Fox News' Tantaros overstates support for "tea parties"
SUMMARY: Andrea Tantaros overstated support for tax day "tea parties," falsely claiming that a Fox News poll found that 47 percent of respondents are willing to participate in them. In fact, 36 percent of respondents said they would "be willing to join a symbolic tea party."
Touting tax day "tea parties" across the country, Fox News national political commentator Andrea Tantaros wrote in an April 9 post on The Fox Forum: "Though many on the far left continue to ignore or downplay the rage claiming that these gatherings are only for conservatives, all evidence is to the contrary." Tantaros then falsely claimed that "[a] recent FOX News poll found that 47 percent of respondents were willing to participate in a Tax Day Tea Party, along with 29 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents." In fact, the March 31-April 1 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that 36 percent of respondents said they would "be willing to join a symbolic tea party," not 47 percent as Tantaros claimed. (The poll did not ask if respondents actually planned to attend.)
As Media Matters for America has noted, Fox News has aggressively promoted the tea party protests, characterizing them primarily as a response to the administration's fiscal policies. In numerous instances, Fox News aired segments encouraging viewers to get involved with tea party protests across the country.
From the Fox News poll:
From Tantaros' April 9 Fox Forum post, "Tea Parties Will Bring America's Outrage to a Full Boil":
Those who discount the frustration and fury across America should so do at their own peril, particularly incumbents who voted for the Obama budget. This time anger is being transformed into action. Each person who participates in a Tax Day Tea Party is being asked to organize a group of friends, family and neighbors. These groups will be asked to develop a consensus around two candidates, a fiscally responsible Democrat and Republican that they can unite behind to support in 2010 to unseat their big spending representative.
Though many on the far left continue to ignore or downplay the rage claiming that these gatherings are only for conservatives, all evidence is to the contrary. A recent FOX News poll found that 47 percent of respondents were willing to participate in a Tax Day Tea Party, along with 29 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents. By April 15th, organizers hope to have a database filled with a quarter of a million names representing a broad spectrum of political affiliations.
Whadya know. Another Foxette who either can't read or can't tell the truth. I, for one, am shocked. Shocked.
...Here's your paycheck, sir.
The best part is, is that their own "base" republicans, can only muster 47% who said that they would attend these stupid things. I mean, if this were really a populist movement, as they keep claiming that it is, wouldn't we have a majority of ALL political persuasions joining in on the Tea Parties? 36%? That's lower than the approval numbers for democrats in Congress.
-- these stupid things -- magnolia
Just curious...why do you describe them this way?
Hey Wes,
I describe them this way because my opinion is that they're stupid and a waste of time. Mostly because the vast majority of people who will be protesting at these tea party days will be doing so against their own best interest. They're welcome to it of course, but when you're protesting "higher taxes" that won't be imposed on you (remember 95% of us will see a tax decrease), and are actually protesting a 3% increase on the richest 5% of the population (if you're making $250k/year this will mean another $7500 in taxes), then I think their "anger" is misplaced. Also, if they're protesting the "out of control" spending, I have ask again; where was their outrage when Bush was presiding over the largest increase in spending and largest increase in the federal government in the history of our country? They were, well, nowhere.
Again, folks are welcome to show up, and complain about these things, it's their right. I also think that it's stupid because it's being promoted by a certain news channel, which I don't believe is their job to do, but again, hey, it's their network, they can do with it what they want within the FCC guidelines.
I just don't believe that there is a point to these tea parties, other than to harangue the president, which again, would be fine, but they should really make that more clear. This is more an anti Obama demonstration and or protest than it is anything else, and by calling it non partisan is disingenuous at best, because it is highly partisan, and yet, they can't even get a simple majority of republicans to say that they're going to show up.
Those are just some of the reasons that I think this will be a stupid protest. I'm also willing to bet that turnout will be a lot lower than they think it will be, but some nice editing and splicing of film from FoxNews I'm sure will make it look like the million man march. That's just a guess.
magnolia,
Good enough...but one point to clarify...
When you state that "they were well, nowhere" when describing the sentiment of big spending under Pres.Bush...that's not accurate. There were conservatives and republicans...including myself...who were very disappointed in the spending of congress and Pres.Bush during his administration.
Indeed Wes, point conceded. What I meant about they were nowhere, are these types of protests that we're going to be seeing on the 15th of April. I stated it as an overall "these folks". I do realize that there were plenty of opponents to Bush spending and expansion of government, but we didn't see a "movement" like this during this time in office.
Just to clarify.
Every issue has a tipping point...
While being disappointed with the spending during the Bush administration...our govt. over spent the revenues by a total of $2 trillion during the 8 years Pres.Bush was in office...the proposed budget of Pres.Obama will over spend revenue by $8 trillion in the 8 years after he took office.
Maybe that's why we're seeing the protests now rather than the 8 previous years...
Those are projections, and they may, or may not come to fruition. Yes, or no?
Let's not be coy. We're seeing protests now because it is a democrat in the front office, and this "protest" is being led by FoxNews. That's why we're seeing it now.
-- Those are projections...Yes, or no? --
Well of course they are projections...but that is no reason to ignore them. The actual spending record of the past 8 years was pretty poor...and now it's projected to be four times worse over the next 8 years.
While I agree with you that the tea party protests have something to do with partisan politics and protesting the democrat regime...it very well could be that the American public has finally had enough of the out of control spending and taxation policies of a feckless govt.
In fact, 36 percent of respondents said they would "be willing to join a symbolic tea party."
Symbolic of just what? I don't get the connection.
Wes - You are wrong about the budget projections.
The actual budget proposal can be found here.
Were you to read it, you would see that the budget actual attempts to LOWER the budget deficit to $.5T by the year 2014.
Now if you instead get your misinformation from WorldDotNet, Rush Limbaugh and FNC, then these "facty" things won't matter to you.
Nope...and the budget projections I cited don't come from any of the sources you listed...they come from the CBO...which scores it differently than the Obama administration.
Makes no difference to me which one you choose to believe...here are the dark facts about both. The CBO projects deficit spending of $8 trillion over the next 8 years...and the presidents budget projects deficit spending of nearly $7 trillion over the next 8 years.
I don't like either one of them...and they're both a consequence of the budget proposal by Pres.Obama.
Agreed. It's a giant S*** sandwich regardless of which one you choose to believe...
Total deficits for 2010-2019 according to the CBO (Summary, page 11):
$9.3 trillion
According to Obama's Proposal (Summary Table S-3, page 117):
$8.983 trillion
pete,
The actual deficit spending under Pres.Bush and the even worse projections under Pres.Obama transcends the argument of those in favor of more govt. solutions and those that believe we need less govt. intrusion.
It's about irresponsable spending from both sides of the aisle...spending money that we don't have is not a solution. Our govt. has proven over and over that throwing money at problems hasn't worked.
I never was a proponent of term limits for congress...but I've changed and would firmly support term limits today. Congress has proven they cannot control or regulate their own spending habits.
A crapsandwich? I could not agree more.
I'm really mixed on term limits.
On the one hand, as you allude to, we've got people who are entrenched along with their spending habits, leading to the status quo.
On the other hand, our government does need veteran leadership in order to function and get done what little business they do get done. It's an extreme example, but can you imagine what a House session would look like if it was comprised of 100% freshmen reps?
I worked my way thru that quandry over several years...always giving the benefit of the doubt to not imposing term limits...believing you had every right to elect whoever you chose to.
But over the years I've seen the worthless politicians failing to lead and basing most of their votes on re-election strategies. I would propose a pretty severe restriction...limiting senators to one 6 year term and house members to 3 two year terms...believing that 6 years is darn sure enough time to get something accomplished...if not...back to your district and re-join the real world...and live under the laws that were enacted during your term.
100% freshmen? That could be very interesting and maybe...just maybe...they would revise the arcane rules of congress to facilitate getting something worth while accomplished.
But, I sure get your mixed feelings...had'em myself.
Except spending to get us out of a near-depression is not irresponsible spending.
Tax cuts for the richest of the rich? Irresponsible! Invading another country and wasting trillions of dollars in that effort? Irresponsible!! Claiming to be a fiscally-responsible conservative and never vetoing one spending bill? The height of irresponsibility!!!
Fair enough lulu...there are many Americans who believe like you that spending $8 trillion that we don't have is a viable solution...to correct the mistake of Pres.Bush who over spent revenue by $2 trillion.
However, I'm not one of them...count me in the group that believes it's insanity.
Then you are insane. The only option we have is government spending to stimulate the economy. Not only is it a viable solution, it is the only solution, and you say you dont' support the only viable solution. That makes you insane.
"(if you're making $250k/year this will mean another $7500 in taxes)"
I don't think this is correct. My understanding is that the increase only affects earnings that are OVER the $250,000 limit. So if you earn $250,000 today and are taxed at 36% you pay $90,000. If you earn $250,001 your taxes would be $90,000.39 not %97,500.
I think what he was saying was that if you earned $100,000 over the $250,000 floor for those tax increases, the additional tax you'd pay would be $7500 over and above what the rate would've been before the tax cuts expired.
if you earned $100,000 over the $250,000 floor the additional tax would be $7500
That's not right, either. The increase is 3% of the amount over 250K. So in your example, the additional tax would be 3% of 100K, or $3000, not $7500.
It's also wise to remember that no one pays federal income taxes on their full (gross) income - so in all these cases, the people would have to be making rather more than what's cited to owe that amount of additional taxes.
It's more of the Joe the Plumber stuff. People who want to protect their hypothetical future wealth rather than face reality.
And that's 36% of What, like 27% of the population? Wow, a tidal eave of populism. ;)
A certain percentage of those that show up will be guys looking for chicks. Sad but true. Another certain percentage will show up to see their Fox news idol. Those people would be more pathetic than the guys looking for chicks. I bet very few people, if any, who make over $250k will show up, so those that do show up are nto having their taxes go up anyways, they just believe what they hear on Fox.
Do tax protests really get the chicks hot and bothered?
I'm thinking most of the people who are going to show up are going to be men, aged 35-70, with little or no chicks in between. Chicks don't show up for republican type protests, all the women show up for liberal protests. It's true. I went to a rally once for reproductive rights, holy moly man! There were tons of hot women there. Of course, I went with my girlfriend at the time, but indeed, scads of beautiful politically active women everywhere. It was great!
I wonder if the Foxites are going to pay for people to go to make it look successful...or force their blue button-down shirt interns (ala the Florida recount cabal) to make it look like more than it is. Count on it, and count on the use of the footage on Beck like he invented free assembly.
I think that if not enough people show up for these Fox demonstrations, Fox will photoshop Obama rallies and make it seem as if people are inspired by this destrictive wave of policies.
I just wish they would stop with all the "fair and balanced" messages they portray. You are not journalist you are entertainers, that pick and choose the facts you want. It would be nice if supporters for the stimulus would come out in drove and thwart these outrageous methods that Fox is whole heartedly embracing. "Fair and balanced"? More like Corrupt and outrageous.
LOL! She just used the Republican numbers from poll ... Not even more than 1/2 Repubs agreed they would do it!
It is embarrassing to watch FNC try to treat this as a grass roots spontaneous "phenomenon" when they push it with numbers that say the exact opposite!
Dear MM Emily Litella:
The Fox article has a typo - a missing word, which is apparent from the context, in which Dems and Indys were deliniated along with their precentages after the higher figure - which referred to the Republican percentage.
So, um, "never mind...."
Whoops, my bad.
-Rupert Murdoch
Yeah, it's not a typo.
Tantaros meant to say "Republicans", but instead said "respondents".
I agree that it's not a big deal and was likely not conservative misinformation since it was a simple mistake.
meant to say "Republicans", but instead said "respondents"
I admit to finding it hard to accept that it's easy to say "respondents" for "Republicans" as the two aren't all that close in their sounds.
Still, it's possible that it was a Freudian slip, one where you unintentionally say what you really think. In which case, Tantaros would be indicating that he thinks "Republicans" equals "respondents," i.e., they were the only ones who counted.
I also can't help but notice that to the extent the figures prove what Tantaros argued, that it's not "only for conservatives," to that same extent he is downplaying the number of conservatives in the US populace.
Did you read the whole comment?
Tantaros then falsely claimed that "[a] recent FOX News poll found that 47 percent of respondents were willing to participate in a Tax Day Tea Party, along with 29 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents."
He individually lists Democrat and Independents. If he were intending to say overall, then individual politically, he would have said Respondents, then Republicans, then Democrats, then Independents. By him saying Respondents, then Democrats, then Independents, I think it's undeniable that he simply misspoke.
"[a] recent FOX News poll found that 47 percent of respondents were willing to participate in a Tax Day Tea Party, along with 29 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents."
The key phrase here is "along with". That clearly describes things that are separate. If the word "respondents" were to actually make sense in this context, the phrasing would be "including 29 percent of Democrats..." That would identify "Democrats" as a subgroup of "respondents", not as a separate group.
That's pretty obviously accidental, as you say.
Incidentally, Andrea Tantaros is a woman. Her name is often confused with that of James Taranto.
Incidentally, Andrea Tantaros is a woman
Don't be too tough on Lulu; I made the same mistake.
And as a humorous aside, when I first posted this I got a notice that said "please express yourself without profanity." I was utterly mystified and the only thing I came up with is that in the original version, instead of the word "tough" I had used the word "hard."
"Don't be too tough on Lulu; I made the same mistake."
I hope I didn't come off that way, I know it's a common mistake.
"And as a humorous aside, when I first posted this I got a notice that said "please express yourself without profanity.""
That's classic. The spam filter is not the brightest of creatures.
Did you read the whole comment? ... I think it's undeniable that he simply misspoke
Yes, I did. Did you read all of mine? I suggested it could indeed have been a slip, a Freudian one.
Did you read the whole comment? ... I think it's undeniable that he simply misspoke
Yes, I did. Did you read all of mine? I suggested it could indeed have been a slip, a Freudian one.
Sorry for the double post; my cable service is having one of its periodic fits and I thought it didn't go through the first time.
WOW - we ALREADY redistribute our wealth. At some point the people receiving benefits will far outweigh the people paying taxes. I give up valuable time with my family to make a better life for us and I am being punished every time my taxes go up so other individuals can spend quality time and not work. I am all for paying my fair share and helping folks get back on their feet but at some point, enough! To this point, the article quotes: "Much of the remaining inequality stems from inequality in work performed. Income inequality is, to a great degree, proportional to inequality in work performed. According to the conventional Census figures, the top quintile of households performs over a third of all paid labor, while the bottom performs only 4.3 percent. The low level of work at the bottom is due in part to a shortage of working-age adults within the bottom quintile, but it also reflects the fact that non-elderly adults at the bottom, on average, work half as many hours per month as do their higher-income counterparts. If the quintiles are adjusted to contain equal numbers of persons and non-elderly adults at the bottom work as many hours as adults in the rest of society, the income share of the bottom quintile would rise to 12 percent. The top quintile would have only $2.91 in income for every $1.00 at the bottom.
The Heritage Foundation? Serioiusly?
I read on the back of a Bazooka Joe comic strip that "mltdo3 is a whiny moron not worth paying attention to." The source is much more credible, so I think I'll follow it's advice.
It just takes an open mind to consider other perspectives. You don't have to agree but it is a very interesting article.
Well said...kudos!
it is a very interesting article
You provide no link so I have to go by your excerpt. Based on that, I'd have to say the only interesting thing about it is how it could be used in a statistics class as a demonstration of how numbers can be twisted to suit a pre-determined purpose. An illustration, if you will, of the adage "figures don't lie but liars figure."
What this "interesting" article concludes, in essence, is that if the demographics of the quintiles were other than what they are, then income distribution would be other than what it is. Or, bluntly, if things were different, well, then things would be different.
And if your grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.
What income disparity in the US would be if social, economic, and demographic conditions were different than they are is wholly irrelevant to what it is. But because folks such as the Heritage Foundation don't want to admit what is, they hunt for ways to reinterpret (i.e., distort) data to conceal it.
-- You provide no link so I have to go by your excerpt -- eddie
He clearly stated the source of the study...and since not everyone requires spoon feeding...I took on the herculean task of finding this article. It required going to the Heritage website and a couple of clicks.
Since you provided a critique without reading the article I'll perform my compassionate deed for the day and give you the summary:
-- There is one America that works a lot and pays a lot in taxes, and there is another America that works less and pays little...It is the higher-income families who work a lot and pay nearly all the taxes. Raising taxes even higher on hard-working families would be unfair and, by reducing future investments, would reduce economic growth, harming all Americans in the long run. --
You don't have to agree with the study...but it's handy to be informed on the topic when posing an opinion...and have actually read what you seem to disagree with.
It is an interesting article...thanks to mltdo3.
Sorry eddie...meant for LarryE
The study seems to ignore the America in which people do work hard and for long hours and still can't seem to get ahead.
People are working longer for less money on average than they did ten years ago. Some people work two part time jobs because some employers would rather not the pay benefits that they'd be required to pay to those who work full time jobs.
For every case provided by The Heritage Foundation to prove their point, I'm sure the AFL-CIO or the Teamsters could provide as many if not more stories that prove the opposite.
Here's the stated purpose of the report. It was not meant to provide a pancea of solutions for all things economic...but a look at actual income distribution:
-- Class warfare has always been a mainstay of liberal politics. Politicians frequently depict the United States as a nation starkly divided between the rich and poor. For example, vice presidential candidate John Edwards decries "two Americas...one privileged, the other burdened...one America that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks.
How accurate is this characterization? How unequal is the distribution of economic resources in our society? This paper will attempt to answer these questions. -- Heritage Foundation
It doesn't appear to me that the paper ignored your point...but would be the topic of another study.
-- There is one America that works a lot and pays a lot in taxes, and there is another America that works less and pays little...It is the higher-income families who work a lot and pay nearly all the taxes. Raising taxes even higher on hard-working families would be unfair and, by reducing future investments, would reduce economic growth, harming all Americans in the long run. --
Still doesn't answer the question of why the differences or what they consider higher income? The top tax rate under Reagan was about 60% no one screamed socialism or income redistribution then. Obama is talking about a return to pre-Bush top rate to 39% a 2% raise which I think is hardly suffocating for those making $250,000 or more, and far below Reagan years of 60%. The article also doesn't address the rise in temp. services or Mega Marts like Wal-Mart that hire mostly part-time to keep from paying benefits resulting in those workers having to use state and city services to get by in a time those services are drying up. It seems instead of paying a livable wage these stores are taking advantage and manipulating laws to boost profit while placing the burden for healthcare back onto the tax-payer,all the while they(temp. services -Mega-Stores)utilizing tax-supported infrastrure for their business. It's like double dipping, then they hide their true profits in off-shore accounts to avoid paying taxes placing more of the burden on US. It ain't the poor or under-employed that are burdenening the tax-payer it is these cheats. These tax-demonstrations are against the wrong people. Try living on $7/h with no benefits.
-- Still doesn't answer the question of why the differences or what they consider higher income? -- congero
The "why" was not the question...the paper was clearly stated to determine the disparity....and had you comprehended or read the paper you would have found their definition of income brackets.
not everyone requires spoon feeding
: snore :
If you cite a specific source, you should link to it, especially if you're encouraging others to read it. It's only courteous. I'm sure we all have failed at that at some time or another, but when called on it, the proper response is to say (or to have said by another) something to the effect of "Oops, here's the link."
I critiqued the article based on what mltdo3 found the relevant excerpt. Since your summary adds nothing of substance to that excerpt, it seems clear that I was in fact informed enough about the article to offer the critique I did.
"I give up valuable time with my family to make a better life for us and I am being punished every time my taxes go up so other individuals can spend quality time and not work."
Just who are all these people you claim live a permanent, work-free life on your dime?
Have you actually done any research to find out how much of each tax dollar these supposedly lazy people get?
At the federal level, in order of portion size...
37 cents goes straight to the military.
Next in line, health at 22 cents (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP). A healthy populace is a productive populace, is it not?
Next up, you can kiss another 20 cents goodbye for interest on government debt.
OK, now we're getting somewhere...
7 cents goes toward income security and labor (Job training, disability, retirement, and unemployment insurance, social security.)
So you've got 7 cents of your federal tax dollar going directly to people to help them get by when they're retired, they can't work, or are looking for work. How many of them do you allege choose not to work and instead live a perpetual care-free lifestyle at your expense ? What portion of these 7 cents do they lay claim to?
I'm not saying they don't exist, but I guess my overall point is... WTF is up with our priorities when we choose to have a callous attitude toward those who can't work when their burden on taxpayers is nothing compared to how much we flush down the toilet on outrageously exhorbitant defense expenditures?
I did not call anyone lazy; however, I do believe that in some cases, choices are made regarding regarding careers and priorities. If you choose to work 20 hours per week, of course your income should be relevant to your type of work and amount of time spent. I do not have a callous attitude towards those who are unable to work, rather believe strongly that we need to take a look at our overall spending and make strides to be more responsible in ALL of our programs. I have a family member that received assistance while she put herself (a divorced mom of 2) through school. Our family also provided assistance but could not provide health care for her diabetic son, so she received state medical insurance. She was able to do that and is now a nurse and does not require any assistance. I think that was a success, so I do agree that programs are necessary and can be successful. I am just trying to bring another perspective regarding taxes to the discussion. At some point, people will decide that the 60 hour work-week is not worth it and reduce their productivity down to the lower tax bracket. Is that what the proposed tax increases are encouraging?
Something to consider from the article I mentioned:"the Census collects data on taxes paid and benefits provided. These more complete income figures are seldom publicized, but they provide a more accurate--and very different--picture of income inequality. When taxes and benefits are counted, the gap between the affluent and the poor shrinks noticeably: The top fifth has $8.60 for each $1.00 at the bottom. But even these figures are misleading, since the Census fifths or quintiles do not contain equal numbers of persons. Each quintile does contain the same number of households, but the households at the bottom have few people while those at the top are large and have multiple earners. Consequently, the bottom income quintile has only 14 percent of the population while the top quintile has 25 percent. The bottom quintile has less income in part because there are relatively fewer people in it.
Much of the remaining inequality stems from inequality in work performed. Income inequality is, to a great degree, proportional to inequality in work performed. According to the conventional Census figures, the top quintile of households performs over a third of all paid labor, while the bottom performs only 4.3 percent. The low level of work at the bottom is due in part to a shortage of working-age adults within the bottom quintile, but it also reflects the fact that non-elderly adults at the bottom, on average, work half as many hours per month as do their higher-income counterparts. If the quintiles are adjusted to contain equal numbers of persons and non-elderly adults at the bottom work as many hours as adults in the rest of society, the income share of the bottom quintile would rise to 12 percent. The top quintile would have only $2.91 in income for every $1.00 at the bottom.
The top fifth of U.S. households (with incomes above $84,000) remain perennial targets of class-warfare enmity, but these families perform a third of all labor in the economy, contain the best educated and most productive workers, and provide a disproportionate share of the investment needed to create jobs and spur economic growth. Nearly all are married-couple families, many with two or more earners. Far from shirking the tax burden, they pay 82.5 percent of total federal income taxes and two-thirds of federal taxes overall. The bottom quintile pays 1.1 percent of total federal taxes.
What I don't understand is how a 2% increase in taxes for those earning over $250,000 is going to rob anyone with 98% of small businesses getting a break. The last decade has seen an increase in the gap between rich and poor and more of the wealth of thei nation concentrated in the upper 1-2% of the population. How did this come about? Please answer me? The working class has seen their wages stagnate in the last 20yrs.,and the burden or cost of living increase as corporations cry for more breaks. Income distribution is flowing upward with little return to those hardworking people on the bottom barely serviving. You think where a drag on society? That must be why we don't deserve decent schools or housing or healthcare right? Maybe kill off a few hundred thousand of us in your wars, after all were superflous and a dreg. Obama's rise is from poverty to the presidency is a miracle and the hopes of it repeating for others is disappearing. Income disparity increasing and opportunity diminishing. How can anyone pull themselves up by the bootstraps when all they have are flip-flops? Instead of attacking the working poor how about a tea-party in support of the LIVABLE WAGE!
The lower hours worked by the bottom quintile could be atrributed to many things. We have a national unemployment figure at 8.5%. I've read that among Latinos it is somewhere around 13% and for Afro-Americans it is 14.5%. Are you blaming them for being unemployed or under- employed? What about single mothers, and child-care cost,does that affect the ability to work? How about transportation cost? If you don't have a car, you depend on public transportation,cities due to budget restraints are cutting back and closing routes further complicating the issue. What about wage inequality betwwen men and wiomen,don't you think that plays a role? How about skilled vs. unskilled labor, and the fact that the last 50yrs. has seen a decline in Unions which have historicly boosted living standards and wages and provided job security? How about the increase in temp. services and the growth of Mega-stores like Wal-Mart, that employ people just under full-time to keep from paying benefits or livable wage?
Your article doesn't account for the difference between the top and the bottom, but the examples I've given show that it is much more complicated than people being lazy or not wanting to work. We've neglected these problems for too long. I'd venture to say that the bulk of our spending has not been on providing for the needs of the people, but into the pockets of the richest 1% and the so-called military industrial complex. We wasted how much money on an unnecessary war in Iraq? Blackwater, Halliburton, KBR lined their pockets with OUR tax-dollars in one of the 1st privitized wars! The robbing of the public coffeurs meant suffering at home as schools closed,teachers layed off, class sizes grew and or growing along with increased tuition cost for college, making it harder to access higher education and the hope of a better paying job and future. The philosophy of giving more to the rich better known as trickle-down has left us with 47 million without health insurance using emergency rooms as their primary care resulting in increased costs. Tax-bases eroded causing neglect to infrastructure and cuts in state and city services meaning jobs cuts etc. The cut in these services affect disproportionaletly those that your article placed in the lowerquintile. Contrary to your beleif that your paying for someone else, when America gets a cold "they" get Pneumonia.
It is not spending on the lower "quintile" that is pulling you down,it's the vampires on Wall St. and the powerful and well connected that need more and more of our financial resources because they can never have too much! They take until they have drained their victims...US dry. The top 5% don't need more tax-cuts,the rich hide their incomes in a myriad of ways. Corporations avoid taxes too(off-shore accounts) while we subsidize them with no guarantee that jobs will remain here! The pillaging of our economy has been taking place for decades accelerated the last 8 yrs. as the lords of business burrowed their way into key governmental positions manipulating and/or changing laws and relaxing regulations to increase profits for their corporate bosses and themselves. Lowering taxes for them will only mean greater riches for them and more cost the poor and under-employed. That's why these tea-party protest don't make sense, their aimed at the wrong people. It's like a factory worker protesting the introduction of machines in the workplace by destroying the machines??!?!
It was not the poor and under-employed that caused this crisis and by freezing spending on projects that affect them will only exacerbate poverty while doing nothing to eliviate the conditions that cause poverty and everything to widen the gap between rich and poor. I don't understand how a tax-cut for 95% of the people while returning to pre-Bush top tax-rate of 39% is going to make those earning $250,000 suffer. It just doesn't make sense. We have to spend to correct these problems because not to will only mean a greater polarzied society and a bleak future for our children.
-- We have to spend to correct these problems because not to will only mean a greater polarzied society and a bleak future for our children. -- congero
The bleak future for our children might be traced to the current administration spending a trillion dollars a year that we don't have...levying that burden on the children.
It's less about the tax rate...and more about the completely out of control spending by the govt. Pres.Obama's budget produces four times the deficit spending as the previous 8 years under Pres.Bush.
Is that what you support? Quadrupling down on the spending mistakes of the Bush Administration?
I'am not sure your figures are correct,and I'am glad you read the last sentence of my post but I'am confused as to why you skipped the rest? Obama inherited this crisis. The causes of this crisis is complex but we've ignored problems for too long and now it's coming home to ruse. Because we've neglected to fix our healthcare problems it has rippled through the whole economy. Because we've neglected our infrastructure bridges are collasping and our children attend public schools with leaking roofs,ovevcrouded classes and outdated textbooks and technology. While we've given tax breaks to the wealthy and funded unncessary wars the poor, under-employed and the middle class have seen their earnings shrink or remain the same. Trickle -down has resulted in an increase in poverty, and make no mistake about the poor overwhelmingly are children. Rigth now the economy is shrinking at an unprecedented rate. The last time we faced a situation like this it took massive government spending on a world war to bring us out of it with more spending afterward through the Marshall Plan and the GI Bill which created the middle class and developed Europe and Japan.
What really burns me is that Reagan spent and created up until that time one of the largest deficits, destroying PATCO while wasting huge amounts of money on Star Wars(military industrial complex)and enriching his corporate friends. At that time we heard the same tunes of how we couldn't burden our children with debt,so a hocus pocus was done, taxes were lowered for the rich and social security taxes increased(taxes on the middle class) as did taxes on those who worked for a wage for a living , all the while talking about cutting spending.
Guess what the only spending that was cut was for social programs and programs for environment and infrastructure improvement. We talked about alternative energy knowing that there is a finite amount of oil in the ground but we made no effort to fund it, as big oil and it's friends in government fought it tooth and nail. The hocus pocus was that workers wages stagnated and they were forced to carry more of the tax burden all the while services for them were cut while the rich and well connected fattened themselves at the public trough!
Clinton balanced the budget with further taxes that disproportionately affected those who make their living by working for a wage and the poor(cutting welfare and the social safety net) and created a budget surplus. All talk of burdenening our children disappeared and many prospered, but we didn't see a return of the programs or safety nets for working people. No that would make us lazy we were told,take our initiative away to work! All the while we saw signs of poverty increasing(homelessness and people living under bridges)whole parts of our cities crumbling from neglect. Gap betwwen rich and poor growing.
Then comes along another Republican GB who boldly took this surplus and gave it to the rich! No way around it was Robin Hood in reverse. All the while poverty growing and greater sacrifices made by those who were already feeling the pain and our infrastructure straining at the seems. The public coffeurs looted blatantly before our eyes as we spent not on those who needed it but on those who have, and on a reckless unnecessary war! Meanwhile we were told by Cheny that deficits didn't matter as corporate swindlers went to work creating schemes to cook the books and rob societies workers of their hard earned wages and retirement funds. Instead of using the surplus to improve living standards and prepare for the future...our children, we spent and spent unprecedently creating the largest deficits ever seen, but again it wasn't on what we needed or those who needed it most, no it went in the form of subsidies for corporations and the rich as the tax-system was rigged to place more and more of the burden on those lived by working for wages and less on those who lived by clipping coupons. Wall St' ran the nation as Main St. footed the bill, and we were told to be patient that it would trickle down to us .
Now, the same people who spent like drunken sailors and gorged themselves on our funds, and helped to create this crisis have now sobered up and are saying deficits do matter and we can't spend. 95% of the people will see a tax-cut ,98% of small business will get a boost from cuts. Obama is proposing the BIGGEST TAX CUT IN HISTORY!! Quite franklly I think it would be cruel to ask those who sacrificed before to continue to do so economicly and with their lives. Who is left to get us out of this crisis?...Corporations??? The economy is contracting, and the middle class has been sucked almost dry. Like I stated before it was massive GOVERNMENT spending during the second world war that started the turn around in the economy and it was the continued spending afterward that created the middle-class and rebuilt Europe and Japan and saw a rebooting of capitalism. We are in a crisis and if we don't get out of it our children won't have any future. We've waited toooo long and I ain't falling for this okie-doke again ,you can't sell me this trickle down BS, just like you can't pee on my leg and tell it's rain, or feed me brocoli and tell me it's collard greens. It seems the only time you conservatives become fiscally conscious is when a Democrat is in office. You lost,get over it , it's our turn!
Since where recommending reading I suggest these two books :
Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American DreamPaperback now available!
Metropolitan Books
Bait and Switch highlights the people who’ve done everything right -- gotten college degrees, developed marketable skills, and built up impressive résumés -- yet have become repeatedly vulnerable to financial disaster, and not simply due to the vagaries of the business cycle.
Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in AmericaMay 2001
Metropolitan Books
Millions of Americans work for poverty-level wages, and one day Barbara Ehrenreich decided to join them. She was inspired in part by the rhetoric surrounding welfare reform, which promised that any job equals a better life. But how can anyone survive, let alone prosper, on $6 to $7 an hour
Wanna bet most of the democrats attending aren't doing it because they believe this stuff?
Media Matters is so much scarier than Fox News. In fact, we need a site to keep track of the inaccuracies, exaggerations and lies coming out of this site. I think I will establish a website called Media Matters Watch so that there is some small semblence of accountability. I am sponsoring and attending a Tea Party in Montana. There are at least 11 cities/towns in Montana sponsoring these events. I am an independent, and I am doing this because the spending being shoved down our throats and authorized by a Congress that doesn't even read the bills, is out of control. And guess what, FOX news had nothing to do with our party. Look at the national site, taxdayteaparty.com. These parties are going on all over every state. The amazing thing is how "News" organizations such as CNN and NBC refuse to cover this protest sweeping over America. No agenda there, right? There are going to be enough parties and enough people that even the Obama Cult won't be able to pretend they don't exist. And it's just a beginning. At some point, regular middle class people without any polarizing political agenda feel the need to stand up and say listen to us, and stop the madness. That point is here and now.
"The amazing thing is how "News" organizations such as CNN and NBC refuse to cover this protest sweeping over America."
OK, but...
Let's bear in mind that these Tax Day events have yet to happen, but regardless...
CNN: Citizens use sweet tea to vent
A search for "tea party protest" at MSNBC.com brings up numerous mentions.
Only a couple blog mentions to be found at ABCnews.com
CBS: Anti-Tax Groups Rally On T-Day
Sweeping over America?
You live in the 44th most populous state in the union. What tends to "sweep" Montana is barely a blip in the most populated states.
Even my conservative friends think this is nothing more than Fox News stirring up more animosity towards the Obama administration.
In my local area, all three network affiliate stations provide, as a public service, airtime for "community calendar" listings where anyone can request that an organized event be mentioned, free of cost.
If these people are so up in arms about the networks not promoting their events so they don't have to, maybe they should start thinking locally, get off their behinds, and do things to get the word out themselves. Or harness the power of the internet.
That's how the LGBT community does it. That's how the anti-war movement does it. That's how the labor movement does it. But this new breed of anti-tax protester expects the media to do it.
That fits right in with that sense of entitlement they think they are owed by the current administration (coming on the heels of the previous administration that used them like little pigs in heat to get something for everyone on their list but them).
Funny you should mention that. I was on the local radio current events program this morning. I had a letter to the editor published yesterday. Others in this movement have been on radio, television, and the local newspapers doing all the things you appear to believe we aren't bright enough to have figured out. We've got a facebook event going, and are communicating with each other nationally via facebook and all other internet networking sites. Another reason you will probably be surprised by the turnout. We don't expect the media to do anything. I believe that was part of my original point.
My point exactly. Even in underpopulated, much-maligned Montana, people are turning out in droves hoping that someone in Congress or the Administration will listen to our simple message: Stop spending.
Do you watch Fox News? I am continually amazed at the number of people who hate Fox news while proudly proclaiming they never watch it. You need to take a look at the ratings, as Fox beats the competition into the ground. The reason, they really do provide all sides of an issue. I see more Democrats and Liberals on Fox putting forward their agenda and defending the Administration than Republicans allowed anywhere near the same freedom of expression on all the other networks and cable news stations combined. I know this is hopeless cause as this site and probably many of those posting here appear to have a preconceived world view of stupid conservatives being duped by a Fox news conspiracy.
As for my animosity towards the Obama Administration, that comes completely from the Obama Administration. I do not agree with their major policy objectives (or a lot of their minor objectives), I do not trust their competence or honesty, and I especially am angered by their spending (as I was with the prior Administration) as it will surely ruin this country.
A sweeping protest of 35%, which is also the exact same percentage of people who are sore losers from the last election. Let us know when you draw someone besides right wing loonies, your right wing sponsored event led by right wing think tanks and paid for by right wing sponsors to draw a right wing minority really has no credibility. Now excuse me, I just unzipped, and I need to find a chick so I can take part in some healthy tea bagging.
Your post says everything about a lot of people on your side and on this site. The internet has us all so disconnected you feel free to be vile and rude to anyone whose views differ from yours. I have been a Democrat, a Republican and now an Independent. I respect the rights of people from both ends and the middle of the spectrum to have and express their own views regardless of how contrary they are to mine. I do not respect anyone who feels the need to denigrade and dehumanize others in an effort to defend their side. Really, you have made your side proud.
Please do check MMFA and their content. I see that in saying that they put out inaccuracies and misinformation, you didn't bother to, you know, point out where this has happened. And since when do recording, playing back, and saying exactly in context what someone said is misinformation?
And you use the boogeyman of, "The amazing thing is how "News" organizations such as CNN and NBC refuse to cover this protest sweeping over America." How can they even cover something that hasn't happened yet? Are you just mad that they're not promoting them like FoxNews is doing? You have to wait for an event to happen for it to be covered.
On another aside, in my local area, we had a bunch of these folks come out and protest, and guess who covered it? All the local news networks, plus the local papers.
Really I would love to and will. But first Media Matters has to actually post my comments. I have replied to at least 3 of the replies to me, and unlike the posts from snoopy, they weren't vile and offensive. But no posts. No posts, no opportunity to share with you the bias of this site. Still, I try. We'll see if this makes it through the filter.
THE FOX FORUM shoul be retitled RIGHT WING PROPASGANA LOVERS UNITE.