cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

For GOP, it's even worse than demographics

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/22/tea_party_is_an_anti_populist_elite_tool_and_it_has_progressives_foo...

 

As the piece says, it is a mistake to underestimate the economic circumstances of the Tea Party. They are, in fact, above average in income, education and other measures.

 

And even if FDR was 3 times more a socialist than anybody on the Democratic scene today, they are rightfully frightened  of having more government interference, higher wages for employees, higher taxes. Deservedly so.

 

But as the economic circumstances of the middle class erode the number of people who can identify with that are going to decline as well. At the lower end of the GOP/Tea Party spectrum which observers ovremphasize they can hang onto the a fair number just through dislike of Obama and attachments to various hot button social issues.

 

But a party of the upper and middle class has a tough row to hoe when the middle class is in decline.

6 Replies
Advisor

Re: For GOP, it's even worse than demographics


From a week ago:

 

http://triplecrisis.com/crooks-liars-idiots-and-plutocrats/

 

Actually quite a bit being written around about this, which many of us have recgnized from the start.  We can all point to local exapmles if we honestly make the connections. 

 

Not sureif it will stick.  So much self-admission on the part of "comfortable" centrists would need to take place and honest mainsream reporting that might step on mogul toes would be required for it to affect politics that I don't hold out much hope.  Just more neo-fuedalism until all is just so much chattel.

Senior Advisor

Re: For GOP, it's even worse than demographics


@hardnox604008 wrote:

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/22/tea_party_is_an_anti_populist_elite_tool_and_it_has_progressives_foo...

 

As the piece says, it is a mistake to underestimate the economic circumstances of the Tea Party. They are, in fact, above average in income, education and other measures.

 

And even if FDR was 3 times more a socialist than anybody on the Democratic scene today, they are rightfully frightened  of having more government interference, higher wages for employees, higher taxes. Deservedly so.

 

But as the economic circumstances of the middle class erode the number of people who can identify with that are going to decline as well. At the lower end of the GOP/Tea Party spectrum which observers ovremphasize they can hang onto the a fair number just through dislike of Obama and attachments to various hot button social issues.

 

But a party of the upper and middle class has a tough row to hoe when the middle class is in decline.


Written by redistributionist. Take from A, give to B, to make all equal. Always results in failure. Example, war on poverty. The ultimate 2 party system, the ruling elite is one party, the indentured peasants the other party.

Advisor

Re: For GOP, it's even worse than demographics

so the middle class is the enemy. that explains some things.
Senior Contributor

Re: For GOP, it's even worse than demographics

3020, your comment seems to be more of a summary of your political beliefs than a commentary on the article and it is really a summary of the whole tea party in a nutshell. Frankly, I'm not sure what to make of the Tea Party and their likelihood of catching on as a major force in politics. They may be well seated in their districts, but one has to ask if those districts may be rapidly changing and what they will look like by the time the next general election comes around. I think there are ways for them to preserve their core beliefs yet appeal to a more broad sector of society, but will they continue of the same path of all or nothing, or will they try for getting some major goals accomplished while conceding on other matters? Your dismissal of the article and any inkling of truth it may contain is very like the tea party and their attitude towards voters.

Senior Contributor

Re: For GOP, it's even worse than demographics

It's pretty obvious that the author of that, has a definate slant/agenda, and I would also be willing to bet that he never actually spent any time taliking with TEA party members.

 

I have chatted with a few, and the impression I have gotten from them about Obamacare, is not that they are against helping those in medical need, but rather that Obmacare is a monstrosity, with costs that are far above what was promised, with no guarantee it will cover everyone.

I don't know, looking at it from the point of view as to where they are 'wrong', I really can't see it.   Obamacare is 1500+ pages long (and the claim is that it is 'essentially the same' as the 70 page Romneycare law - if that is true, why the extra 1400+ pages?), so I give them the 'monstrosity' part.

To the cost part, the CBO already has the 'cost' of Obamacare at about triple what Obama promised it would cost, and that is only going up, as time goes by.   I guess I have to give them that one, as well.

The CBO, also estimates, Obamacare will still leave 30 million people uninsured in the year 2022.   If we have 53 million uninsured from the 2012 CBO estimate, and still have 30 million uninsured, after 10 years (OK, 8 years after the waivers end), how is that 'cover everyone'?  These are actual CBO numbers, I found an article quoting them here:  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-obamacare-will-leave-30-million-uninsured

 

As to the debt cieling, the TEA party members I talked to, aruge that simply raising the debt cieling, will only lead to more debt, that there should be some sort of conditions imposed, to bring the budget into balance, when the debt cieling is raised, rather than simply raising it, and continuing on with the same way of doing things, that rang up the debt in the first place.

 

What is 'wrong' about any of those stances?

Where I start to disagree with them, is their means to the end.   For example, ONLY cutting spending, to address the deficit, may be too heavy-handed.   However, the CBO has also found 400 Billion in waste.   If we get rid of that, we are more than halfway there.   From that point on, look at what changes can be made to the system, to encourage thrift (can you tell me of anywhere but within the government, that penalizes someone, for doing a job under budget?) .   From that point, we can see where we are budget-wise, and bring up revenues, if needed.

I also disagree with their means in trying to end Obamacare.   Yes, Cruz ran on that platform, and I can admire him from the standpoint that he actually is fulfilling a campaign promise, but I disagree with the tactics he used.   There are more above-board ways of trying to accomplish his goal.   However, looking at it from the other side, where the opposition wanted a 'clean' budget, they didn't submit one either.   Look at the appropriations, and there is enough pork in there to have the biggest BBQ ever.

 

 

Currently, accoriding to CBO, there are 53 million uninsured persons in the United States, including uninsured illegal aliens. The CBO estimates that in 2022--8 years after the Affordable Care Act has been fully implemented--30 million people will remain uninsured. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-obamacare-will-leave-30-million-uninsured#sthash.ZI47MUmF.dpuf

CNSNews.com) -- A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report says that under the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, 30 million non-elderly Americans will remain without health insurance in 2022.

One of the main arguments the Obama administration made for passing the Affordable Care Act was that it would provide coverage for the uninsured.

Currently, accoriding to CBO, there are 53 million uninsured persons in the United States, including uninsured illegal aliens. The CBO estimates that in 2022--8 years after the Affordable Care Act has been fully implemented--30 million people will remain uninsured.

Under Obamacare, 8 percent of legal U.S. residents will remain without health insurance in 2022, according to CBO.

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-obamacare-will-leave-30-million-uninsured#sthash.ZI47MUmF.dpuf

CNSNews.com) -- A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report says that under the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, 30 million non-elderly Americans will remain without health insurance in 2022.

One of the main arguments the Obama administration made for passing the Affordable Care Act was that it would provide coverage for the uninsured.

Currently, accoriding to CBO, there are 53 million uninsured persons in the United States, including uninsured illegal aliens. The CBO estimates that in 2022--8 years after the Affordable Care Act has been fully implemented--30 million people will remain uninsured.

Under Obamacare, 8 percent of legal U.S. residents will remain without health insurance in 2022, according to CBO.

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-obamacare-will-leave-30-million-uninsured#sthash.ZI47MUmF.dpuf

 

CNSNews.com) -- A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report says that under the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, 30 million non-elderly Americans will remain without health insurance in 2022.

One of the main arguments the Obama administration made for passing the Affordable Care Act was that it would provide coverage for the uninsured.

Currently, accoriding to CBO, there are 53 million uninsured persons in the United States, including uninsured illegal aliens. The CBO estimates that in 2022--8 years after the Affordable Care Act has been fully implemented--30 million people will remain uninsured.

Under Obamacare, 8 percent of legal U.S. residents will remain without health insurance in 2022, according to CBO.

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-obamacare-will-leave-30-million-uninsured#sthash.ZI47MUmF.dpuf
Senior Advisor

Re: For GOP, it's even worse than demographics


@KNAPPer wrote:

3020, your comment seems to be more of a summary of your political beliefs than a commentary on the article and it is really a summary of the whole tea party in a nutshell. Frankly, I'm not sure what to make of the Tea Party and their likelihood of catching on as a major force in politics. They may be well seated in their districts, but one has to ask if those districts may be rapidly changing and what they will look like by the time the next general election comes around. I think there are ways for them to preserve their core beliefs yet appeal to a more broad sector of society, but will they continue of the same path of all or nothing, or will they try for getting some major goals accomplished while conceding on other matters? Your dismissal of the article and any inkling of truth it may contain is very like the tea party and their attitude towards voters.


What I wrote is true. The author wants more redistribution and the tea party stands in the way. This makes them his enemy so now he tries to divide and destroy.