PDA

View Full Version : 71%,Americans want Tea Party ideas in Republican b



Sev
02-01-2011, 02:53 PM
Rut Row Shaggy!!!

http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/20...can-brew-poll/

<span style="color: #003300">
Americans want Tea Party ideas in Republican brew – poll
JAN 31, 2011 12:28 EST

CONGRESS | GALLUP POLL | MICHELE BACHMANN | REPUBLICANS | SENATE TEA PARTY CAUCUS | TEA PARTY | U.S. POLITICS
Americans think Republicans should listen to their Tea Party colleagues, not ignore them.

In the aftermath of November elections that gave some Tea Party supported candidates seats in Congress, a Gallup poll finds that most Americans believe that Republicans should take into account Tea Party ideas when they tackle the problems facing the country.

The poll found that 71 percent of adults, and 88 percent of Republicans, say it is important that Republican leaders in Congress consider Tea Party movement ideas. The survey was conducted Jan. 14-16, more than a week before President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on Jan. 25.

“Despite Americans’ willingness to have Tea Party voices heard, it is not clear that the Republican Party benefits when Tea Party leaders publicly overshadow its own,” Gallup said.

“Indeed, the GOP confronted that issue last week when Rep. Michele Bachmann’s Tea Party-sanctioned response to Obama’s State of the Union address seemed to draw attention away from the Republican Party’s official response given by Rep. Paul Ryan,” Gallup said.

“The Bachmann speech highlights the fine line the GOP leadership must walk between Tea Party movement activists and traditional Republicans. About half of Republicans, 52%, say they are supporters of the Tea Party movement. Most others (43%) take no position on the movement, while 5% say they oppose it,” Gallup said.

The Washington Post pointed out that some Republican senators who won seats due to Tea Party support are weighing whether that label will help or “become a scarlet letter.” Three senators who rolled into Congress on the Tea Party wave didn’t join the new Senate Tea Party Caucus, which held its first meeting last Thursday — senators Ronald Johnson of Wisconsin, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania, according to the Post.

Budget season will likely force the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill to decide where Tea Partiers will fit into their message.

Photo credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque (Rep. Michele Bachmann arrives for president’s State of the Union add</span>ress)

LWW
02-01-2011, 05:05 PM
Excellent post.

Not bad for a party the left has been declaring dead for the last 2 years.

LWW

Sev
02-01-2011, 05:58 PM
They must be scared.

Soflasnapper
02-01-2011, 06:28 PM
I don't think this means what you think it means.

For all the non-tea party supporters or non-tea party types, they may very well feel the GOP ought to 'dance with them that brought 'em,' however much they may not agree with the TP platform planks.

Some of '71% of Americans' are surely Democrats, and Democrats may view the TP programme as an albatross around the GOP's neck, and therefore say that the GOP should actually propose those things, in order to harm the GOP with the public.

Because surely, 71% of Americans do not agree with the TP's prescriptions, overall.

cushioncrawler
02-01-2011, 06:59 PM
Southy -- i agree.
Lots of pipple would somehow like to hav the GOP aktually somehow doing what they spout. It would kill the usofa for a long time.
But no calamity or catastrophe of any sort would ever aktually show anything to the nutty or proov anything to the nutty. The GOP hav shown us that recently.
mac.

Sev
02-01-2011, 07:13 PM
Got to the site for the charts.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145838/Americans-Believe-GOP-Consider-Tea-Party-Ideas.aspx

<span style="color: #003300">January 31, 2011
Americans Believe GOP Should Consider Tea Party Ideas
Half of Republicans are Tea Party supporters; 5% are "opponents"
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- About 7 in 10 national adults, including 88% of Republicans, say it is important that Republican leaders in Congress take the Tea Party movement's positions and objectives into account as they address the nation's problems. Among Republicans, 53% rate this "very important."



These results are from a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Jan. 14-16, prior to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address.

Although few Democrats (6%) are supporters of the Tea Party or even have a favorable view of it (11%), more than half say it is important that the Republican Party take the Tea Party's positions into account. Why this is the case is unclear, although Democrats may simply feel that the opposing party should pay attention to all of its constituencies.

Perhaps underscoring the same principle, Republicans overwhelmingly feel their leaders should take the Tea Party's positions into account, even though barely half are self-identified as Tea Party supporters.

Despite Americans' willingness to have Tea Party voices heard, it is not clear that the Republican Party benefits when Tea Party leaders publicly overshadow its own. Indeed, the GOP confronted that issue last week when Rep. Michele Bachmann's Tea Party-sanctioned response to Obama's State of the Union address seemed to draw attention away from the Republican Party's official response given by Rep. Paul Ryan.

The Republican Party has a somewhat more favorable image nationally than does the Tea Party, and by the widest margin seen over the past year. In the poll, 47% of Americans had a favorable opinion of the Republican Party compared with 39% holding a favorable view of the Tea Party movement.



In contrast to the recently improved ratings of the Republican Party, public opinion of the Tea Party movement has changed little since Gallup's initial measurement in March 2010, with just under 40% viewing it favorably and slightly more viewing it unfavorably.



The percentage of Americans labeling themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement has also held steady over the same period at about 30%. Currently, slightly more Americans call themselves supporters of the movement than opponents, 30% vs. 25%.



The Bachmann speech highlights the fine line the GOP leadership must walk between Tea Party movement activists and traditional Republicans. About half of Republicans, 52%, say they are supporters of the Tea Party movement. Most others (43%) take no position on the movement, while 5% say they oppose it.

Bottom Line

While media commentators duel over whether Bachmann's response to the State of the Union address deserved prime-time coverage, the Republican Party has its own dilemma: how much deference to show Tea Party activists and their generally conservative proposals in crafting public policy. Almost all Republicans say it is at least somewhat important for GOP congressional leaders to take the Tea Party's views into account, with about half saying it is very important. More broadly, the Tea Party has neither lost nor gained strength since the midterm elections. It remains popular with about 3 in 10 Americans who call themselves supporters of the movement, and it continues to generate as much opposition as support overall.

Survey Methods
Results for this USA Today/Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Jan 14-16, 2011, with a random sample of 1,032 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones (for respondents with a landline telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell phone-only). Each sample includes a minimum quota of 150 cell phone-only respondents and 850 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, education, region, and phone lines. Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2010 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in continental U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
</span>

Soflasnapper
02-01-2011, 07:40 PM
Although few Democrats (6%) are supporters of the Tea Party or even have a favorable view of it (11%), more than half say it is important that the Republican Party take the Tea Party's positions into account. Why this is the case is unclear, although Democrats may simply feel that the opposing party should pay attention to all of its constituencies.


Some if not all of the Dems want the GOP to choke on the TP platform, which they assume the people will hate once particulars are mentioned, let alone perhaps voted into law.

Qtec
02-01-2011, 09:31 PM
What are these Tea Party positions? Are they different from Conservatives or Republicans?

Q....I don't think so.

LWW
02-02-2011, 04:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What are these Tea Party positions? Are they different from Conservatives or Republicans?

Q....I don't think so. </div></div>

So ... you admit you have been hypercritical of the TPM even though you have no idea what their positions are?

How refreshing to see a spoon fed type become aware of what they have done.

BRAVO!

LWW

Sev
02-02-2011, 06:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Although few Democrats (6%) are supporters of the Tea Party or even have a favorable view of it (11%), more than half say it is important that the Republican Party take the Tea Party's positions into account. Why this is the case is unclear, although Democrats may simply feel that the opposing party should pay attention to all of its constituencies.


Some if not all of the Dems want the GOP to choke on the TP platform, which they assume the people will hate once particulars are mentioned, let alone perhaps voted into law. </div></div>

The Tea Party is composed of the most important group of all. Independents. Which as disgust with the government increases will continue to grow.

LWW
02-02-2011, 07:05 AM
Excellent post.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-02-2011, 01:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Although few Democrats (6%) are supporters of the Tea Party or even have a favorable view of it (11%), more than half say it is important that the Republican Party take the Tea Party's positions into account. Why this is the case is unclear, although Democrats may simply feel that the opposing party should pay attention to all of its constituencies.


Some if not all of the Dems want the GOP to choke on the TP platform, which they assume the people will hate once particulars are mentioned, let alone perhaps voted into law. </div></div>

The Tea Party is composed of the most important group of all. Independents. Which as disgust with the government increases will continue to grow. </div></div>

These days, independents are not who they used to be.

Since many even die-hard Republicans could no longer pretend their party hadn't totally screwed the pooch (let alone the more moderate GOPrs), many of them changed their self-identified 'party' to independent. They remain GOPrs, despite their so-called independent label.

This is proven of the 'independents' in the Tea Party, when surveys show over and over again that they are really disaffected GOPrs according to their policy goals, forming a rump caucus on its right.

Sev
02-02-2011, 02:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Although few Democrats (6%) are supporters of the Tea Party or even have a favorable view of it (11%), more than half say it is important that the Republican Party take the Tea Party's positions into account. Why this is the case is unclear, although Democrats may simply feel that the opposing party should pay attention to all of its constituencies.


Some if not all of the Dems want the GOP to choke on the TP platform, which they assume the people will hate once particulars are mentioned, let alone perhaps voted into law. </div></div>

The Tea Party is composed of the most important group of all. Independents. Which as disgust with the government increases will continue to grow. </div></div>

These days, independents are not who they used to be.

Since many even die-hard Republicans could no longer pretend their party hadn't totally screwed the pooch (let alone the more moderate GOPrs), many of them changed their self-identified 'party' to independent. They remain GOPrs, despite their so-called independent label.

This is proven of the 'independents' in the Tea Party, when surveys show over and over again that they are really disaffected GOPrs according to their policy goals, forming a rump caucus on its right. </div></div>

And JFK, Reagan style democrats.

JohnnyD
02-02-2011, 02:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Although few Democrats (6%) are supporters of the Tea Party or even have a favorable view of it (11%), more than half say it is important that the Republican Party take the Tea Party's positions into account. Why this is the case is unclear, although Democrats may simply feel that the opposing party should pay attention to all of its constituencies.


Some if not all of the Dems want the GOP to choke on the TP platform, which they assume the people will hate once particulars are mentioned, let alone perhaps voted into law. </div></div>

The Tea Party is composed of the most important group of all. Independents. Which as disgust with the government increases will continue to grow. </div></div>

These days, independents are not who they used to be.

Since many even die-hard Republicans could no longer pretend their party hadn't totally screwed the pooch (let alone the more moderate GOPrs), many of them changed their self-identified 'party' to independent. They remain GOPrs, despite their so-called independent label.

This is proven of the 'independents' in the Tea Party, when surveys show over and over again that they are really disaffected GOPrs according to their policy goals, forming a rump caucus on its right. </div></div>

And JFK, Reagan style democrats. </div></div>Excellent poat.The truth will set them free.

pooltchr
02-02-2011, 03:47 PM
Why is it so difficult to accept the fact that there are real independent thinking people who have watched the activities of both parties over the years, and come to the sensible conclusion that lowering taxes, cutting government spending, and reducing the size and scope of the federal government is a good thing?

Plenty of independents voted for Obama. Were they the same independents who have now formed the tea party? Or did they see the failings of Obama and turn 180 degrees in political viewpoints and conclude that everything about Obama is now wrong, and the tea party better represents them than the Dems?

You aren't making any sense with this argument. Independents are just that. They don't follow the party line of either major party (both of whom, in my opinion, are different sides of the same tax/spend/more government coin).

Steve

Soflasnapper
02-02-2011, 05:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why is it so difficult to accept the fact that there are real independent thinking people who have watched the activities of both parties over the years, and come to the sensible conclusion that lowering taxes, cutting government spending, and reducing the size and scope of the federal government is a good thing?

Plenty of independents voted for Obama. Were they the same independents who have now formed the tea party? Or did they see the failings of Obama and turn 180 degrees in political viewpoints and conclude that everything about Obama is now wrong, and the tea party better represents them than the Dems?

You aren't making any sense with this argument. Independents are just that. They don't follow the party line of either major party (both of whom, in my opinion, are different sides of the same tax/spend/more government coin).

Steve </div></div>

By fairly settled poly-sci research, those calling themselves independent mainly lean toward one of the two parties, are about as reliably found voting for the party they lean to as are those who self-identify in that party, and thus aren't nearly so independent as they style themselves.

See How partisan are independent voters? (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/research_desk_responds_how_par.html) or here (http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2010/11/independent_voters_are_the_pol.php) to see this research discussed.

Yes, they do find evidence of REAL independents, who say upon questioning that they do not lean toward one party or the other. But instead of this group being the majority of the 40%+ who SAY they're independent, they are a minority-- 10% of the electorate, and only 7% of the voters (since they are less motivated voters than either self-identified partisans of either side, or the leaners to either side).

So mainly independents are weaker party affiliates, who don't want to say they're members of the party they mainly still vote for, or disaffected party members, who (perhaps temporarily) are upset with the party they mainly lean toward and vote for.

As for the Tea Party, many of their predominant opinions track far differently from polling of 'independents.'

pooltchr
02-02-2011, 05:38 PM
Alright, let's cut to the chase.
Do you find the TP positions on lowering taxes, cutting spending, and reducing the scope and size of government to be in agreement with your point of view or not?

I'll be more than happy to admit that I don't see any other solution that makes more sense when it comes to turning our economy around.

Steve

LWW
02-03-2011, 09:56 AM
Bump to see if you get an answer.

LWW

pooltchr
02-03-2011, 11:52 AM
I am expecting a reply...but somewhat doubtful that the question will get a straight answer.

Steve

JohnnyD
02-03-2011, 12:09 PM
The truth will set them free.

Soflasnapper
02-03-2011, 01:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Alright, let's cut to the chase.
Do you find the TP positions on lowering taxes, cutting spending, and reducing the scope and size of government to be in agreement with your point of view or not?

I'll be more than happy to admit that I don't see any other solution that makes more sense when it comes to turning our economy around.

Steve
</div></div>

No, not the way I'm sure you mean. Sorta, if the issue were better understood and framed.

The little mentioned best answer to reducing deficit spending is to restore the economy and get a closer to normal level of employment. Anything that works against that goal is unwise and will cause more problems than it supposedly solves.

High unemployment grows the deficit in two ways: fewer people paying taxes (less tax income to the government), and with the extra poverty and need, greater social safety net spending (larger expenditures). Those effects are on top of and add to whatever deficit previously existed.

Efforts to address the underlying structural deficit need to wait until the current high unemployment comes down. Otherwise, recovery will be delayed, or perhaps never occur.

The problem with the people is the promise of the free lunch. Famously, it is said, there IS NO FREE LUNCH. And really, people will take a DISCOUNTED lunch when a free one isn't available, rather than pay a reasonable price for lunch.

What do I mean? The American people apparently want a lot more government than they are willing to pay for, and have been led to believe it is their right not to have to pay for (all of) it. In recent polling, the vast majority of Americans, and almost the same vast majority of Tea Party, say do not cut SS or Medicare a nickel.

The expenses just down the road in those two programs will force the government to spend a lot more money, as the beneficiary group doubles in size from about 40 million to 80 million (as the baby boomer cohort retires and becomes eligible).

All anyone wants to target is domestic discretionary spending, and some would say, only non-defense domestic discretionary spending. That is trying to save an elephant size of money out of a mouse. There is nothing credible to be done, really, on the deficit by squeezing 14% of the budget, while leaving 86% of it, including the fastest growing part of it, entirely unscathed.

The American people simply have to realize we must pay our bills-- the future bills baked into the cake on these entitlements, and the past bills we borrowed to pay instead of paying.

This means that having federal revenues at a 17% range of gdp, the lowest in 50 years, as the Bush tax cuts started some 10 years back have resulted in, is another major culprit in the deficits. We are facing the necessity of substantially higher rates of taxation, although hiking them NOW with this recession-level of unemployment (however much the recession is technically ended already) would prolly tail-spin the economy into a worse condition.

eg8r
02-03-2011, 02:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All anyone wants to target is domestic discretionary spending, and some would say, only non-defense domestic discretionary spending. That is trying to save an elephant size of money out of a mouse. There is nothing credible to be done, really, on the deficit by squeezing 14% of the budget, while leaving 86% of it, including the fastest growing part of it, entirely unscathed.
</div></div>Medicare and Medicaid are at the top of the heap in government spending. There is no reason why there cannot be cuts in both. Aggressive cuts make plenty of sense. It happens in business all the time but for some reason government spending appears to be indefinite.

eg8r

Sev
02-03-2011, 03:10 PM
If the Suez Canal is lost all this will be moot. Oil prices are determined in part by perception and if it is perceived that the flow of oil has been interrupted oil prices will spike precipitously. This will increase prices in the US across the board.

This combined with with the now apparent inflation due to quantitative easing and the devaluing of the dollar will destabilize the economy. Consumers will be forced to buy less because of increases in both food and fuel. Disposable income will become virtually nonexistent.
This will spur another series of layoffs as businesses attempt to save themselves.
Both state and federal revenues will plummet.
The likelihood of the USA defaulting on its debt obligations will increase.

pooltchr
02-03-2011, 04:22 PM
I will agree that unemployment is an economic problem, but it is a result of the mismanagement of tax dollars by Washington. Yes, if unemployment were to go down to 5% tomorrow, then on the surface, our economy would appear to be better.

But the root of our economic problems is not unemployment, nor is it the housing prices. It's the simple fact that our government has been operating in the red for decades. And there are only 2 ways to get out of the red. One would be to increase the amount of money coming in. Since the only source of money is the taxpayers, and you admit that increasing taxes would be a bad thing under the circumstances, the leaves us with the only other option...cut spending.

For the government to cut spending, they would have to cut the size of government. You talk about cutting SS and Medicare because those are the two things that cause most people to be uncomfortable cutting. (fear tactics)

How about cutting the things that the government isn't supposed to be doing anyway? The entire department of education doesn't need to exist. Education should be a function of local and state governments.

Do we really need the IRS? Certainly not in it's present form. Simplifying tax codes, or even implimenting the Fair Tax could reduce this nightmare agency to virtually nothing.

Farm subsidies? Why? Why do we pay giant corporations (the number of small family farms is almost reletively non existent) to NOT grow certain things on their land? They are simply another waste of money. The market will set prices for food. If there isn't enough corn, the price will go up and more people will plant corn, bringing the price back down. Too much corn? Farmers will plant something else. (Isn't the free market great!)

Why is our government paying foreign countries to drill for oil in the gulf, while preventing US companies from doing the same thing?

I could go on and on, but SEV has posted on more than one occasion all of the areas where we can reduce the federal government, and gotten very little comment from the left.

The point is...the government can't keep taking more and more from the individual Americans without hurting the economy. And they can't keep spending money they don't have. All they can do is reduce spending. And the best way to reduce spending is to downsize government.

It's common sense, nothing more. Surely you can see that.

Steve

JohnnyD
02-03-2011, 07:34 PM
Excellent post.
The truth will set them free.
JD

LWW
02-04-2011, 05:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will agree that unemployment is an economic problem

Steve </div></div>

Komradette Peloski and Agitprop Gee disagree.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-04-2011, 12:18 PM
The problem right now is a lack of money in the hands of people who will spend it. This is not due to federal government taxation levels, since for the past 10 years, we have been taxing the economy as little as a percent of gdp as we did 50 years ago, before Medicare/Medicaid (although those are costly).

We had this problem for some time, but it was partially hidden by the 'wealth effect.' That is, while median household income has stagnated in real terms, never going much above what was achieved in about '78, people still felt free to spend because their houses had doubled in value, or their 401ks had doubled in value. So they kind of thought they were rich enough to spend, rich enough not to save, and the savings rate fell from a low single digit percentage of earnings to a NEGATIVE value (meaning people were taking OUT their savings and spending them on a net basis overall).

With the twin falls in real estate prices, and the stock market, about 20% of the entire nation's purported wealth disappeared. This led to a shortfall in willingness to spend of about $200 billion a year from the loss of the 'wealth effect' alone.

Add to that the effect of unemployment, causing those people to be unable to spend as they did before. And then there is the 'paradox of thrift.' As people began to feel pressured, they decided to spend less, and save more. A good thing for all individuals, but now collectively, that also reduces spending demands.

Here's the situation. States cannot deficit spend, by their constitutions. People have pulled way back. Corporations will not spend or invest in a bad economy. This leaves the federal government as the only place where additional spending can occur to try to recover the economy, either by direct spending or tax expenditures.

So we had the extension of the costly Bush tax cuts. Maybe not the most efficient way to do this, but there was a general consensus from both the GOP and the Dems that this was something that they could both agree to. However, to then call for eliminating this extra incurred deficit would be contradictory and quash its effects on expanding the economy.

pooltchr
02-04-2011, 12:31 PM
What you are failing to recognize, or admit, is there is a limit to the amount of deficit spending even the federal government can do without creating more economic problems. It should be obvious that we have exceeded that level.

GDP is not driven by the government, it is driven by the private sector. So, in order to keep government spending reletively in line with GDP, one of two things needs to happen. Either the private sector needs to continue to grow, or government spending needs to decrease.

If government raises taxes on the wealthy they are taking it out of the private sector. Productivity is limited when the government takes more money even if their goal is to redistribute it. But, that isn't even the case. Government can't tax enough to cover their debts. The only option is to cut spending. That trillion dollar "stimulus" simply widened the gap further. Government can not control the economy. Whenever they try, sooner or later, the results are a disaster.

Steve

LWW
02-04-2011, 04:13 PM
Excellent post.

LWW