From a NYTimes New Alert:
The fierce animosity that Tea Party supporters harbor toward Washington and President Obama in particular is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Bull crap.
The media just doesn't get it. I can't speak for everyone, but let me tell you why I (and the people I spoke to there) went to the tea party last year: government intrusion and reckless, unaccountable spending. That's it. We're simply tired of the government looking at us as cattle - as a food source. They see us not as people, but as a power base and, as a whole, they've stopped listening to us. Congress and the president has decided that they know better than we do how to run our daily lives and how our money should be spent. The concept of individual liberty is completely lost to them.
They have no problem with lying to us about how badly we need a stimulus package RIGHT NOW or else the entire economy will collapse. Then we find out that all kinds of other
crap has been included into the bill that was supposedly all about the economy and that the trillions of dollars that were spent - that we didn't have - went to wasteful projects and people and places that didn't even exist. And then came the health care bill, which is fraught with all the same kinds of nastiness.
But is it about so-called class? Not at all.
Why must everything be about class or race to liberals? Why must everything be a damn game? It's simply about standing up for individual liberty and accountability in government! How much more simple can I put it? I want liberty for people of all races and of all backgrounds and of all so-called "classes," not just the middle class or the rich. That's ludicrous. The left and the media think that because the people who are most likely to attend a tea party are middle class and skew toward upper middle class that we only are there to help the people who are there.
What utter nonsense.
The reason they see it that way is because that's how they view politics: help those who support you or are like-minded and step on everyone else. But that's not how conservatives (or even most Republicans) view things. Because we have a message of personal accountability and hard work, not government hand-outs and state-run coddling programs people (and by people, I mean people on the left) think that we're these cold, heartless animals who are only out for ourselves and who don't care about the poor or people who are down on their luck. Again, that's simply not true. We just have a vastly different view of how things should be fixed. Instead of taxing everyone so that the government can dole out checks and food like some sort of giant teet, we think that charity should come from charities and churches and private foundations and from the goodness of people's hearts. There are times when people are down and just need some assistance. Cool. Fine. I understand that. Then that's where a government safety net should come in, but it should only provide just enough so that people don't starve
while they're out there trying to get back on their feet. It should be a limited time assistance, not a perpetual system of dependence as it is now. People should not make their living by sitting at home waiting on a welfare check to come, but there are millions that do. And somehow, the liberals have removed the shame in that - in accepting something for nothing and relying on someone else to take care of you.
There's an old saying: "give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime." That pretty much sums up the conservative philosophy.
What strikes me is how different the news alert at the top is from the
news story that it links to:Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.
I sincerely doubt that only 18 percent of Americans are tea party supporters. Perhaps it was in the phrasing of the poll question. Had the question asked something like "do you identify with the concepts of government accountability, lower taxes and more individual liberty?" instead of something like "are you a Tea Party supporter?" the results would have been a
whole lot higher. I don't identify myself as a Tea Party supporter. I'm a conservative who attended a tea party to show my support for conservative philosophy and to protest my government's willful and deliberate ignoring of my liberties. The whole "Tea Party" thing has taken on the tone of a third party, and I don't support that. What I support is making the Republican party conservative again and holding the Republicans to the standard we elected them on.
They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as “very conservative” and President Obama as “very liberal.”
And while most Republicans say they are “dissatisfied” with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as “angry.”
Not angry as in unruly mob "angry," but angry as in "I've finally had all I can swallow, so I'm going to take a little time off of work to make my voice heard" angry.
Their responses are like the general public’s in many ways. Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as “fair.”
Uh, no. Flat out wrong. A huge part of the catalyst behind some in the tea party movement was unfair and extraordinarily high taxes.
Most send their children to public schools.
True. So? Is the New York Times arguing that because we support smaller government that we don't support education or that we shouldn't be sending our kids to public schools?
A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president,
I'm one of those who thinks that Sarah Palin is a fad and shouldn't be held up as some kind of savior of the Republican party. What Sarah Palin is - and represents - is a refreshingly unabashed conservative voice on the national scene that we haven't heard in a long time. But she's not the best candidate for president, no. I'm not going to go so far as to ay she's not qualified.
and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers.
Horse crap. Only people who don't pay attention think that, and the story already established that those who attend tea parties are far more likely to pay attention to politics.
They actually are just as likely as Americans as a whole to have returned their census forms, though some conservative leaders have urged a boycott.
What the crap does the census have to do with anything? I've never heard any "conservative leader" say to not return your census form. What I've heard is that people shouldn't have to fill out all the crazy demographic and personal information that the government asks for on them because such information is only used to gerrymander congressional districts and attempt to justify social spending programs. What they've urged is to say "there are four people living in my house and our household income is X." And that's it. The government doesn't need to know what race I am in order to serve me. If we're to truly live in a "colorblind society," then race shouldn't matter at all.
They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.
See my previous comments. Race shouldn't matter. If people are having problems, it shouldn't matter what race they are - that's extraneous to the situation- just find a way to solve the problem, not how to capitalize on it.
And some other nuggets from way, way down in the story:
They are far more pessimistic than Americans in general about the economy. More than 90 percent of Tea Party supporters think the country is headed in the wrong direction, compared with about 60 percent of the general public.
Nearly 9 in 10 disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing over all, and about the same percentage fault his handling of major issues: health care, the economy and the federal budget deficit. Ninety-two percent believe Mr. Obama is moving the country toward socialism, an opinion shared by more than half of the general public.
And nearly three-quarters of those who favor smaller government said they would prefer it even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut.
And finally:
Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.
Others could not explain the contradiction.
What contradiction? We expect to get what we paid for. Now, I don't expect to get a dime of Social Security benefits, but there was an entire generation or two before mine that were promised benefits and were sold on the concept of Social Security as their retirement income. That's what the government promised them. So I don't begrudge those people for expecting the money back that they paid into the system. What I think is ludicrous is anyone who still expects that after seeing Social Security
not pay off and seeing people
not able to get by on their Social Security benefits. I think Social Security should be overhauled drastically or done away with completely (with the aforementioned previous generation in mind). But, that's a post for another day.
Posts
