It does look bad for the ones who ignored Bush Jr’s idiotic financial (& other) policies & only got concerned after we elected a black president.
Sure, but the thing you have to remember is that the big O is also a Democrat.
That’s worse than being black by many orders of magnitude.
CS, the point about ACORN is that the media sensationalizes things to drive ratings and sales, not because they have any innate interest in painting topics a certain way.
There are certainly lots of people here who are poised to find reasons to discredit the movement - though, frankly, it’s not difficult. However, there are very few people in the media pushing their own ideological spin.
What they’re doing is turning the movement into news. Non-violent protest about government spending: boring. Demonstration by people carrying rifles who casually toss around the word nigger: interesting.
It’s not biased reporting. It’s just media sensationalism.
And imagine the implications for the opposition!
Okay, so is Fox news “part of the media, entertainment community, citizenry at large” or “widely known”?
Have they painted an entire liberal group with the same sort of brush as this “Teabag” group is being painted with the “racist” brush?
I don’t watch fox news, but occasionally hear it on the radio on the way to and from work (they air the TV news via radio on one of the stations). I’ve not heard every single broadcast since the election, but I’ve not heard Fox do this.
And to reiterate, stating “this group is doing X wrong” (just as one example) is not the same thing as throwing out blanket charges of racism.
You’re right there. I can agree with this take on it. But again, it isn’t really people (where people equals again the entire group) casually tossing around the n word and carting rifles, it’s a few bad apple IDIOTS tossing the word around who also happen to belong to this group.
FWIW, I hate this nonsense from the talk show hosts as well. It immediately discredits you when you have to resort to silly little Jr. High School name calling (Rush…yuck). And the same thing is happening here in the, (is it 8 threads now?), anti-teabag threads in the dope, whatever substance the complaints might have, it’s getting lost in the petty name-calling and insults.
Last point, a person who happens to be against the current administration’s policies does NOT equal automatic teabagger either.
And that was precisely the point of my OP. After observing incident upon incident upon incident of the teabaggers’ racist blathering, you’ve got to draw the conclusion, if you’re a sentient adult, that, y’know, there surely are a lot of racists in that there tea party movement.
As does a latent, closeted bigot.
MTE. :rolleyes:
Then you’ve obviously never met my father-in-law.
That’s exactly my point - the ones who are tossing around the n-word and carting rifles get on TV, and the ordinary people with “limited government now!” signs don’t.
If anything, I’d say the guys with rifles do more damage than the guys yelling “nigger!” The former brings up memories of the militia movement and Oklahoma City, while the latter just brings up memories of retards.
Even if all Tea Partiers were racists, would that have any bearing whatsoever on the only thing they have in common, which is a sort of generalized opposition to big government? I wonder who identifies the government with promotion of minorities more, the OP or the Tea Partiers.
Also, I know the likelihood of this is extremely, extremely remote, but do you suppose that some liberals might have figured out how to use a computer and post “Goddamn this nigger president. Signed, PalinIn2012” to a conservative message board? Or maybe showed up to a Tea Party with a racist sign and made sure to parade it in front of all the cameras? Yes, it’s shocking to contemplate, and wickedly devious, but such things have been known to occur in the history of politics.
:smack:
Yes. The first time I read that, I saw them as two unrelated statements (that’s okay, I recently read a friend’s “Bar the door with two deadbolts and a barchain” as “two deadbolts and a chastity belt” as well :D).
I can’t see anything to disagree with here. But I’ve never seen anyone waving guns, do they actually have footage of that? The one thing I didn’t see was (sorry if I missed this), the fact that people do seem to still be equating “those who protest the policies” with “teabaggers”. They’re all being lumped together whether they belong to the tea party or not.
Someone upthread said something like 18% of Americans were “teabaggers”. Is that referring to all of us who are against the current administration’s policies, or is it only meaning those that gather in groups with signs during “official” tea party meetings?
If they all were racists, then they’d have that in common, too.
Yes, but the only cases I know of were done by Republicans.
The “waving rifles” bit was hyperbole, but I’ve seen footage of at least two guys carrying AR-15s at Tea Party events.
The 18% figure is the number of people who consider themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement, as opposed to the number who have attended rallies or other Tea Party events (13%), or have donated money (2%).
So I guess you might or might not be among the 18%, depending on how you feel about their positions.
I think that my disagreement with the new policies would get me branded as conservative, at least here on the Dope, just for that alone. People get confused though and think that conservative equals republican and it does not.
However, as Algorithm stated (paraphrased) one shouldn’t make judgments based on what goes on in the Pit, so it’s possible that I don’t fall into the category assigned me by the Pittizens. I agree with the original impetus for starting the Tea Party, (protest against the outrageous spending and the policies therein). I heartily DISagree with the current inefficient behaviour and results of said party. That said, I am still sick of the “Teabaggers are racists” meme. 
Anyway, as I’ve stated several times about others in this “fight”. Simplistic but true, that is, YOU’RE NOT HELPING! Whatever the protest of the current Tea Party, it’s getting lost in the bad publicity caused by the nutbag members.
Someone up thread (or it might have been in one of the other threads, sorry I’m reading as fast as I can, there are a LOT of threads and posts on this subject), stated something to the effect of, people only started being against government spending once the president was black. His mistaken conclusion regarding what is tolerated (where tolerated is "puts up with, though doesn’t necessarily agree with) is that:
White guy spending money= tolerated by conservatives
Black guy spending money= not tolerated by conservatives
He, and others holding this viewpoint are mixing apples and oranges.
Had Bush been a black man, the protests and issues currently happening would be exactly the same. It’s not THAT the new administration is spending, it’s what they are spending it ON.
That is:
Guy A spending money on cause X= tolerated by conservatives
Guy B spending money on causes A through Z minus X= not tolerated by conservatives.
I couldn’t stand Bush, and didn’t vote for him in his first term and only reluctantly chose him as the lesser of two evils in his second. A few issues stood between that and voting for Kerry for me. Bush was certainly NOT a fiscal conservative. But next to the new kid on the block, he looks like a pensioner on a fixed income. The current administration isn’t throwing good money after bad, they’re throwing nonexistent money after bad, and they’re just getting warmed up. Bush’s deficit was horrendous, but they’ve, (what is it at current count), quadrupled it so far? And again, they’re far from done. A person doesn’t have to be an economic genius to see that at some point, chances of recovery on any **meaningful ** level will be a burden to be borne by generations to come. Perhaps not at all.
And all of this is being done to help the poor. Again, I’m no economic expert so though I believe “trickle down economics” are effective, I could very well be wrong. I do know ONE Thing that is true though, and that’s the inelegant, tacky but true old saying of “shit rolls down hill”. The “evil, greedy, rich people” tax that will be levied against those already paying the larger percentages of taxes will result in that group passing on that burden to those on the next rung, and so on and so forth. The ball of shit increases in size as it rolls down hill and those at the bottom, those the “NEWnew deal” are supposed to help, are going to be hit with it.
I’m not sure what label the above beliefs make me, so YMMV.
That’s much of the point: Obama’s perceived spending is largely Bush’s spending. Obama is just getting the blame.
Bush cut taxes by $1.35 trillion in 2001, and a further $800 billion or thereabouts in 2003. Raising taxes, of course, is tantamount to political suicide. You can get a pretty good idea of how much of the current federal deficit is Obama’s fault here (short version: about 20%).
Guess what the projected federal deficit for 2010 is? $1.35 trillion. Bush cut taxes when times were good, and left it to his successor to deal with the fallout. This isn’t particularly complicated stuff, but that’s what gets reported. For some reason it never occurs to conservatives that tax revenues drop in a recession- and nobody complained when Bush was sending them a rebate check, even though only about 22% of the money actually did anything to stimulate the economy (the rest being used to pay off existing debts or saved).
Well, as I said, Bush was certainly responsible for that deficit as well as items that continue to add to it. I don’t disagree there. But Bush had nothing to do with the Stimulus Bill, the Healthcare Bill, nor the newly-hatched-soon-to-be addition to the Stimulus Bill, and those were only in the first year and a few months. Again, my point was that they’re throwing good (or rather non-existent) money after bad, and they’ve got three years left in which to do so.
That brings me to my second point. People who are against this, would likely be far LESS against it were it not for what is IN this new spending. Again, it’s not THAT the money is being spent so much as what it’s going for.
The following are honest questions/complaints. Economics is certainly NOT my strong suit.
I don’t believe that the price tags “advertised” for the Stimulus and Healthcare bills will end up being all that’s spent, (history has shown that it’s usually not). I read through (I don’t say read, because 1100+ pages was a bit much for me), the stimulus bill. The first several dozen pages alone consisted of oversight, for dozens of different government agencies, as well as a few to-be-created ones. That translates to “grow government”. Yes, 14m in X Gov agency dept. oversight is what’s in the bill for THIS term. Once it’s created, when does that spending stop? And that’s just one office.
You say only about 22% of the money did anything to stimulate the economy. What should the percentage have been? What is the percentage normally in other instances where tax cuts and rebates occurred?
This is one of the problems with some liberals, they fail to take into consideration human psychology (this is one of my strong suits :D). People aren’t necessarily going to react (as we can see by this near civil war over this “thing”) in a manner most likely to prove a politician’s policy an efficient one.
Why is it the Right forget Bush squandered the first 700 billion dollar bail out?
Actually, the price tag for the stimulus will be lower than advertised, since the government didn’t just give away money but also purchased equity using it. The federal government now owns a 51% stake in General Motors, a controlling interest in AIG (don’t remember how much exactly), and smaller stakes in Chrysler, Ford and various other financial institutions. Those will be sold off over time, recouping some of the money. We’ll also be repaid a portion of the stimulus “gift” money, since it comes with (frankly, inadequate) strings that some banks will want to be rid of nonetheless. Regardless, however much the stimulus eventually costs, we’d be looking at something like a 30% unemployment rate right now without it, rather than 15%, thanks to the collapse of tens of thousands of small businesses unable to obtain credit to meet their payroll requirements. The stimulus wasn’t done very well, but it did have to be done.
The jury is out on how much the healthcare reform bill will eventually cost; some analysts say it will save money, some say it will basically be a wash, and some say it will cost a lot. Most of its provisions don’t go into effect until 2013-4, and forecasting the exact cost is impossible since much of it depends on future demand on Medicare and things like that.
To the best of my knowledge, there haven’t been any past instances of rebates like Bush’s 2003 one. However, 22% is a lot less than was advertised by the Bush Administration. You don’t have to take my word for it - you can read about it here, in the conservative Wall Street Journal.
This problem is not limited to liberals. None of us are psychic.