Does the Tea Party Really Represent Most Americans?

[mustang84isu]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/politics/20100414-tea-party-poll-graphic.html

 

84% of the tea partiers believe their views reflect those of most Americans, but only 25% of all Americans agree

18% of Americans say they are tea party supporters.

66% of tea party supporters say they usually or always vote Republican. (Just 5% vote Democratic.)

73% say they are conservative.

41% believe Barack Obama was born in the United States.

While 65% believe the Obama Administration treats blacks and whites equally, 56% believe it favors poor people over the middle-class and rich.

89% are white and 52% believe too much attention is paid to the problems facing African-Americans.

59% have a favorable view of Glenn Beck compared to 6% who view him unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 18% and 17%.)

63% say they get most of their political news from Fox News Channel.

66% have a favorable view of Sarah Palin, compared to 12% who view her unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 30% and 45%.)

24% believe citizens can be justified in taking violent action against the government.

52% believe the federal income taxes they pay are fair.

[Mysterio]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/politics/20100414-tea-party-poll-graphic.html

 

84% of the tea partiers believe their views reflect those of most Americans, but only 25% of all Americans agree

18% of Americans say they are tea party supporters.

66% of tea party supporters say they usually or always vote Republican. (Just 5% vote Democratic.)

73% say they are conservative.

41% believe Barack Obama was born in the United States.

While 65% believe the Obama Administration treats blacks and whites equally, 56% believe it favors poor people over the middle-class and rich.

89% are white and 52% believe too much attention is paid to the problems facing African-Americans.

59% have a favorable view of Glenn Beck compared to 6% who view him unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 18% and 17%.)

63% say they get most of their political news from Fox News Channel.

66% have a favorable view of Sarah Palin, compared to 12% who view her unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 30% and 45%.)

24% believe citizens can be justified in taking violent action against the government.

52% believe the federal income taxes they pay are fair.

 

Sounds like a pretty conservative group.

[Trimdingman]

The Tea Party 's views are representative of the views of the "good half" of America. The bad half see them like a child sees castor oil.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Trimdingman

[goinbroke2]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/politics/20100414-tea-party-poll-graphic.html

 

84% of the tea partiers believe their views reflect those of most Americans, but only 25% of all Americans agree

18% of Americans say they are tea party supporters.

66% of tea party supporters say they usually or always vote Republican. (Just 5% vote Democratic.)

73% say they are conservative.

41% believe Barack Obama was born in the United States.

While 65% believe the Obama Administration treats blacks and whites equally, 56% believe it favors poor people over the middle-class and rich.

89% are white and 52% believe too much attention is paid to the problems facing African-Americans.

59% have a favorable view of Glenn Beck compared to 6% who view him unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 18% and 17%.)

63% say they get most of their political news from Fox News Channel.

66% have a favorable view of Sarah Palin, compared to 12% who view her unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 30% and 45%.)

24% believe citizens can be justified in taking violent action against the government.

52% believe the federal income taxes they pay are fair.

 

 

I remember very well how the liberal party demonized the Canadian military in the late 80's early 90's. I remember seeing polls that 85% of military personnel think this or that. I remember being accused of being a baby killer because of Somalia. Anytime a military guy beat up his wife, WE ALL DO IT! Anytime a guy was caught dui, WE WERE ALL ALCOHOLIC'S, anytime a guy was caught with a racist or incorrect tattoo/books/anything..WE ALL WERE RACISTS.

 

I look at this "poll" by the totally unbiased and excellent journalistic standard of the NYT.. :shades: for what it is. Fodder for the left leaning liberals to dismiss a group. Why weren't the questions "how many love their country" or "how many have served"? Because that wouldn't portay them in the light they wanted. period.

 

Hmmm

79% served their country

98% love their country more than life itself

99% believe the US is the greatest country on earth

71% have never been on unemployment

94% have never been on welfare

 

Obviously I made up the % for an example, but do you see my point?

 

92% of all people killed during WW2 were wearing combat boots. There's your "proof" combat boots kill!

[BlueOval5.0]

The fact that the New York Times wrote the article would lead you to believe that the article is anti-Tea Party without having to read it.

 

That said, I attended a local tea party rally yesterday and there were approximately 1000 people there. There were whites, blacks, young, old, middle age, families, and folks of various economic stature. There were no party crashers nor was there any violence.

 

We protested the size of government, the out of control spending, and the general direction the country is headed - towards the way it is over in Europe.

 

I can't speak for any other rallies that took place yesterday but the one I attended sure seemed different that what the NYT and the mainstream media portrays. In fact, my local paper - Newsday has absolutely no news on the local tea parties at all (big surprise) - there is an article on the tea party in Washington D.C. though.

 

We're out to oust many incumbents come November 2010, it is not that far off.

[mustang84isu]

The Tea Party 's views are representative of the views of the "good half" of America. The bad half see them like a child sees castor oil.

Opinion.

 

I remember very well how the liberal party demonized the Canadian military in the late 80's early 90's. I remember seeing polls that 85% of military personnel think this or that. I remember being accused of being a baby killer because of Somalia. Anytime a military guy beat up his wife, WE ALL DO IT! Anytime a guy was caught dui, WE WERE ALL ALCOHOLIC'S, anytime a guy was caught with a racist or incorrect tattoo/books/anything..WE ALL WERE RACISTS.

 

I look at this "poll" by the totally unbiased and excellent journalistic standard of the NYT.. :shades: for what it is. Fodder for the left leaning liberals to dismiss a group. Why weren't the questions "how many love their country" or "how many have served"? Because that wouldn't portay them in the light they wanted. period.

 

Hmmm

79% served their country

98% love their country more than life itself

99% believe the US is the greatest country on earth

71% have never been on unemployment

94% have never been on welfare

 

Obviously I made up the % for an example, but do you see my point?

 

92% of all people killed during WW2 were wearing combat boots. There's your "proof" combat boots kill!

 

What does asking how many served or how many love their country have to do with their political ideology?

 

There are a lot more questions in there than what I posted. It seems to me to be a pretty dry demographic survey of the tea party. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean the NYT is making up the statistics.

Edited April 16, 2010 by mustang84isu

[mettech]

http://www.nytimes.c...ll-graphic.html

 

84% of the tea partiers believe their views reflect those of most Americans, but only 25% of all Americans agree

18% of Americans say they are tea party supporters.

66% of tea party supporters say they usually or always vote Republican. (Just 5% vote Democratic.)

73% say they are conservative.

41% believe Barack Obama was born in the United States.

While 65% believe the Obama Administration treats blacks and whites equally, 56% believe it favors poor people over the middle-class and rich.

89% are white and 52% believe too much attention is paid to the problems facing African-Americans.

59% have a favorable view of Glenn Beck compared to 6% who view him unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 18% and 17%.)

63% say they get most of their political news from Fox News Channel.

66% have a favorable view of Sarah Palin, compared to 12% who view her unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 30% and 45%.)

24% believe citizens can be justified in taking violent action against the government.

52% believe the federal income taxes they pay are fair.

 

47% Don't pay income taxes.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

You drink tea and have tea parties!!!!!! LOL? Sounds to "Higgie babe" Magnum PI to me.

 

I thought you all eat donuts for breakfast & guzzled cokes by the gallon, and munched on steak & burgers and drank Buds all day long, l must have missed out on the real US last time l visited the States.

[grbeck]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/politics/20100414-tea-party-poll-graphic.html

 

84% of the tea partiers believe their views reflect those of most Americans, but only 25% of all Americans agree

18% of Americans say they are tea party supporters.

66% of tea party supporters say they usually or always vote Republican. (Just 5% vote Democratic.)

73% say they are conservative.

41% believe Barack Obama was born in the United States.

While 65% believe the Obama Administration treats blacks and whites equally, 56% believe it favors poor people over the middle-class and rich.

89% are white and 52% believe too much attention is paid to the problems facing African-Americans.

59% have a favorable view of Glenn Beck compared to 6% who view him unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 18% and 17%.)

63% say they get most of their political news from Fox News Channel.

66% have a favorable view of Sarah Palin, compared to 12% who view her unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 30% and 45%.)

24% believe citizens can be justified in taking violent action against the government.

52% believe the federal income taxes they pay are fair.

 

Irrelevant. Do most people agree with many of the views held by many liberals? No, but that never stopped them for pushing for various issues of concern to them.

 

I remember when the National Motorists Association (NMA) began its campaign to repeal the national 55 mph speed limit. A majority of people said that they supported the lower limit on limited access highways. The NMA kept pushing, and eventually won that battle (thank goodness). If they had gone by the initial poll numbers, they would have given up before getting started.

 

For that matter, the antiwar protestors in the 1960s were initially unpopular with the public.

 

And do you think that the majority of Americans supported gay rights in the wake of the first Stonewall rights in 1969 (which kicked off the modern gay rights movement)?

 

The purpose of movements is to persuade and convince the public of the rightness of their cause.

 

Perhaps you need to ask why the Tea Party folks apparently scare you this much. They aren't doing anything different than from antiwar protestors did in the 1960s (or 2000s), or gay rights, or pro-abortion folks have done over the years.

 

Now, to examine more closely a few other "findings" from this poll that are supposed to shock and horrify all right-thinking people:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/politics/20100414-tea-party-poll-graphic.html

 

59% have a favorable view of Glenn Beck compared to 6% who view him unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 18% and 17%.)

 

Sooo...what?

 

One wonders how many on the left have a favorable view of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. There may be some people who believe that those two are fair and unbiased, but they could charitably be described as naive.

 

41% believe Barack Obama was born in the United States.

 

And one poll I've seen said that 37 percent of Democrats believe that 9/11 was an inside job. If you are trying to discredit a movement because of the beliefs of some members, two can play at that game.

 

 

24% believe citizens can be justified in taking violent action against the government.

 

Apparently, they have been reading the William Ayers book, or taken the statement by Democratic U.S. Representative Maxine Waters - that riots are the way the oppressed make themselves heard - to heart. I guess those two are now Tea Party supporters. Who knew?

 

As I said, two can play this game.

 

The amusing part is that all of those protests went off yesterday without any violence. Meanwhile, at previous events, antiwar protestors and anti-globalists have damaged property and fought with police, without so much as a peep from those who are in a lather over possible Tea Party violence that never happened. Interesting that possible violence worries some people more than actual violence.

 

66% have a favorable view of Sarah Palin, compared to 12% who view her unfavorably. (Among all Americans, the numbers are 30% and 45%.)

 

I'm neutral on Sarah Palin, but considering the brutal treatment she has received from the left wing of the news-media-entertainment complex (including outright lies, and deliberate distortions of some actions), I'd say those numbers are pretty good for her.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/14/us/politics/20100414-tea-party-poll-graphic.html

52% believe the federal income taxes they pay are fair.

 

This is confusing. Do 52 percent of AMERICANS feel that the federal income taxes that they pay are fair, or 52 percent of Tea Party participants?

 

If it's the former, considering that 47 percent of Americans pay NO federal income taxes, I'd say it's no wonder that a pretty large number of them believe that the taxes they pay (or, more accurately, don't pay) are fair. For that matter, I seem to recall some high-profile Obama Administration officials who didn't bother paying their federal taxes before joining the administration.

 

If it's the latter, I'd bet that they are protesting as a pre-emptive strike to prevent any increase in federal income taxes. Although this figures undermines the claim that Tea Party participants are wild-eyed libertarians and right-wingers who want to take us back to 1890.

Edited April 16, 2010 by grbeck

[goinbroke2]

Opinion.

 

 

 

What does asking how many served or how many love their country have to do with their political ideology?

 

There are a lot more questions in there than what I posted. It seems to me to be a pretty dry demographic survey of the tea party. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean the NYT is making up the statistics.

 

Hahaha, wow talk about trying to defend a bash on something as unbiased journalism! haha, I'M CANADIAN! IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME EITHER WAY! I'm not effected at all. What I'm trying to say is that a biased media outlet asks only certain questions on a poll to get the response they want so they can make the poll fit their agenda. "If I don't like the results", ROTFL!

 

The questions about serving etc have nothing to do with their political ideology...THAT WAS MY POINT! But if a right wing pollster did a poll and tried to make the tea party look good, then they would ask any questions they wanted to get the results they were looking for! (as long as a: a high percentage of tea party people served b: serving was deemed good/proper)

 

That is the same as asking how many liked glenn beck....to even use that in a poll suggests your "audience" your trying to speak to, has a disdain for glenn back and therefore by showing how many liked him would by default show how bad the tea partier's are. Why didn't they ask how many liked Abe Lincoln? 'Cause they knew the numbers would be high and ol' Abe is considered a good guy!

 

Did you miss my combat boot analogy?

 

It's easy to see how you can influence a nation by taking over the media. News doesn't report certain things which lean a certain way, only reports other things which lean in whatever direction...and before you get your panties in a bunch thinking I'm bashing the left, I'm talking left or right. The media controls what they put out and can put their spin on things however they want. This is a prime example by the nyt of left wing media.

 

<hehehe, still laughing....don't like the results...hehehehe>

[Mark B. Morrow]

47% Don't pay income taxes.

 

 

Which includes a sizable portion of Middle Class workers thanks to Tax Cuts and credits put in place by the Obama Stimulus Plan. Tax Freedom Day was earlier this year than any year during the Bush Administration. Obama's plan has Cut Taxes for 95% of Americans. The Top 15 pays a smaller percentage of tax than they did during Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. Who is being taxed to death?

 

Those whose income is derived from investments such as Hedge Fund Managers earning in excess of one Billion Dollars pay a lower tax rate as Capital Gains than those who are subject to Income Tax on their earnings.

 

But in a startling comeback, top hedge fund managers rode the 2009 stock market rally to record gains, with the highest-paid 25 earning a collective $25.3 billion, according to the survey, beating the old 2007 high by a wide margin.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/business/01hedge.html

 

 

 

For starters: the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities reported on Wednesday that "Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels." How low? The average family of four right now is paying 4.6 percent of its income in federal income taxes -- the second lowest percentage in 50 years.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/15/tax-day-2010-protesters-i_n_538556.html

 

The Tea Partiers are mad at the wrong people.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Irrelevant. Do most people agree with many of the views held by many liberals? No, but that never stopped them for pushing for various issues of concern to them.

 

The point is that they are not demographically representative of the American People despite their claims to the contrary. Far Left wing Liberals are not representative either. The Right has no problem referring to those on the left as a Fringe Group. It applies both ways.

 

 

This is confusing. Do 52 percent of AMERICANS feel that the federal income taxes that they pay are fair, or 52 percent of Tea Party participants?

 

If it's the former, considering that 47 percent of Americans pay NO federal income taxes, I'd say it's no wonder that a pretty large number of them believe that the taxes they pay (or, more accurately, don't pay) are fair. For that matter, I seem to recall some high-profile Obama Administration officials who didn't bother paying their federal taxes before joining the administration.

 

If it's the latter, I'd bet that they are protesting as a pre-emptive strike to prevent any increase in federal income taxes. Although this figures undermines the claim that Tea Party participants are wild-eyed libertarians and right-wingers who want to take us back to 1890.

 

The 52 % refers to Tea Partiers. Many of those in the Middle Class are paying taxes at a historically low rate. Those at the top who are in many cases funding the Tea Parties (See Koch Family) would face tax increases if the high end Bush Cuts are not renewed. The rates would go back to Clinton Administration levels, about a 4% increase at the top margin.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Mark B. Morrow

[grbeck]

The point is that they are not demographically representative of the American People despite their claims to the contrary. Far Left wing Liberals are not representative either. The Right has no problem referring to those on the left as a Fringe Group. It applies both ways.

 

Again, this is irrelevant, not to mention an old-fashioned bait-and-switch tactic.

 

Plus, the Tea Party does not represent the far-right wing, so your comparison to the far-left is also not relevant.

 

Most people don't care that Tea Party supporters like Sarah Palin, or watch Fox News. Those are irrelevant statistics.

 

What they care about is the group's overall message, which is a concern about the growth in government and increases in taxation at the federal level. I'll bet that a solid number of Americans share those concerns.

 

Focusing on these "demographic questions" is an attempt at diversion.

 

Even if we DO focus on those issues, it's still relevant to compare them to how other issues are handled by the press and government.

 

A lack of public support hasn't stopped supporters of gay marriage from pushing for its recognition, even though it has lost every time it was submitted to a popular vote, to use just one example. Nor has it stopped gun control advocates from pushing for handgun bans or registration of guns, even though most people are opposed to those actions, to site another example.

 

Every group I know of has claimed that it either has support of the majority or represents the "normal" views of Americans. Even though virtually all of them are not demographically representative of the American people.

 

Yet, amazingly enough, we don't see New York Times polls measuring just how popular their views or actions are. And if is admitted that the majority of the public does oppose them...then it's the public's fault.

 

And, as I said, the goal of movements is to change and move public opinion.

 

In the 1970s, polls showed most people supported the 55 mph speed limit. Within 15 years it was gone, and even during the recent bout with rising gasoline prices, suggestions to reinstate it were met with indifference at best, or outright ridicule.

 

The 52 % refers to Tea Partiers. Many of those in the Middle Class are paying taxes at a historically low rate. Those at the top who are in many cases funding the Tea Parties (See Koch Family) would face tax increases if the high end Bush Cuts are not renewed. The rates would go back to Clinton Administration levels, about a 4% increase at the top margin.

 

That statement is not correct.

 

The income tax was originally designed to apply only to upper income earners, and then at 7 percent of those in the top bracket (when it was instituted in 1913). Note that the graph that accompanies the Huffington Post article only goes back to 1955, which leaves out a lot of history, and for a good reason.

 

Today the federal income tax takes lots more than 7 percent of the income of those in the upper brackets, and not just the upper- and upper-middle classes pay those taxes. Perhaps those Tea Party participants are the ones with the better sense of history.

 

It's also important to note that projected increases in spending, not to mention skyrocketing demands on CURRENT entitlement programs (that's ignoring the big new one we just created) as baby boomers will retire, will require higher taxes on middle income earners. Sorry, but tax increases won't be limited to the Koch family and their country club brethern to pay for those expenditures. California is Exhibit A in that regard.

Edited April 19, 2010 by grbeck

[RangerM]

The Tea Partiers are mad at the wrong people.

Think so, huh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

[Mysterio]

Think so, huh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

 

This is why we need to go nuclear. Not bother with coal which is the most polluting energy source around.

[RangerM]

This is why we need to go nuclear. Not bother with coal which is the most polluting energy source around.

Coal has the advantage of being abundant and cheap.

 

The above video is an example of why people tire of hearing about income taxes going down for 95%. 100% of us are getting a cost of living increase through cap-and-trade, Obamacare, and other excise taxes.

 

Just because you don't call them income taxes doesn't mean you aren't paying more (and higher) taxes.

[Trimdingman]

You drink tea and have tea parties!!!!!! LOL? Sounds to "Higgie babe" Magnum PI to me.

 

I thought you all eat donuts for breakfast & guzzled cokes by the gallon, and munched on steak & burgers and drank Buds all day long, l must have missed out on the real US last time l visited the States.

 

"Tea Party" refers to the Boston Tea Party. American patriots boarded a British ship and dumped it's tea cargo into Boston Harbor to protest taxation without representation. They had guts back in those days. The thirst for freedom moved them to go up against the strongest power in the world. When you have that kind of fervor, you can defeat an enemy ten times your size. When Americans get down on themselves, all they have to do is look at what they accomplished in the past. They know they can do anything if they set their minds to it. That is why they are joining the new Tea Party.

 

That is how this Canadian sees it.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Trimdingman

[RangerM]

..... there is an article on the tea party in Washington D.C. though.

 

We're out to oust many incumbents come November 2010, it is not that far off.

Here is a liberal columnist's experience at the D.C rally

I went to the "tea party" rally at the Washington Monument on Thursday to check out just how reactionary and potentially violent the movement truly was.

 

Answer: Not very.

 

Based on what I saw and heard, tea party members are not seething, ready-to-explode racists, as some liberal commentators have caricatured them.

 

Some are extremists and bigots, sure. The crowd was almost entirely white. I differ strenuously with the protesters on about 95 percent of the issues.

 

Nevertheless, on the whole, they struck me as passionate conservatives dedicated to working within the system rather than dangerous militia types or a revival of the Ku Klux Klan.

 

Although shrinking government is their primary goal, many conceded that the country should keep Medicare and even Social Security. None was clamoring for civil disobedience, much less armed revolt.

 

"Someone said in the Revolutionary War, they fired bullets. This time, we're firing politicians," said Clinton Lee, 28, a wedding photographer from Tampa wearing a Thomas Jefferson T-shirt.

 

The rally, estimated in the tens of thousands, also displayed a wacky, irreverent spirit that I found endearing. I can't help but smile when paunchy small-business owners aged 50 and older don three-cornered hats and hoist rattlesnake flags in exercising their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

 

Buttons proclaimed "IRS: I Represent Satan" and "Obama: He makes you long for Jimmy Carter."

 

The mix of kookiness and mistrust of authority reminded me of anti-Vietnam War demonstrations in which I participated four decades ago in the same spot. (Participants were appalled when I made the comparison. They hastened to say they weren't modern-day hippies.)

 

At the protest, I mostly ignored the speakers so I could probe what the participants wanted and how they viewed the world. I interviewed 19, picked at random, in three hours.

 

I found that I agreed heartily with the tea partiers on what is perhaps their single biggest concern: that America's swelling government debt seriously threatens our long-term prosperity.

[Mysterio]

Coal has the advantage of being abundant and cheap.

 

Not if you factor in the cost of pollution. Nuclear is likely the cheapest fuel source because there's minimal pollution.

 

The above video is an example of why people tire of hearing about income taxes going down for 95%. 100% of us are getting a cost of living increase through cap-and-trade, Obamacare, and other excise taxes.

 

Just because you don't call them income taxes doesn't mean you aren't paying more (and higher) taxes.

 

Most of them are for a common social cause that benefits society. It's a bit ironic that the biggest group of protesters against them are living off of Medicare and SS, apparently unaware of how devastating it would be if they lost those programs.

[joihan777]

Not if you factor in the cost of pollution. Nuclear is likely the cheapest fuel source because there's minimal pollution.

 

Agreed. Modern nuclear technology make 3-Mile Island meltdowns unlikely. Even the uber-greenie Europeans use nuclear power.

 

Most of them are for a common social cause that benefits society. It's a bit ironic that the biggest group of protesters against them are living off of Medicare and SS, apparently unaware of how devastating it would be if they lost those programs.

 

The biggest group of protesters might have been seniors because the rallies were during workdays. Believe me, many of us at work last Thursday wish we could have joined.

[RangerM]

Not if you factor in the cost of pollution. Nuclear is likely the cheapest fuel source because there's minimal pollution.

I don't factor in the cost of pollution, since it can only be estimated (at best). There is no direct measurement.

 

Nuclear is not the cheapest cost per kilowatt-hour at this time. And there is the problem of what to do with the fuel rods, since AFAIK nothing is being/has been transported to Yucca Mountain.

Most of them are for a common social cause that benefits society.

Really? How does a tax on (medicinal) drugs, dental braces, wheelchairs (etc) benefit society? Transferring wealth, like the Big-O said, "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"? It may be good for someone else when it's taken from me by force, but I fail to see how both of us benefit. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

It's a bit ironic that the biggest group of protesters against them are living off of Medicare and SS, apparently unaware of how devastating it would be if they lost those programs.

Yes, once you are dependent on a welfare program, it is difficult to wean off of it. I wonder if the pols who were in favor of either would still be if they knew how they've turned out.

 

However, no one that I know of is for abolishing SS outright, however the way its COLAs are calculated is part of the need for reform.

 

And the answer that Obamacare provides for Medicare? Cut the funding, and ultimately ration the benefits. I guess we'll all see how devastating it will be.

Edited April 19, 2010 by RangerM

[Mysterio]

I don't factor in the cost of pollution, since it can only be estimated (at best). There is no direct measurement.

 

Nuclear is not the cheapest cost per kilowatt-hour at this time. And there is the problem of what to do with the fuel rods, since AFAIK nothing is being/has been transported to Yucca Mountain.

 

You reprocess the fuel rods. Make more fuel. The whole Yucca Mountain thing was a waste of time in the first place IMO.

 

Coal has plenty of problems, and it's pollution cost is only one of many. You also have to include the human cost, such as the death we saw in W. Virginia. Mining deaths are even worse in places like China. There's also the slight problem of coal being a very finite source...

 

Really? How does a tax on (medicinal) drugs, dental braces, wheelchairs (etc) benefit society? Transferring wealth, like the Big-O said, "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"? It may be good for someone else when it's taken from me, but I fail to see how I benefit.

 

I seriously doubt there's a tax on wheelchairs, or something that is intentionally hurting health. A small tax on the wealth and well-off is a small price to pay for important social services. It's been pointed out that already have a form of universal health care; going to the ER when a person without health insurance is extremely sick with a treatable disease. By treating them earlier, likely we will reduce costs over the long run.

 

Yes, once you are dependent on a welfare program, it is difficult to wean off of it. I wonder if the pols who were in favor of either would still be if they knew how they've turned out.

 

However, no one that I know of is for abolishing SS outright, however the way its COLAs are calculated is part of the need for reform.

 

Luckily for you you've never had to debate with one of those right-wing extremists who do want to abolish all of those things and turn the country into some sort of theocratic dystopia or whatever. You just can't reason with them at all...

 

Anyways, COLA for SS will likely be adjusted by either party sooner or later. But as long as the basics of SS are intact, I think that is consistent with what they wanted with it originally.

 

And the answer that Obamacare provides for Medicare? Cut the funding, and ultimately ration the benefits. I guess we'll all see how devastating it will be.

 

It was suppose to cut waste in Medicare. We'll see if they were wise cuts, but the idea of expanding coverage and reducing cost in health care is sound idea. Especially for a health care system as inefficient as ours.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Mysterio

[RangerM]

You reprocess the fuel rods. Make more fuel. The whole Yucca Mountain thing was a waste of time in the first place IMO.

 

Coal has plenty of problems, and it's pollution cost is only one of many. You also have to include the human cost, such as the death we saw in W. Virginia. Mining deaths are even worse in places like China. There's also the slight problem of coal being a very finite source...

Reprocessing Fuel rods increases the amount of nuclear waste by about 6 times (by volume), and the byproducts of reprocessing have already contaminated the environment.

It's expensive.

And nuclear fissile materials are significantly less abundant (and more expensive) than coal.

 

Those points are summed up nicely in this link.

I seriously doubt there's a tax on wheelchairs, or something that is intentionally hurting health.

Look it up for yourself.

 

A small tax on the wealth and well-off is a small price to pay for important social services. It's been pointed out that already have a form of universal health care; going to the ER when a person without health insurance is extremely sick with a treatable disease. By treating them earlier, likely we will reduce costs over the long run.

"A small tax" is also not enough to pay for the program. You need something else, because there's not enough rich people. That's why the middle (and lower) class will ultimately pay.

 

You're new, so you didn't see this. CBO: Preventative Care for all NOT Cheaper. You may have read about the "death panels". An extreme reference, but you must also acknowledge that (part of) the idea behind them is triage, deciding who can wait and who is more needy. Point being, care is delayed for those who are judged to be able to wait; the method left to the whims of an unelected panel, and not to the patient. Ultimately I believe, there will be a (Government-sponsored) John Edwards' two Americas as far as healthcare.

Luckily for you you've never had to debate with one of those right-wing extremists who do want to abolish all of those things and turn the country into some sort of theocratic dystopia or whatever. You just can't reason with them at all...

You can consider me right-wing, but I'd consider myself far from extreme. However, I want solutions that work and are sustainable. Nothing I've seen so far is both.

Anyways, COLA for SS will likely be adjusted by either party sooner or later. But as long as the basics of SS are intact, I think that is consistent with what they wanted with it originally.

Agreed to a point. I can agree that we, as a society, should provide a (very) basic safety net, however SS has become for many a de facto pension plan (something it was never intended to be).

It was suppose to cut waste in Medicare. We'll see if they were wise cuts, but the idea of expanding coverage and reducing cost in health care is sound idea. Especially for a health care system as inefficient as ours.

Ask yourself, if there is so much waste in Medicare/Medicaid, and so much savings to be gained by eliminating it, why wasn't it being done in the first place, and why does it require the likes of "Obamacare" to do it?

Edited April 19, 2010 by RangerM

[grbeck]

A small tax on the wealth and well-off is a small price to pay for important social services. It's been pointed out that already have a form of universal health care; going to the ER when a person without health insurance is extremely sick with a treatable disease. By treating them earlier, likely we will reduce costs over the long run.

 

The very real concern is that most taxes - including the federal income tax - were initially sold to the public as only applying to the "wealthy and well--off." The simple truth is that EVERY government program has outstripped its original cost projections, and the taxes and fees that support it had to be broadened in their application. Last time I checked, for example, not just the wealthy pay the federal income tax.

 

Unless I am now part of the "wealthy and well-off". Who knew?

 

Luckily for you you've never had to debate with one of those right-wing extremists who do want to abolish all of those things and turn the country into some sort of theocratic dystopia or whatever. You just can't reason with them at all...

 

I wish I could meet some of those right-wingers. They appear to exist largely in the imaginations of people who want to create a strawman instead of debating the very real and serious issues this country faces.

 

It was suppose to cut waste in Medicare. We'll see if they were wise cuts, but the idea of expanding coverage and reducing cost in health care is sound idea. Especially for a health care system as inefficient as ours.

 

Except that the promised upward revision in Medicare reimbursement rates to health care providers is supposed to wipe out any of those promised savings. The doctors and hospitals have clamored for this for years, and the Democrats broke it out of the Reconciliation Act to avoid throwing the already suspect Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost projections further out of kilter.

[napfirst]

It's been pointed out that already have a form of universal health care; going to the ER when a person without health insurance is extremely sick with a treatable disease. By treating them earlier, likely we will reduce costs over the long run.

 

 

 

Everytime someone writes this I ask them to please explain how obamacare is going to cost a $trillion more when they say we already have universal healthcare.......after Mass. adopted their "healthcare for everyone"......their ER visits went up by 17%......