[FoRK] "Two faces of the Tea Party"

Jeff Bone jbone at place.org
Thu Jun 24 11:28:05 PDT 2010

On Jun 24, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Dave Kammeyer wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Michael Cummins <michael at i-magery.com> wrote:
>> I'm 40.  The few things I attended were populated with 30-40-50 something's.
>> I honestly don't expect Social Security to be around when my turn comes, to
>> be honest.  I doubt I'm alone in this but I'm hardly representative, and I
>> can understand the resentment from someone who has paid into it their whole
>> life and then gets the rug pulled out from underneath them.
> Most of the TP

Problem number one:  there is no "the" TP.  Fucking hell, how many times do we have to cover that?

Problem number two:  NYT?  Really?  You trust the entire research and source chain, on an issue like this, with that particular publication?  Single-sourced?  (Yes, I know, I myself have previously cited this poll before.  But honestly I wouldn't bet on the actual margin of error on any of the points in this poll, if for no other reason than the sample size and the method, cf. the fine print.)

> is older than you.  75% of TP is over 45, about 30% is
> already retirement age. [1]  Very few of the boomers have saved enough
> for retirement and are depending on SS for retirement.  They're not
> going to vote for cutting their benefits.  They'll cut their kids
> benefits if they have to though.

You haven't demonstrated that.

Those who are actually in a position to influence any policy if and as "a" TP gels out of the primordial soup are a lot more cognizant of things regardless.  The pillage-the-future entitlement party's over one way or the other;  it can't be kicked along far enough to cover the needs of even those folks not already well into their benefits.

> Right, but what are they talking about here?  I think that most TP
> people want to cut things like 2 million dollars for a bike path, or a
> million dollars for southwestern spotted rice weivel research.  That
> sort of thing just doesn't add up to much, as good a soundbite as it
> makes.

Speculation masquerading as fact.

> As Jeff says, there are lots of military programs that can be
> classified as pork, but the big expenses are the wars and new weapons
> systems.  

There's a lot of the latter.

The former is easy to avoid.  Most of the various TP constituencies are very anti-Bush / anti-neocon, as pointed out repeatedly (even by the neocons themselves.)  Fairly easy to maintain a reasonable military, if you should be inclined to do so, if you simply avoid engaging elective and unwinnable wars-without-exit.

> Since
> the TP people tend to skew right-wing,

Those terms have no meaning.

> there is generally support for
> the military, and cutting the military budget is generally not
> something that they support.

Non sequitur (or something, not sure what.)  You cannot draw meaningful conclusions from meaningless givens.


More information about the FoRK mailing list