News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[Ivan Seeking]

That guys getting old in sooo many ways.

I thought he made the point pretty well. Perhaps Beck should quit giving him so much material to chose from.

The really sad thing is that a comedy show has more credibility than a show alleged to be serious. Glenn Beck overdosed on tea, long ago.

"If they want their movement to be more than a wave that crashes on the beach and then recedes back into the ocean, leaving nothing behind but empty sand, they should stop the 'gloom talk,'" Bennett continued. "These are not the worst times we have ever faced, nor is the Constitution under serious threat."

- Ousted GOP Sen. Bob Bennett
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/99297-bennett-compares-tea-party-to-jimmy-carter

What I think Senator Bennett fails to realize is that the claims he dismisses are the basis for the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party is driven by delusions, fantasy, and irrational fears. Consider for example the objections to the bailouts. GET A GRIP! We had no choice. It is irrational to object to the only course of action available to us, if we are to avoid a national and global economic collapse. The objections of the tea drinkers are just plain looney. Yes, the bailouts stunk. Yes, the deficit is a huge concern. No one disputes those facts. But the position of the movement becomes irrational when they assume that, they, and only they, understand this. We get it. Obama gets it. Geithner gets it. Bernanke gets it. We ALL get it! Quit acting like a bunch of pompous fools.

The tea drinkers suffer from the delusion that they, and only THEY, want to save the economy. Only they understand that we cannot continue on the spending trajectory of recent years. Frankly, it is not only lame, but personally insulting, everytime I talk with a tea drinker who thinks that you have to watch Glenn Beck in order to understand this. Glenn Beck understand very little about anything. He is a joke. He is a clown. But he is a very sad clown because he doesn't know he's a clown.

Do you tea drinkers really think Obama wants to ruin his daughter's lives by destroying the US economy? Is anyone really so gullible that they believe that? Turn off Fox News and get a life.

 

[magpies]

We'll I don't really even know much about glenn beck honestly. From what I understand he is in the entertainment industry so I can only expect him to act crazy... But to think the same old jokes told the same way over and over is funny seems even more crazy. I think black should try to come up with something new that's all. I mean at least he could have dressed up like a nazi or something...

 

[IcedEcliptic]

You need a "source" to understand that cap-and-trade will give the government control over the energy usage of the economy when coal is one of the primary sources of energy in the United States?



What that would show is where his ideology lies.



You need to cite things that are obscure forms of knowledge. No one should have to cite the things I am saying. Things you cite are if you claim for example why the healthcare bill won't work. Not the fact that Congress had to use reconciliation to pass it.



I think you are simply trying to draw attention away from the arguments I am making here. Nothing I have said thus far requires sourcing, unless you've been living under a rock. Would you also need sourcing to know that Bush was not for cap-and-trade? Or that Bush signed the Patriot Act? Some things should not require sourcing.



Sure that would need a source, because no where did the administration ever talk about that or list that as a reason.

Rules are rules, I suggest you read the ones here. You source, or you don't post.

 

[magpies]

What is he suppost to source I'll find it for him I am bored...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just to be perfectly clear: It is my position that the tea drinkers are essentially intellectual cowards; that they are unwilling to face the truth. They cannot accept that our problems are tremendously difficult; not solved with simple seat-of-the-pants solutions. The movement is appealing because it caters to the ego-driven delusion that our problems could easily be solved if we would just put Joe Sixpack in charge. It is a refusal to accept that the world really is complicated and they don't understand it.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

What is he suppost to source I'll find it for him I am bored...

Just read over the last few pages, itemize his various claims and find evidence that they are factual and not meaningless campaign rhetoric, or somehow spun. If someone told me that W. stole an election, I'd ask for evidence of that too.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Just to be perfectly clear: It is my position that the tea drinkers are essentially intellectual cowards; that they are unwilling to face the truth. They cannot accept that our problems are tremendously difficult; not solved with simple seat-of-the-pants solutions. The movement is appealing because it caters to the ego-driven delusion that our problems could easily be solved if we would just put Joe Sixpack in charge.

Not cowards, just lacking in candlepower. You have be something other than a fool or filled with hatred and fear to rise to intellectual ANYTHING.

 

[magpies]

It's too much I can't even figure out what you guys are talking about or if you even have points...

 

[Vanadium 50]

The EPA, which was gutted to the tune of far more than such an increase in previous decades?

Interesting point, will concede there, didn't know that.

The reason you didn't know that is because it is completely false. The EPA has published their budget http://epa.gov/history/org/resources/budget.htm" . You can see that ever since 1998, when it first crossed $7B, it has been between $7.3B and $8.4B until 2010, when it went to $10.3B.

People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. The facts are on-line for anyone to check.

 

[Gokul43201]

The reason you didn't know that is because it is completely false. The EPA has published their budget http://epa.gov/history/org/resources/budget.htm" . You can see that ever since 1998, when it first crossed $7B, it has been between $7.3B and $8.4B until 2010, when it went to $10.3B.

The numbers don't seem terribly disconnected from the statement that IE made, but I'm not sure yet whether those are chained dollars or not. And what do the budgets look like as a fraction of GDP?

That's too much work for me to bother with now, so I'll just look at the numbers as presented to look for behavior over the last 3 decades. If someone has better info on them, or can provide inflation adjusted EPA budgets relative to say GDP (maybe run the numbers through Wolfram Alpha?), we could revisit the analysis.

In 2008, the EPA budget was $7.47T; you have to go back a decade to find a lower budget. From my inspection, that's unprecedented in the entire published history of EPA budgets. Before 2006, there was never a budget so small that you had to go back over 5 years to find a lower number. "Gutted" doesn't sound terribly off.

Furthermore - and this is using a crude 5-year avg for smoothing - between 1990 and 2000 the EPA budget grew by about 25-30%. The numbers are noisy in the late 70s, but from 1980 to 1990 the increase is in that same 25-30% range. However, from 1990 to 1999 (naturally I am not using a 5-yr mean centered around 1999, but the numbers are less noisy here), there has been virtually no net change in the budget. While still not a rigorous proof, this supports an assertion that the current 30% boost only makes up for the cuts in previous years to about the extent that it brings the budget growth on par with those of the 80s and 90s.

So, if I had to correct IE's statement, I'd say that the EPA was gutted in the last decade to the tune of about whatever the increase is in the present budget. "Far more than" is likely an overstatement, but of course, this is all based on what to me are so far unidentified numbers.

 

[turbo]

Actually, the EPA was gutted. Not by depriving it of money, but by administrative fiat during the Bush administration. The GAO report on EPA's effectiveness is here:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/110_OI.102108.GAO.EPATransparency.pdf In part:

Total penalties assessed by EPA, when adjusted for inflation, declined from $240.6 million to $137.7 million between fiscal years 1998 and 2007. We identified three shortcomings in how EPA calculates and reports penalty information to Congress and the public. Specifically, EPA is:
• Overstating the impact of the enforcement programs by reporting penalties assessed against violators rather than actual penalties received by the U.S. Treasury.
• Reducing the precision of trend analyses by reporting nominal rather than inflation-adjusted penalties, thereby understating past accomplishments.
• Understating the influence of its enforcement programs by excluding the portion of penalties awarded to states in federal cases.

 

[mheslep]

Actually, the EPA was gutted. Not by depriving it of money, but by administrative fiat during the Bush administration. The GAO report on EPA's effectiveness is here:

In part:

In very small part. Next paragraph:

In contrast to penalties, we found that both the value of estimated injunctive relief and the amount of pollution reduction reported by EPA generally increased. The estimated value of injunctive relief increased from $4.4 billion in fiscal year 1999 to $10.9 billion in fiscal year 2007, in 2008 dollars. In addition, estimated pollution reduction commitments amounted to 714 million pounds in fiscal year 2000 and increased to 890 million pounds in fiscal year 2007.

 

[CRGreathouse]

So penalties (in 2008 dollars) decreased $103 million, while injunctive relief increased by $6500 million? That looks like a net increase of $6397 million -- huge! To what can this be attributed? Was there a single large suit, a new category of enforcement, what?

 

[mheslep]

So, if I had to correct IE's statement, I'd say that the EPA was gutted in the last decade to the tune of about whatever the increase is in the present budget. "Far more than" is likely an overstatement, but of course, this is all based on what to me are so far unidentified numbers.

And I'd say the use of 'gutted' any where near this budget history is, to use your apt phrase from a few days ago, "beyond comprehension." What budget increases the EPA may have had in its earlier years are irrelevant.

 

[turbo]

Those that doubt that enforcement of environmental rules under the EPA was suppressed by W's administration would be well-advised to download the free PDF here and read it.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1462352##

 

[rewebster]

When I think about 'the Tea Party', I lean toward the idea that they have 'complaints'. There's a lot more ideas that they're 'not happy' toward the present administration (meaning Dem's), but I think that's partially their plan.

It seems they don't often put percentages on the problem though--of which, I believe mostly still lies with the republicans representing the big businesses (where the money for their re-elections comes from).

 

[Gokul43201]

And I'd say the use of 'gutted' any where near this budget history is, to use your apt phrase from a few days ago, "beyond comprehension." What budget increases the EPA may have had in its earlier years are irrelevant.

Do we even know that there were "increases"? I didn't see any explanation of what kind of dollars (current/chained) were listed on the linked budget page.

For a department whose budget supposedly "increases" at a rate of about 3% a year to see cuts of about that same size for 4 years in a row can be quite a big deal. For this to go on in the wake of Katrina can be even more devastating.

I seem to recall when Congress cut the NSF budget by a couple percent or so in '04 or '05, after the administration had made promises of a path to a doubling, the science community was using similar words.

So at what point would you recommend that the word "gutted" be appropriate?

 

[mheslep]

[...]For a department whose budget supposedly "increases" at a rate of about 3% a year to see cuts of about that same size for 4 years in a row can be quite a big deal. For this to go on in the wake of Katrina can be even more devastating.

Ok, it may well have been a big deal compared to what they were used to, but I wouldn't be surprised if the EPA failed to cut a single internal job. Gutted does not apply.

[...]So at what point would you recommend that the word "gutted" be appropriate?

When the case matches the definition "To extract essential or major parts of". That is, not when the expansion of the organization falls short of what you or I might think it should be to cover new responsibilities. Some examples that do qualify:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/business/worldbusiness/17iht-merrill.4.12108719.html

Merrill Lynch, the investment bank, posted a loss Thursday and announced that it would lay off about 2,900 additional workers. Including about 1,000 jobs already eliminated this year, the company's work force is to shrink by 10 percent, or about 4,000 jobs, over the course of 2008.

Merrill Lynch is now planning to cut 10 percent to 15 percent of its workforce—excluding brokers—sometime in May, CNBC has learned

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/3550641/Investment-banks-set-to-cut-30000-jobs.html"
Now of course the independent company Merrill Lynch no longer exists at all.

School budgets in some particularly hard hit states also qualify as gutted.

The fishing fleet in the Gulf of Mexico probably qualifies as gutted (though I don't know the particulars).

The EPA does not qualify.

 

[Gokul43201]

When the case matches the definition "To extract essential or major parts of".

Fair enough. "Gutted" is an overstatement.

That is, not when the expansion of the organization falls short of what you or I might think it should be to cover new responsibilities.

Not to harp on the point, but from 04 through 08, there was more than just a reduction in the growth of the budget; there was a sustained shrinking ("sustained" to mean that it was distinguishable from noise) of the budget - and that too probably in current-year dollars.

PS: Not arguing that this was necessarily a bad thing - I have no opinion on that aspect.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

... The liberal media watchdog's Simon Maloy says that Beck "spent a good chunk of his radio program this morning mocking and attacking the intelligence of President Obama's 11-year-old daughter, Malia. ... This routine continued for several minutes, as Beck and his co-hosts touched on a variety of topics and laughed the entire time, all of it at the expense of an 11-year-old girl." Here's the video and transcript...

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Glenn-Beck-vs-Malia-Obama-1340/

Such a patriot! Such a man of honor! The savior of the country! If it takes a true leader to attack an eleven-year-old girl, then Glenn Beck is your man.

I would be embarrased to even admit that I listen to this idiot. Is this sort of nonsense why the Beck fans really listen; adolescent taunts and jabs? Beck has been at the heart of the Tea Party from the start.

Don't his Christian followers EVER stop to ask themselves if these are the words of a Christian man? Would a Christian man - a man of honor - ever, EVER, use his media fame to beat up on little girls? Or do his words betray his true nature - a snake in the grass?

 

[BobG]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Glenn-Beck-vs-Malia-Obama-1340/

Such a patriot! Such a man of honor! The savior of the country! If it takes a true leader to attack an eleven-year-old girl, then Glenn Beck is your man.

I would be embarrased to even admit that I listen to this idiot. Is this sort of nonsense why the Beck fans really listen; adolescent taunts and jabs? Beck has been at the heart of the Tea Party from the start.

Don't his Christian followers EVER stop to ask themselves if these are the words of a Christian man? Would a Christian man - a man of honor - ever, EVER, use his media fame to beat up on little girls? Or do his words betray his true nature - a snake in the grass?

Perhaps you're mixing two separate movements. The Tea Party movement and Evangelical movement are only related by sharing the same party.

The Tea Party is more a Libertarian viewpoint and places less emphasis on social issues except where they interfere with personal or states rights. I imagine they do attract several Evangelicals that agree with their economic viewpoints, seeing as how the Tea Partiers are capturing the Republican headlines right now.

On the other hand, the conflict between moderate Northeastern Republicans, the Evangelical social movement, and the more libertarian Western Republicans is a real conflict that weakens Republicans when it comes to national issues.

Just to be perfectly clear: It is my position that the tea drinkers are essentially intellectual cowards; that they are unwilling to face the truth. They cannot accept that our problems are tremendously difficult; not solved with simple seat-of-the-pants solutions. The movement is appealing because it caters to the ego-driven delusion that our problems could easily be solved if we would just put Joe Sixpack in charge. It is a refusal to accept that the world really is complicated and they don't understand it.

This is a valid criticism of the tea partiers. Their direction towards less government might be very appealling, but their views on individual issues are too simplistic and too absolute (see Rand Paul comments). They're closer in direction to Goldwater and Reagan than the Bush administration, but are much more extreme than Reagan, whose applications of his policy tended to be much more moderate than his words, and lack the anti-Communism fuel that complemented Goldwater's libertarianism - although the anti-Muslim rhetoric could just be a substitute for anti-Communism.

If they were a splinter group from a united Republican Party, I'd say the direction they would push the party would be good. As a splinter group from a fractured Republican Party, there's a real chance some really dumb ideas could be pushed as valid solutions by the party.

Eventually, they have to move beyond simplistic slogans and provide a little intellectual credibility to their ideas. Or has politics moved beyond intellectual credibility and into an arena where only the entertainment value matters? It's worked to a certain extent for Pallin, but it's hard to ignore how badly it worked for her in the general election. No matter how appealling some of these groups look at first glance, they eventually need to back up the slogans with substance or crash.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps you're mixing two separate movements. The Tea Party movement and Evangelical movement are only related by sharing the same party.

The Tea Party is more a Libertarian viewpoint and places less emphasis on social issues except where they interfere with personal or states rights. I imagine they do attract several Evangelicals that agree with their economic viewpoints, seeing as how the Tea Partiers are capturing the Republican headlines right now.

The only intended association between the Tea Party and religion, in this case, is Glenn Beck. But he isn't an evangelical. I'm not sure how that got into the mix. He is actually a Mormon; a late convert. He is a pseudo-libertarian of some kind or another [apparently the kind that cries a lot on tv], with a strong religious bias. He has also been a loud voice for the Fox News tea drinker's party.

In either case, I would hope that one doesn't have to be religious in order to find the public humiliation of a little girl, objectionable. My comments about religion stem from that fact that Beck uses religion as part of his gimmick. So at the least this shows him to be a hypocrite - a rather slimy breed of hypocrite, in my opinion.

I will try to find a stat and post it later tonight, but not too long ago, I saw a poll indicating that something like 60% of those sympathetic to or involved with the tea drinkers, are Glenn Beck fans. In fact I think I posted that somewhere around here...

 

[NeoDevin]

Don't his Christian followers EVER stop to ask themselves if these are the words of a Christian man? Would a Christian man - a man of honor - ever, EVER, use his media fame to beat up on little girls? Or do his words betray his true nature - a snake in the grass?

Most of his Christian followers (does he even have any non-christian followers?) are just as hateful as he is.

 

[mheslep]

Most of his Christian followers (does he even have any non-christian followers?) are just as hateful as he is.

Yes they have been allowed to be hateful for too long. They should be identified as such, probably with an highly visible armband, and restricted to designated living areas. Now I have no idea who 'they' are, but since you seem to know of the followers ('Most of his ... are') and their mindset, perhaps you could provide a list.

 

[NeoDevin]

Yes they have been allowed to be hateful for too long. They should be identified as such, probably with an highly visible armband, and restricted to designated living areas. Now I have no idea who 'they' are, but since you seem to know of the followers ('Most of his ... are') and their mindset, perhaps you could provide a list.

Allow me to rephrase then:

Every single person (no exceptions), who considers Beck to be a reasonable source of information, with whom I've had the (dis)pleasure of interacting, have been hateful, christian, bigots.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here we go

...Two thirds of Tea Partiers said they had a favorable opinion of Palin, according to the poll, conducted April 5 - 12, while 59 percent have a favorable opinion of [Glenn] Beck...[emphasis mine]

...Asked to volunteer their most admired political figure generally, no single person stands out among Tea Party supporters. As many as 29 percent offered no one or said they aren't sure. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich leads the list of those mentioned, with 10 percent, followed by Sarah Palin with 9 percent, and former President George W. Bush and Mitt Romney at 5 percent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002534-503544.html

The options of "none" or "other" claimed a combined 49%

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2673653&highlight=Glenn+Beck+Tea+Party#post2673653

 

[BobG]

...Asked to volunteer their most admired political figure generally, no single person stands out among Tea Party supporters. As many as 29 percent offered no one or said they aren't sure. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich leads the list of those mentioned, with 10 percent, followed by Sarah Palin with 9 percent, and former President George W. Bush and Mitt Romney at 5 percent.

That adds support to the idea that Tea Partiers aren't quite working with a full deck. I don't think Mitt Romney would exactly fit the Tea Party profile.

Wait, what am thinking!? Romney's a chameleon that can change to blend into absolutely any political environment.

 

[turbo]

Need any help understanding how unhinged the tea-partiers are? They swarmed the Maine GOP caucus and passed this platform:

http://paintmainered.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2731571:Topic:31119

If you are a moderate Republican, you can be assured that your opponent will paint you with this platform in the campaign leading up to November and force you to publicly repudiate point after point, or end up looking like a far-right loon.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

RALEIGH – During a press conference Tuesday in Raleigh, 13th Congressional District candidate [Tea Party favorite] Bill Randall speculated on the possibility of collusion between BP and the federal government to cause the gulf oil spill...

http://charlotte.news14.com/content/local_news/triangle/627156/candidate-suggests-federal-conspiracy-in-bp-oil-spill

And George Bush brought down the twin towers.

 

[russ_watters]

Here we go

I haven't spent much time in this thread, but with 60 posts, I figure there must be something interesting/useful going on here. So I'd like to get an idea of what the point of all this is.

It seems like the point is to demonstrate that members of the Tea Party movement are, for the most part, on the far right of the political spectrum.

Here's how *I* see where they would draw their membership from: If you split the political spectrum into quintiles, with the middle quintile being true moderates and swing votors, each party would get two-fifths on each side. The Tea Party movement would then draw its membership almost exclusively from the right-most fifth of the spectrum. Or perhaps it's more like the right-hand 10th? Not sure. In either case, the right-most group in a reasonbly sliced spectrum.

Is this a reasonable interpretation of what all these links and stats are intended to show?