Free Markets, Free People


More fuel for the Tea Party discussion

As we do the back and forth on the origins of the Tea Party (TP) a poll has been published that gives us a peek at the demographics:

Diverse group:

The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group. Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are moderate and 8 percent say they are liberal.

Tip of the iceberg:

The Winston Group conducted three national telephone surveys of 1,000 registered voters between December and February. Of those polled, 17 percent – more than 500 people — said they were “part of the Tea Party movement.”

Unified by fiscal matters:

The group is united around two issues – the economy/jobs and reducing the deficit. They believe that cutting spending is the key to job creation and favor tax cuts as the best way to stimulate the economy. That said 61 percent of Tea Party members believe infrastructure spending creates jobs. Moreover, given the choice Tea Party members favor 63-32 reducing unemployment to 5 percent over balancing the budget.

43% do not identify themselves as Republicans. That’s a large chunk – bigger actually than I thought it would be. And 13% self-identified Democrats. That diversity of politics tends to moderate the platform and explains why in some areas you hear Medicare cuts used as ammunition against the HCR monstrosity. What I would have loved to have seen is age demographics on this, because I’m also of the opinion that for the most part this is an older movement in terms of age of those identified with it. The poll says the make up is “male, slightly older and middle income”. I’m not sure what “slightly older” means. Someone will find a way to put “white” in front of male and revive the “angry white male” meme, I’m sure.

17% is a significant chunk of the population if that’s a good indicator of the size of the TP movement. Those we see out in the streets and attending TP rallies are indeed the tip of the iceberg if that’s true.

The unifying themes are economy and the deficits. Jobs and spending. But, as you can see the diversity of opinion is evident in the two issues cited in the poll. Neither reflect a “hard core” fiscal conservative theme. And both actually place jobs before spending.

So those points tend to reinforce my ideas about the Tea Party movement.

OTOH, reinforcing one of Jason’s primary contentions:

The group also vehemently dislikes President Barack Obama – even more so than those who called themselves Republicans in the survey. Over 80 percent of Tea Party members disapprove of the job he’s doing as president, whereas 77 percent of Republican respondents said they disapprove of Obama. The Tea Party members are also strongly opposed to the Democrats’ healthcare plan, with 82 percent saying they oppose it — only 48 percent of respondents overall were opposed.

Although dislike is high, it doesn’t yet point to Obama being the reason for their formation. What it does point out is much more than just the Republican portion (57%), if everyone of them voiced their dislike, weren’t the only one’s who dislike Obama. A good portion of the independents must feel that way as well – something I’ve been droning on about for some time.

And to my point about Congressional Republicans:

The group has a favorable view of Republicans generally but that drops from 71 to 57 percent if they’re asked about Congressional Republicans. Congressional Democrats are viewed very unfavorably by 75 percent of Tea Party members – a uniquely strong antipathy. An overwhelming 95 percent said “Democrats are taxing, spending, and borrowing too much.”

There is a good bit of anti-incumbent fever among this group. And I think part of it is they’ve seen the Congressional Republicans talk the talk so many times and then cave when given the opportunity to walk the walk.

Interestingly Gallup has done a similar poll to the Winston poll.  And they find a slightly larger percentage supporting TP but find the demographics to be very similar to the Winston poll:

Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large. That’s the finding of a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28, in which 28% of U.S. adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement.

Their polling found a much larger independent percentage (43%) and slightly smaller Republican (49%) and Democratic (8%) slice. Men to women is 55% to 45%. Gallup did publish age demographics 50% are age 50 or older, however, when you look at the comparison to all of the US the TPs are very representative of national demographics.

What these polls tell us is while there is a rightward skew to the TP (which some would explain by saying the country is a “center-right” country) the demographics of these polls show a remarkably diverse group that are quite representative of the demographics of middle America. And, they’re finally fed up.

While we’ll probably argue till the cows come home as to the TP’s origins, but it hard to argue that the group isn’t diverse, has a unifying theme, and isn’t aimed at changing the way the federal government does business – and if that means firing every Congressional Rep up there, they seem more than willing to do that. The party most threatened is the Democratic party, however, Republicans that don’t meet TP criteria are subject to attack as well. And that’s entirely justifiable in my book.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

36 Responses to More fuel for the Tea Party discussion

  • Unfortunately the depressing stat I heard on the radio was that 33% of young people believe socialism is the better system, 30% are undecided (the scary part) and the about 1/3 believe capitalism is the better system.  That over 90% of school teachers voted for Obama.

    Combine that generation with potentially 20 million illegal aliens who are about child bearing age range.  If they aren’t converted to citizenship, their children will be citizens and will be voting as a larger group in about 20 years or so.

    Even if HCR costs the Democrats 2 or 3 terms in the Senate, the Democrats (or Socialist Party rather) are long term planners and know the future will come back to them.

    • I think that’s more an indicator of youthful idealism (and ignorance) that will eventually run smack dab into the reality of real life and change. I’m actually encouraged by the fact that 60% believe in capitalism or haven’t bought into the socialist scam.

      • I grew up in a Canadian town where they frequently elected the hardcore euro-socialist party.  The percentages weren’t that bad.

        That undecided group is filled with all kinds of people that would believe the individual programs offered on a case by case basis are just wonderful and would do more good than harm even if they recognize them as socialist.  Of the group that is capitalist, there are some that will believe the same thing.

        You can take a glass half full approach to that undecided number.  My experience that majority of undecideds will fall for the ponies and rainbows promises en masse until it can be proven to them it will backfire.  And with a complicit media telling that which way is up, that will take a long time.

      • To run into the reality that socialism doesn’t work requires them to meet socialism somewhere and not like it. Maybe we should send them on trips to Cuba or Venezuela, otherwise its more likely we will get socialism here for them to taste test.  Good luck getting rid of it.

    • That over 90% of school teachers voted for Obama.

      It’s telling that, as Thomas Sowell points out,  something like 90% of teachers graduated in the bottom quartile of their undergrad classes.

  • Stepping back from the Tea Party, look at both sides.

    Left and right have moved to parallel universes. They might inhabit the same time and space, but they are now almost entirely separate. There’s a thin portal between them in political process.

    We are already surely in a civil war period, just as the U.S. was in a civil war period for a decade running up to the actual warfare in 1861. There are basic matters in dispute that ordinary politics has not been able to resolve and has in fact made increasingly worse.

    The most dangerous point in this will come when the Right finds its leader. Recall what happened during the brief period when Sarah Palin looked as though she would be that person. I refer to her big splash when McCain picked her and on first blush she gave great speeches, including her very feisty one at the Republican convention. Then she tried talking on her own, and the bottom fell out. She wasn’t really a modern day Annie Oakley; she was a public school bureaucrat who shared conservative values but couldn’t get a straight sentence out of her mouth.

    But the important thing to remember in the experience is how, when the Left believed that the Right had a live one as its leader, really just the potential for that, it attacked with blinding and violent vehemence. It attacked because Palin had her values line up like the alignment of the planets. The Left knew instantly that Palin, if she had been the real thing, represented what the Tea Party in essence seeks to become: a full-scale reassertion of the basic principles of America.

    The point of maximum danger will come when the Right, acting through the Tea Party, finds its leader. The Left will go nuts on that person, and it will look a lot like the way it went nuts on Sarah Palin, which was an accelerated all-in geometric increase of the way it went nuts on Bush.

    I have no idea who that person could possibly be — it certainly is not Palin — but when that happens the Left will understand that the Republican Party is the shell casing and Tea Party is the bullet and that the Right is finally loaded for bear.

    • “We are already surely in a civil war period, just as the U.S. was in a civil war period for a decade running up to the actual warfare in 1861. There are basic matters in dispute that ordinary politics has not been able to resolve and has in fact made increasingly worse.”

      Absolutely correct and exactly why the TeaParty or something like it must succeed, or we get to our equivalent of Fort Sumter–and it may well be this decade.

      “she was a public school bureaucrat who shared conservative values but couldn’t get a straight sentence out of her mouth.”she was a public school bureaucrat who shared conservative values but couldn’t get a straight sentence out of her mouth.”

      I don’t know what universe you are in, but in mine other then one bad interview with Katie Couric, she’s done just fine and been more effective in the healthcare debate than the entirety of the Republican establishment.


      The point of maximum danger will come when the Right, acting through the Tea Party, finds its leader. The Left will go nuts on that person, and it will look a lot like the way it went nuts on Sarah Palin, which was an accelerated all-in geometric increase of the way it went nuts on Bush.
      I have no idea who that person could possibly be — it certainly is not Palin”

      Oh yeah?!  You’ve got two, three years before you can say that out of observation as opposed to prejudgement.

      She’s still the only one I’d vote for out of any of the possibilities.  If it come to Pawlenty, Romney, et al, I’d rather get ready for Fort Sumter and first muster.

      • Everytime I see Palin she cannot get a straight sentence out of her mouth. It’s not that she is simply inarticulate; my total impression of her is that she’s caught in a vapor lock of trying to mimic her idea of what a serious conversation sounds like.

        I think that her values are O.K. to good, but my impression of her as a person has deteriorated to the point where I reach for the remote. Plus, the Left’s vile attacks on her put me in a position where I feel that I have to defend her against their lies on one hand, while on the other hand she does absolutely zero for me (right in the same category as Romney, for instance) as a poltical figure.

        I would support almost anyone against Obama, but I don’t want to be in a position where I would be supporting her. I want better, much better.

      • Fort Sumter & Civil War- not the same this time, the way of life isn’t being changed in a fundamental enough fashion right now with this talk of limiting government, or even of expanding it.   The people who want the free handouts sure as hell aren’t going to throw a revolution to continue them.  Short term disorganized violence is more likely from the freeloading mob than the people paying the bills and worrying about limiting government.   I know we all see giveaways and what not, but the free ride isn’t free enough yet for them to to die for in large numbers, and the ride they get isn’t visible enough to them enmasse to achieve a critical state if it starts getting taken away as social programs are de-funded.   And I have a low opinion of the free loaders…sheep… good for a couple days of rioting at best.

        Now, manage a coup sort of government take over and radically change the game so people no longer perceive the government as ‘their’ government, and I’m talking about the people paying the bills again, then you have a chance for serious more prolonged outbreaks of violence.   This government, as annoying and imperious as it has been these last few months, doesn’t meet the demand (it could, but given the fight they had to pass Healthcare, I think they’ve shot their wad).

        It’s going to take a lot of perceived injustice, visible, people hauled off their land, decent, hard working, your friends and neighbors kind of folks before it will come to blows.  And I just don’t see that happening in the current climate, no matter how pissed we get about expanded government services and higher taxes.  And frankly while it may be somewhat cathartic to say, it’s not productive really to suggest it, it’s reminiscent of Ralph Cramden threatening to send Alice to the moon.  IMO of course.

        • This is a struggle of ideas between two parallel universes of ideas, and in that respect it resembles 1861. What form it will take this time isn’t clear.

          If the Tea Parties move to a Continental Congress phase and establish, as the Founders did, a separate de facto government, then things could get interesting. State governments could be invited over, so too could the military. It could be that “simple.” Then, what do you do with the existing government and its supporters. Not so simple.

          I have always marked my sense that we were heading to a civil war from the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991. It has not been a straight line from there, but I don’t recall any interruption in the line, except perhaps for the five minutes on 9/11 it took for the Left to begin to blame the attack on America, or on George Bush as a knowing and complicit actor.

          • I understand the premise behind the struggle of ideas.  Slavery was both a visibly physical condition and an idea.  By contrast  larger government (until the turning point is reached which has us as effective wage slaves to the government) just doesn’t carry the same moral weight as slavery/non slavery due to an interpretive quality of the ‘wage slave’ condition.  Not much interpretation required if you know you’re a slave (the first beating or sale, witnessed, or experienced first hand makes it very obvious), but some, if not many, might not consider a 60% levy on their wages as indication of a form of serfdom or slavery.  They might also not interpret intrusion by the government into various aspects of their lives as indication they are for all intents and purposes, owned, by the government.

            Clearly, though freedom wasn’t given TO the slaves at the outset by the Constitution, it was understood that freedom was a natural condition and one to which the creator had granted an inalienable right.  It’s a bit murky to trace that path to the way in which expanded government causes you to be a defacto slave to it.  The nature of it requiring interpretation by the populace keeps the pot from boiling to the state where actions are required over arguments so long as the government doesn’t drastically change the ‘style” even if they are in fact changing the substance.   The frog in the heating pot, as it were.

          • I think that the point of the Tea Party movement is that it is an awakening. It’s an enough is enough uprising. Very different from your idea that present conditions do not constitute a boiling point. I’m not a participant in the Tea Party movement, but I think that we are well past the threshold. The health care monstrosity was the turning point. The stimulus certainly set the stage. And the TARP bailouts (which I supported, FYI) were predicates. Obama himself is the identifiable perpetrator of health care along with a general attitude about other people’s money that has crossed the line.

            But without health care there is no Tea Party movement, without Obama there is no health care reform, without the movement socialism vanguard that the Democratic Party has become (in several ways) there could be no Obama, and without the mainstream media neither the Democrats nor Obama would be possible.

            So, the health care thing, if not the immediate predicate of the Tea Party movement, is the fuel on which it has and will continue to burn, and quite righteously so.

            The Obama health care, for most Americans, came at them as if they were having an ordinary lunch in an everyday diner, and a big fat filthy disgusting smelly whore, bathed in cheap perfume, her face covered in a quarter-inch of makeup, bulging out of her spandex outfit, came in and shoved them over in their booth and started eating off their plates, belched in their faces, blasted off a fart, and then announced to them, “I’m your new nurse.”

            That is to say, this is no frog in slowly heating water, not anymore. Them days is gone.

  • I can’t seem to get past this quote …

    The Winston Group conducted three national telephone surveys of 1,000 registered voters between December and February. Of those polled, 17 percent – more than 500 people — said they were “part of the Tea Party movement.”

    Since when is 17% of 1000 anywhere near 500 ? How about 170 ? .. or was that >2,941 people polled ?

    • I assume that they meant three surveys of 1,000 people each, or ~3,000 people total.

  • The Google ad for this post was a call (when I read it) to link to “progressnownevada.org  Just to see what was on the minds of these Progressive Nevadans, I linked. I believe that doing so helps Q&O.  I had just finished dashing off a comment about those outside the Tea Party movement being wacko or willfully ignorant about financial matters, so the following press release from these particular wackos (or willfully ignorant) hit me right between the eyes:

    http://progressnownevada.org/pages/progressnow-nevada-demands-new-revenue/

    “ProgressNow Nevada Demands New Revenue

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    February 8, 2010



    ProgressNow Nevada issued its State of the State today, calling the state of Nevada a disaster.



    ProgressNow Nevada demands …a plan for new revenue.

    “Some argue it’s untenable to increase taxes during a recession,” said Erin Neff, executive director. “We find it’s untenable to kill education and destroy the state’s future.”

    ProgressNow’s revenue proposal would generate $650 million annually.”

    Yep, just what we need to be agitating for right now;  a new tax.  Because we are going to “kill” education and “destroy the state’s future” if they have to take a modest cut right now.  (sarcasm)
    Now, I can see a reasonable education nut not wanting to reduce the money going for education, really I can.  After all, those folks signed up for the iron rice bowl and by golly perhaps we ought to see that they get it, even if it bankrupts the state.
    However, I’ll bet that this Progressive wacko issued this press release (and many, many others) without even giving a thought to the need to reduce expenditures because current runaway spending will actually (in the real world) destroy the state.  Another Progressive head so full of good thoughts that there just isn’t any room for financial good sense.

  • Clicked on another interesting Google ad on this post:
     

    “Official Obama Website
    Barack Obama Needs Your Help to Change Washington  Sign Up Today!
    http://www.barackobama.com


    My immediate thought was:  “Jeez, maybe this “Change Washington” stuff was OK during the campaign, but after what we have seen since…
    Maybe they now mean change it to make it worse than it ever was?  I do note that the site is sponsored by the (clueless) DNC.  Maybe they are trolling for the also-clueless?

    No details.  The site requires you to sign up in order to get to the good stuff and I just couldn’t bring myself to do that.

    • OK, just one more.  Incidentally,  why are the Progressives running these ads on Q&O?  I can see on Daily Kos, but…  oh well, there was another one;  this time for Harry Reid’s son Rory, who is running for Governor of Nevada (I just got it – only Nevadans are seeing this ad – the rest of the country is seeing local guy ads.  Trust me I saw it on Q&O).

      http://www.roryreid.com/en/vision

      “Every other candidate for governor is proposing even more cuts to education and schools. And that tells us something important: Candidates who run on cutting education aren’t committed to our kids, they don’t understand what’s best for Nevada’s economy…”

      Code words for Nevada Progressives (see above Progressive ad).  He is one of you.  Even though most of the money goes to administrators and teachers “it’s for the kids”.  All the other candidates recognize reality and admit that we must cut everywhere, including education (which, by the way, is in no way underfunded).

  • The survey results are starting to get interesting, I am very much in seach of information as to specifically what Tea Party members would like to have happen from a policy standpoint (besides not passing HCR, and now perhaps the pipedream of repealing it).

    So far, and this is not remotely a fair assessment with the information available, the Tea Party people seem to want the entitlements they get, but want to cut anyone else’s, and they are strong on defense. Which leads me to believe that they are only willing to cut HCR and non-defense discretionary spending, which is bascially the tip of the budget iceberg.

    I really want to see to them put some hard policy agenda items out there on how best to handle the real budget monsters, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and Defense spending.

    If they come up with something solid there, I  might be willing to join them. Although I suspect that if someone among the TP’s tried to advance a specific agenda rather than the general platitudes that I think anyone, including me, could agree with, it would splinter the groups into non-existence.

    Oh, and on the polls showing high numbers favoring socialism, it’s an interesting dynamic,  and it could be one or more of the following possibilities contributing to this poll, or more likely a combination.

    1. Ignorance – some people have no idea what socialism is, but it’s social, and that sounds good.
    2. Misinformed – Some people don’t know what real socialism is, and they think that since Republicans are calling anything Obama does Socialism, and they like what Obama is doing, they must like socialism.

    I do fear that the GOPs tendency to use that word way too often is actually undermining it’s real meaning and the real threat that real socialism could become.

    I remember Joe the Plumber calling Obama socialist based on the fact that Obama was willing to raise taxes on the top earners from 36% to 39%.

    If that is how people want to define socialism, then it should be no wonder that it is gaining favor.

    • “I remember Joe the Plumber calling Obama socialist based on the fact that Obama was willing to raise taxes on the top earners from 36% to 39%. [my emphasis]
      Faulty memory.  Actually, Joe based his opinion on President Obama saying:  “let’s spread it around…”.  That is from my memory;  you may look up the actual quote and correct me.  Looking it up would inform you that the source of your memory, if accurate, is in the Progressive bubble, and you would benefit from knowing that.

      • Sorry.  I should have stated that I really liked you post up to that point.

      • The money quote had to do with spreading the wealth around -

        “and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

    • So far, and this is not remotely a fair assessment with the information available, the Tea Party people seem to want the entitlements they get, but want to cut anyone else’s…

      Dateline: Frog Jump, Tennessee

      But for one important detail, Stephen Fincher could be a perfect “tea party” candidate: a gospel-singing cotton farmer from this tiny hamlet in western Tennessee, seeking to right the listing ship of Washington with a commitment to lower taxes and smaller government.
      The detail? Fincher accepts roughly $200,000 in farm subsidies each year.

      Two-hundred grand each year.  Now that’s a lot of socialism form one man.

      My favorite part of the article:

      About 40 people came to the meeting.
      [...]
      And they murmured in disapproval when he passed around a photograph of Obama with his shoes off — evidence, DiCello said, that the president prays with Muslims but not Christians (“That’s because he is a Muslim,” one audience member called out).


      Oh to have been a fly on the wall at a Tea Party meeting in Frog Jump, Tennessee.

      Cheers.

  • Bob, you are correct that Obama made this statement, but the statement was made behind a policy difference of 3% in the highest tax bracket.

    If I say I want people to keep their money, so I am only taxing you at 36% and if you say I want to spread the wealth, so I am taxing you at 39%, is one really socialist and the other not?

    I try not to think in terms of rhetoric, but in policy.

    I agree in principle on the actual quote, but totally disagree that it is a valid agrument to call one candidate socialist and the other not, over 3% in marginal tax rates.

    • “If I say I want people to keep their money, so I am only taxing you at 36% and if you say I want to spread the wealth, so I am taxing you at 39%, is one really socialist and the other not?”
      No, it’s the idea that it’s your job, as government to ‘spread the wealth’.  When you link an increase in taxes to your expressed desire to ‘spread the wealth’ you are sending the wrong message.  You increase taxes to pay for this, or that (even if in fact your ‘this or that’ will effectively spread the wealth), but by saying you’re doing it specifically to spread the wealth around means you ARE redistributing wealth, which is, one must admit, rather socialist in outlook.

      • “..if you say I want to spread the wealth, so I am taxing you at 39%…”
        Perhaps you are simply having a bad mental day.   Try this:  “I want to spread the wealth, so I am…….” [Fill in the blank}  Or simply:  “I want to spread the wealth…”
        Anyone not suffering from Progressive bran block can see that it matters not what follows this introduction;  the speaker is espousing a Socialist dogma.
        You are making your comments “behind a policy difference” that President Obama is your guy and you don’t want to admit that he is a Socialist or even has Socialist ideals.  Why do you think his statement to Joe caused the furor it did?  At that time no one gave a damn what Joe believed.  I would enjoy seeing your “policy difference” approach to answering that question.  No doubt some version of the “right wing noise machine”, eh?
        Otherwise you are left with the logic that all the furor was over a 3% difference in top tax brackets;  a mere bagatelle according to your prior argument.

  • I get that Looker, on a rhetorical level, but seriously, the actual policy difference was 3% in marginal rates on the highest earners. If you want to call the statement socialistic, fine, but more the policy, no way, at least no way you can reconcile calling that socialist while arguing that 36% is not socialist.

    At best, I’ll give you this – Obama, 3% more socialist than George Bush and John McCain.

    And by the way, to wrap this up with the fascist HCR that y’all are up in arms about, how much different do you think John McCain’s law would have differed? Personally, I think it may have been much more liberal, since the GOP congressional minority would not have been able to go apesh*t if it were being lead by a Republican President.

    The mandate centerpiece of HCR is the conservative alternative to public national healthcare, primarily because rather than offering care through a public insurance it creating universal coverage by mandating purchase in the private markets. Such public/private proposals have been supported by Bob Dole, George HW Bush, and many other Republicans. Even Newt Gingrich’s sainted “Contract with America” Congress proposed the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act, which was centered around a mandate to buy private insurance. .

    Socialism should be more than a buzzword because when something genuinely socialist (takeover the means of production socialism) comes along and the right cries socialism, Americans are going to say, “Yeah sure, just like that 3%”

     

    • “And by the way, to wrap this up with the fascist HCR that y’all are up in arms about, how much different do you think John McCain’s law would have differed?”

      What is it they say in all the cool court room shows – “calls for speculation your honor”.  Or “supposes facts not in evidence your honor”.

      “Socialism should be more than a buzzword because when something genuinely socialist (takeover the means of production socialism) comes along and the right cries socialism, Americans are going to say, “Yeah sure, just like that 3%”” – ah Cap, come on man, you know better than to bring that stuff here….just because someone slaps an (R) on an otherwise socialist program doesn’t mean it’s going to get any praise on this site.   You can’t use the argument of might have beens, and could have beens, and etc, because this bill is ALL Democrat, and no amount of suggesting the Republican slow train to hell party might have done something slightly less odious will  suddenly make it a Republican bill.

      So, it’s not just rhetoric when you raise the bill because you have to pay for something and you SAY you’re doing it to spread the wealth around.   As far as the numbers and percentages of an increase…When does a mere 3% increase matter?  When you’re going from 0 to 3%?  When you go from 3% to 6%?  Is it rhetorical to say that we’re willing to have 5000 people die from lack of health care, but 6000 is unacceptable?  When do the numbers matter?  How many straws does it take to break the camels back?  It’s only 1 extra straw, right?

      But back to socialism – I don’t really think it was the amounts so much as it was his direct statement that it was done to “spread the wealth around”.  In my case as far as HCR goes, it’s not the only ‘socialist’ program we have, and since I’m not entirely fond of the ones in place, I’m hardly going to celebrate adding another.  And I should point out for disclosure, I’m of an age where I will reasonably expect within a fairly short time frame to take advantage of these programs, and frankly I’m no happier about them now than I was when it seemed like it would be a million years before I’d ever be able to use them.  Fact is Cap, I don’t want YOUR money supporting me in my old age and I resent the government taking your cash to do it as much as I resent them taking mine to do it.  You should be free to squander, horde or be generous with your earnings without my thinking it’s okay to pick your pocket.

  • I’ve got to wonder how the MSM and Politicians at large will deal with this data. I don’t think they will ignore it and they certainly won’t embrace it. They are too locked into their own world and own realities. My guess is that the attacks will continue and further attempts to isolate will be attempted. They need an enemy and the Tea Party is going to be it.

  • “…takeover the means of production socialism…”
    Captain, when you’re right, you’re right. Boy, if the government ever took over General Motors or Chrysler, why…  Oh wait!

  • You know Bob, I almost mentioned how silly it would be for someone to bring that up and call it “taking over the means of production”, considering it will be sold back into private hands as soon as the companies have stabilized. But I figured you all knew better than that.

    I guess I misoverestimated you.

    • “misoverestimated”  – gotta love old George W.

      Well though Cap, you gotta admit, when the President of the US suggests the President of the company the government took over resign….ah well…that does sorta look like something a little different than the old days of “what’s good for GM is good for the country”.

      We do have a long history though, and I was reminded of the Wage and Price controls under Nixon in the 1970′s.  We seem to have muddled through that to the point where it’s largely forgotten (small potatoes compared to Vietnam I guess…).

      Still, Martin may be right, it’s certainly reached the point of notice, the camel’s back may not be broken yet (my contention), but he’s letting us know pretty loudly that he’s getting pissed at the weight.

    • I misoverestimated you, Cap’n, that you could grasp the difference between ownership and CONTROL. You don’t really OWN what you don’t control, be it your assets or your own life.
      I didn’t guesstimate you couldn’t discern critical differences that your teachers/handlers didn’t point out to you.

  • You know, you really are a card.  Answering by doing a parody of a Professor Erb response is priceless!  You got it all, I stand in awe;  ignoring the specific question, claiming prescience about an obvious mis-statement, the use of humor…
    I’m trying to think of the academic course that teaches Progressives this approach.   No, it’s not Logic.  Science?  No….Journalism!  That’s it!