rantings of people like Beck.

 

[CAC1001]

So if none of these Senators actually reads the legislative bills, who writes them exactly?

 

[CAC1001]

Perhaps. But this ignores the real problems that we face. And the tea party would have us undo a century of legislation because they think life was somehow better a hundred years ago. Well, it wasn't.

Don't confuse the Tea Party with the Ron Paul crowd.

I think so too. That's why I elected Obama and send him money. This is also why I oppose those in the tea party who would take us back a century. The key to fixing Washington is not to take us back the days of the horse and buggy.

No one is saying to.

Limited government is what helped to create the mess we're in. I doubt that anyone wants more government than we need. The fallacy on the part of tea party is the assumption that the best government is no government. We know better.

No one claimed such.

The cry for fiscal conservatism during the greatest economic crisis since the depression, is irrational. If there was ever a time for government spending, now is the time. Obama had no choice if he was to protect the nation from a disaster.

That's one view.

And keep in mind that Bush was the one who actually socialized the banking system when he took over Freddie and Fannie. In fact, probably the world's more ardent free-marketeer, Henry Paulson, along with Ken Bernanke, one of the world's foremost experts on the depression, first led the charge to bail out the banking system. As I said, we had no choice. The tea partiers just don't get that. They are complaining about the hands that pulled them from the fire. And if they think they are anrgy now, how would they feel if we were looking at 25% unemployment as a baseline, and a failed global banking system that would take a decade to rebuild? They don't get that either.

Agree.

When the tea partiers cry about his health care agenda, they neglect the fact that we face an even greater crisis if we do nothing. They are simply ignoring the facts. The entire basis for their movement is rooted in fantasy; much of which has been fed by the lies and rantings of people like Beck.

No one said we should "do nothing" regarding healthcare.

 

[WhoWee]

Right Turbo-1

Reading a legislative bill or law is done by aids so that a simple summary can be provided in a timely manner.

The legalese in laws is tedious to read mostly due to references back and forth. A bill may have wording on page 300 that refers to a sub section on page 380. The Arizona Revised Statutes has three pages devoted to defining a traffic light.

Republicans complained about the length of the Health care bill, but did they really read it? They do appear to know what is in it.




The ten longest bills in the last ten years.




http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1375-For-Bills-in-Congress-How-Long-is-Long-

I'm not disputing how things are done in Washington. My point is that if you want to understand what fuels the anger of Tea Party members - this is a good place to start (not a racist conspiracy theory).

The Delaware election is a wake up call to EVERY fat cat politician who falls back on the not my fault - it's the way things are done excuse. Politicians are elected to represent their districts- not themselves or their parties.

On a side note, I participated in an CE course on ETHICS in Corporate America this week. The average entrance score was about 50% - upon completion of the course 85%. The area 90% of respondents admitting to a weakness in - rationalism.

 

[Al68]

And the tea party would have us undo a century of legislation because they think life was somehow better a hundred years ago...This is also why I oppose those in the tea party who would take us back a century. The key to fixing Washington is not to take us back the days of the horse and buggy.

Can you provide any substantiation that the tea party thinks life was better a hundred years ago or that they would take us back to horse and buggy days?

Why is it that a (moderated?) science forum has so many posts full of such nonsense while saying absolutely nothing of substance?

 

[Al68]

That's the same kind of tactic used by Gingrich when said in a National Review interview recently that Obama's actions only make sense when seen in the context of a Kenyan anti-colonial world-view.

Yes, same tactic, different claims. If you think Gingrich's assessment of Obama's world-view is incorrect, then it's that assessment, not the tactic, that is wrong.

The tactic of objecting to an opponent's political beliefs or ideology instead of his motives is a particularly relevant classic example of sound logic. The logic is sound even if the claims are false.

The tactic of objecting to an opponents motives is a classic example of logical fallacy. The logic is flawed even if the claims are true. For example, objecting to someone being "for the rich" is a logical fallacy even if the claim were true.

 

[Al68]

Welcome to PF, where playing pathetic word games and using such hyperbole is transparent to 99% of the userbase. When I say "psychotic" it's clear exaggeration, but "Marxist ideology" and "Socialism" are being thrown around without a bit of irony or hyperbole. Biiiiig difference. As turbo-1 has pointed out, this is the kind of gaming that is being used, and certainly it works on a workable fraction of the public, but don't expect to spout it here and get anywhere.

I think you misunderstood turbo-1. While we disagree adamantly on many things, turbo-1 and I seem to agree on the appropriateness of using the word "socialist" to describe the ideology of Democrats:

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all socialist programs meant to provide safety nets for the well-being and health of ordinary citizens. And no, "socialism" is NOT a bad word, except when nut-cases conflate it with Stalinism, etc, as they frequently did when attacking health-care-reform.

The pathetic game here is someone espousing socialist policy then semantically objecting to the word socialist being used. The funny thing is that whenever someone makes a semantical objection to the word socialist, it's after they obviously knew exactly what was meant by the word, because it was used in a context that all but eliminated the possibility of misconstruing the meaning.

 

[mheslep]

Do you not see the circularity of your definition?

We have polls showing people self identified as having a 'strong or favorable' impression of the tea party in conjunction with their election choice. That's it. Those polls are the only real indicator of opinion, and the statements/actions of candidates elected with polls showing Tea Party support are the only things that have any substantive impact.

I'm not self selecting (I'm not selecting at all - I named all the big Tea Party people I knew anything about). I honestly do not know the others you mentioned besides having come across the occasional mention here or there. I'm going simply by what the news reporting conveys of the Tea Party.

Then possibly your sources of news have selected for you. I see interviews of Tea Party candidates all the time. Rubio has been on the Sunday talk shows a couple times, once in a debate with Christ.

And as far as I can tell, Sarah Palin has given prominent appearances (keynote speeches, etc.) at most of the big nationwide Tea Party events. She is virtually their figurehead, from where I'm watching. I know of Brown since I'm in Mass,. and I know about Paul, because he's been getting some news attention over the last couple months. Beck, of course, led the biggest Tea Party rally ever, and probably has more influence over election day decisions of way more people than all the other names you mentioned.

There's a not single ballot cast to suggest that the people there would actually favor Beck to run anything (or Palin presently) any more than the 50,000 that attended a Yankees game the other night indicates they want A. Rod to run things for them. Nor, to my mind, do the vast majority of the field of Tea Party candidates (as indicated by polling) resemble Palin/Beck in style, background, or experience.

PS: As for the teaparty.org website, I didn't think that was a site run by some random loon. For starters, the url isn't thisisteapartyxoxo.com or somesuch. And they've even got real world office locations in CA and TX with a third one on the way. But I could still be completely wrong. Do you believe that looking for "common sense" solutions to problems is not a primary guiding principle of the movement?

No need to ask what I believe that others believe, what ever good that what add. Poll data tells us what self described Tea Party supporters subscribe to:

[...]
And, would you describe your support for the Tea Party Movement more as a protest against the performance of the Obama Administration, a protest against the performance of Democrats in Congress, a protest against the Republicans in Congress, a protest against business as usual in Washington, or more of a positive for The Tea Party Movement? (RANDOMIZE.)
Protest business as usual in Washington.......... 42
Protest the performance of the Obama Administration ....... 20
[...]
Positive for Tea Party .............. 9
[...]

Please tell me which one or two of these are the main reasons you support the Tea Party Movement
[...]
Is committed to cutting federal government
spending and the national debt ......29
Is committed to reducing the size of government, including abolishing some
federal agencies..........25
[...]
[...]

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJNBCPoll09282010.pdf
These same top answers come up in poll after poll. Caci had essentially the same off the top of his head in #478. Everything else ascribed to a grass roots political movement with no official party leaders, everything outside of polling and the statements of candidates elected with polls showing Tea Party support, is hand waving.

 

[mheslep]

[...]
Say what you might about the effects of the stimulus bill, but the size and composition was pretty close to median values suggested by a sample of 55 economists (people that study this field for a living) polled by the WSJ. While some economists preferred no stimulus, others, like Krugman and Romer (who resigned recently - speculation is that the WH wasn't listening to her enough), were recommending a whole lot more that $1T.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123195389790581947.html

Here is an interesting article by John Cochrane on Krugman (his response to Krugman's criticism of him), along with some interesting tidbits on the subject of stimulus overall: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/krugman_response.htm

Also see this letter signed by some hundred or so economists, including three Nobel laureates. Maybe the WSJ sampling was poor.

"There is no disagreement that we need action byour government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy." — PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009

With all due respect Mr.President,that is not true.

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

 

[Gokul43201]

Also see this letter signed by some hundred or so economists, including three Nobel laureates. Maybe the WSJ sampling was poor.

www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

I don't get this. Are you seriously suggesting that your sampling technique via pulling names off a petition is better than WSJ's? If not what's your point? How does you list help identify the distribution of opinions?

Your complaint is that WSJ sampling was poor. Then help us find a better sample, not a poorer one!