The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[CAC1001]

That's the same kind of tactic used by Gingrich when said in a National Review interview recently that Obama's actions only make sense when seen in the context of a Kenyan anti-colonial world-view. Gingrich is not unintelligent, and his words are carefully calibrated. Key leaders in the GOP are playing a dangerous game, and it may well come back to haunt them when voters are reminded of the smears and lies ahead of the general election.

That whole bit about Obama adhering to a Kenyan anti-colonial worldview that Mr. Gingrich is mentioning comes from Dinesh D'Souza's new book: "The Roots of Obama's Rage" http://www.dineshdsouza.com/

 

[nismaratwork]

Welcome to PF, where playing pathetic word games and using such hyperbole is transparent to 99% of the userbase. When I say "psychotic" it's clear exaggeration, but "Marxist ideology" and "Socialism" are being thrown around without a bit of irony or hyperbole. Biiiiig difference. As turbo-1 has pointed out, this is the kind of gaming that is being used, and certainly it works on a workable fraction of the public, but don't expect to spout it here and get anywhere.

As for deregulation, Bush gutted agencies such as the EPA and others. As we've seen, the issue isn't the law on the books, but the money, manpower, and authority from the executive which makes regulation possible. Under 30 years of Dem and Rep governments, agencies such as MMS are just left to rot.

CAC1001: So what? Gingrich is no fool, and the source of his theories is less important than his choice to deploy them in the manner he has.

This debate, which is about the Tea Party has really been summed up by airborne18 as far as I can tell: the Tea Party is an opportunistic feeder like any party, and then you have the 9-12 patriots who are wingnuts. Done.

I have to say, I love the "anti-colonial" worldview that includes 50,000 troops in Iraq and a surge in Afghanistan...

I think I'm starting to lose my patience with this thread... if something interesting comes up, I'll comment, but this is just endless circular reasoning and feeble partisan arguments.

 

[CAC1001]

As for deregulation, Bush gutted agencies such as the EPA and others.

Which ones? Also, how did they contribute to the financial crisis?

As we've seen, the issue isn't the law on the books, but the money, manpower, and authority from the executive which makes regulation possible. Under 30 years of Dem and Rep governments, agencies such as MMS are just left to rot.

Left to rot, or left to get too corrupt? No expert, but could one problem be that since there are just so many regulatory agencies these days, it is impossible to keep track of them all, and thus watch them all closely? And thus many fall prey to corruption that otherwise would not occur if watched closely?

CAC1001: So what? Gingrich is no fool, and the source of his theories is less important than his choice to deploy them in the manner he has.

Was not defending Gingrich's saying Obama adheres to that worldview, I have no opinion on that argument as I haven't looked into it much. I was just pointing out that the idea wasn't Newt Gingrich's himself, it is from a book by a conservative author.

 

[mheslep]

There are a couple more important principles you missed:

4) All problems (complexity be damned) have simple "common sense" solutions.

You find this theme repeatedly prominently by many of the (IMO) airheads like Beck, Palin, Bachmann and O'Donnell, (not so much by the those in the lonely corner occupied by Paul), as well as in websites run by different tea party groups.

For instance, www.teaparty.org summarizes its core beliefs with the slogan "Common Sense Constitutional Conservative Self-Governance".

5) Obama is always wrong.

I don't think this requires much explanation. The rapidity with which the Tea Partiers badmouthed Scott Brown is a good indicator of this sentiment.

Valid points for certain talking heads but I think you are self selecting who the Tea Party is in opposition to the only substantive evidence I know of - election results of people with substantial Tea Party backing. Beck and Palin are (currently) elected to nothing, running for no office. Bachmann has been in office long before there was any concept of a Tea Party. Any loon can put up a web site, especially for a non chartered grass roots group. On the other hand we have Paul, who is running for office, won his primary, is likely to win the general, yet he's in the lonely corner? I suggest Brown is a valid face of the Tea Party as he was elected, not some talking head elected to nothing who criticizes him. Also see actual candidates Miller(Ak), Rubio(Fl), Kelly (Az 8th), McMahon (Conn), etc - all with strong self identified Tea Party support per polls. Do they meet 4),5)? I'd say some of the old school Republicans in Congress (i.e. Boehner) are more likely to meet 4),5) than most Tea Party candidates, spouting the same old R good, D bad machine politics junk.

 

[mheslep]

As for deregulation, Bush gutted agencies such as the EPA and others. ...

Hardly.
http://www.epa.gov/history/org/resources/budget.htm

 

[mheslep]

That whole bit about Obama adhering to a Kenyan anti-colonial worldview that Mr. Gingrich is mentioning comes from Dinesh D'Souza's new book: "The Roots of Obama's Rage" http://www.dineshdsouza.com/

Well the primary source material is the President's own words in his autobiography, Dreams of My Father.

I realized that who I was, what I cared about, was no longer just a matter of intellect or obligation, no longer a construct of words. I saw that my life in America — the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I'd felt as a boy, the frustration and hope I'd witnessed in Chicago — all of it was connected with this small plot of Earth [in Kenya] an ocean away, connected by more than the accident of a name or the color of my skin. The pain I felt was my father's pain. My questions were my brothers' questions. Their struggle [in part against the history of colonialism in Kenya], my birthright.

brackets mine.


I'm not that interested, but I'd say its hardly extreme to at least speculate the above is the basis of a "Kenyan anti-colonial world-view."

 

[BobG]

For 8 years people have been told by an administration, and news (not just Fox, although they are the least subtle) to BE AFRAID, there's one and a half wars on, and the fear-mongering just gets ramped up. Be afraid of Islam, be afraid of terrorists, be afraid of the end of "the American way of life" (a fluid notion)... and now with so many having lost financial security they are viscerally terrified. People in that situation look to external factors to justify the level of fear and uncertainty, and some don't identify the correct targets, so we have Birthers, and bigots, and Evangelicals who've stopped thinking entirely in favor of "feeling".

In the sense that fear and the reaction to it are fundamentally grassroots, I guess you could say that the Tea Party is a "grassroots" movement, but not from an organizational standpoint. The fear works its way up, and there are always people ready to make a buck or get some power through the generation and exploitation of that fear.

You should really separate the administration and the news portions of adiministering fear.

The Bush administration did tend to capitalize on the fear of terrorism and harped on how his administration had protected from terrorist attacks, but there's a huge departure in the Bush aministration's views about Islam, Arabs, foreigners in general (i.e. - illegal aliens) than the current movements that have sprouted up. In fact, even being a Republican, Bush took some serious criticism for being too soft on illegal immigration and for supporting Arab ownership of a firm handling security at US seaports. Bush also tried very hard to prevent 9/11 from turning into a war against Islam, even attending services in mosques.

Some of the current fear of Islam, fear of illegal aliens overrunning our country is something completely different than what we experienced in the Bush administration (although it was already starting up with the likes of Tancredo, et al).

And the current movement is something completely different than what the old Republican Party establishment would have preferred, given their dismay over many of the upsets in primaries.

The lack of organization and control within the tea party movement is what has allowed the loonies to seem to take a legitimate seat at the table (and the lack of organization and control is why I said they have a similar style as the hippie movement did).

 

[WhoWee]

You stated that Obama's actions didn't occur in a vacuum... I'm not justifying those actions, just providing some air for that vacuum. Oh, and the whole "didn't have time to read" is far too common to be used as anything but propaganda. If you disagree with the legislation, fine, but give the talking points a rest and focus on the substance. QUOTE]

This is where I totally disagree. The average voter is very tired of hearing that NOBODY reads the Bills and the Bills are 2,000 pages and all of the nonsense is stuffed in there and it's the other guys fault that special interests were funded.

Many of the Tea Party people I've spoken with want a clean sweep of Washington - Dems and Repubs.

 

[turbo]

This is where I totally disagree. The average voter is very tired of hearing that NOBODY reads the Bills and the Bills are 2,000 pages and all of the nonsense is stuffed in there and it's the other guys fault that special interests were funded.

Many of the Tea Party people I've spoken with want a clean sweep of Washington - Dems and Repubs.

The average voter is not aware that every member of Congress has advisors and staff-members to scour these bills (at our expense). The fiction that the actual congressman or senator has not been able to "read the bill" is crap. They never do that anyway. They have staff-members to do that for them, and administrators and advisors to condense the results so they can spit out sound-bites. Do you think that millionaires (Senators) sit up all night reading bills? Get a life!

 

[WhoWee]

The average voter is not aware that every member of Congress has advisors and staff-members to scour these bills (at our expense). The fiction that the actual congressman or senator has not been able to "read the bill" is crap. They never do that anyway. They have staff-members to do that for them, and administrators and advisors to condense the results so they can spit out sound-bites. Do you think that millionaires (Senators) sit up all night reading bills? Get a life!

They are expected to do their jobs. They need to be more accountable for their work product. If the Bills are too large and complicated - then they need to make them smaller and more manageable. If this means they have to spend more time debating and voting - GOOD - it's their job (not interviewing Colbert and taking junkets).

 

[Al68]

Welcome to PF, where playing pathetic word games and using such hyperbole is transparent to 99% of the userbase. When I say "psychotic" it's clear exaggeration, but "Marxist ideology" and "Socialism" are being thrown around without a bit of irony or hyperbole. Biiiiig difference. As turbo-1 has pointed out, this is the kind of gaming that is being used, and certainly it works on a workable fraction of the public, but don't expect to spout it here and get anywhere.

It's not a "word game". The ideology I oppose is shared by Marxists, socialists, and Democrats. Would you prefer "economic authoritarianism"?

It may not seem obvious to you, but the resemblance of things routinely said by Democrats and the writings of Marx and other socialist propaganda is uncanny. It's the kind of thing that is far more obvious to someone who doesn't share those views.

 

[Gokul43201]

Valid points for certain talking heads but I think you are self selecting who the Tea Party is in opposition to the only substantive evidence I know of - election results of people with substantial Tea Party backing.

Do you not see the circularity of your definition?

I'm not self selecting (I'm not selecting at all - I named all the big Tea Party people I knew anything about). I honestly do not know the others you mentioned besides having come across the occasional mention here or there. I'm going simply by what the news reporting conveys of the Tea Party. And as far as I can tell, Sarah Palin has given prominent appearances (keynote speeches, etc.) at most of the big nationwide Tea Party events. She is virtually their figurehead, from where I'm watching. I know of Brown since I'm in Mass,. and I know about Paul, because he's been getting some news attention over the last couple months. Beck, of course, led the biggest Tea Party rally ever, and probably has more influence over election day decisions of way more people than all the other names you mentioned.

PS: As for the teaparty.org website, I didn't think that was a site run by some random loon. For starters, the url isn't thisisteapartyxoxo.com or somesuch. And they've even got real world office locations in CA and TX with a third one on the way. But I could still be completely wrong. Do you believe that looking for "common sense" solutions to problems is not a primary guiding principle of the movement?

 

[edward]

The average voter is not aware that every member of Congress has advisors and staff-members to scour these bills (at our expense). The fiction that the actual congressman or senator has not been able to "read the bill" is crap. They never do that anyway. They have staff-members to do that for them, and administrators and advisors to condense the results so they can spit out sound-bites. Do you think that millionaires (Senators) sit up all night reading bills? Get a life!

Right Turbo-1

Reading a legislative bill or law is done by aids so that a simple summary can be provided in a timely manner.

The legalese in laws is tedious to read mostly due to references back and forth. A bill may have wording on page 300 that refers to a sub section on page 380. The Arizona Revised Statutes has three pages devoted to defining a traffic light.

Republicans complained about the length of the Health care bill, but did they really read it? They do appear to know what is in it.




The ten longest bills in the last ten years.

Word Count Bill Sponsor Status

314,900 Affordable Health Care for American Act Rep. John Dingell [D, MI-15] Approved by House

314,832 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 2005 Rep. Don Young [R, AK-1] Bill is Law

314,573 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] Submitted in Senate

296,111 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 Rep. James Kolbe [R, AZ-5] Bill is Law

276,849 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 Rep. Nita Lowey [D, NY-18] Bill is Law

274,559 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Rep. John Boehner [R, OH-8] Bill is Law

258,205 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 Rep. Ike Skelton [D, MO-4] Bill is Law

250,286 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7] Bill is Law

246,984 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 Rep. Bill Young [R, FL-10] Bill is Law

226,492 Energy Policy Act, 2005 Rep. Joe Barton [R, TX-6] Bill is law

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1375-For-Bills-in-Congress-How-Long-is-Long-

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not that interested, but I'd say its hardly extreme to at least speculate the above is the basis of a "Kenyan anti-colonial world-view."

This of course explains why I, a native Californian raised in Los Angeles, so completely relate to Obama's world view and domestic agenda. He is the probably the first politician I have ever really understood on a personal level. DAMN! I never knew I was driven by a Kenyan anti-colonial world-view!

I think Mr. Gingrich's confusion has more to do with his age than colonialism.

 

[edward]

This of course explains why I, a native Californian raised in Los Angeles, so completely relate to Obama's world view and domestic agenda. He is the probably the first politician I have ever really understood on a personal level. DAMN! I never knew I was driven by a Kenyan anti-colonial world-view!

I think Mr. Gingrich's confusion has more to do with his age than colonialism.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

1) That government is too large

Perhaps. But this ignores the real problems that we face. And the tea party would have us undo a century of legislation because they think life was somehow better a hundred years ago. Well, it wasn't.

2) That Washington is broken,

I think so too. That's why I elected Obama and send him money. This is also why I oppose those in the tea party who would take us back a century. The key to fixing Washington is not to take us back the days of the horse and buggy.

3) The ideals of limited government and fiscal conservatism

Limited government is what helped to create the mess we're in. I doubt that anyone wants more government than we need. The fallacy on the part of tea party is the assumption that the best government is no government. We know better.

The cry for fiscal conservatism during the greatest economic crisis since the depression, is irrational. If there was ever a time for government spending, now is the time. Obama had no choice if he was to protect the nation from a disaster. And keep in mind that Bush was the one who actually socialized the banking system when he took over Freddie and Fannie. In fact, probably the world's more ardent free-marketeer, Henry Paulson, along with Ken Bernanke, one of the world's foremost experts on the depression, first led the charge to bail out the banking system. As I said, we had no choice. The tea partiers just don't get that. They are complaining about the hands that pulled them from the fire. And if they think they are anrgy now, how would they feel if we were looking at 25% unemployment as a baseline, and a failed global banking system that would take a decade to rebuild? They don't get that either.

When the tea partiers cry about his health care agenda, they neglect the fact that we face an even greater crisis if we do nothing. They are simply ignoring the facts. The entire basis for their movement is rooted in fantasy; much of which has been fed by the lies and rantings of people like Beck.

 

[CAC1001]

So if none of these Senators actually reads the legislative bills, who writes them exactly?

 

[CAC1001]

Perhaps. But this ignores the real problems that we face. And the tea party would have us undo a century of legislation because they think life was somehow better a hundred years ago. Well, it wasn't.

Don't confuse the Tea Party with the Ron Paul crowd.

I think so too. That's why I elected Obama and send him money. This is also why I oppose those in the tea party who would take us back a century. The key to fixing Washington is not to take us back the days of the horse and buggy.

No one is saying to.

Limited government is what helped to create the mess we're in. I doubt that anyone wants more government than we need. The fallacy on the part of tea party is the assumption that the best government is no government. We know better.

No one claimed such.

The cry for fiscal conservatism during the greatest economic crisis since the depression, is irrational. If there was ever a time for government spending, now is the time. Obama had no choice if he was to protect the nation from a disaster.

That's one view.

And keep in mind that Bush was the one who actually socialized the banking system when he took over Freddie and Fannie. In fact, probably the world's more ardent free-marketeer, Henry Paulson, along with Ken Bernanke, one of the world's foremost experts on the depression, first led the charge to bail out the banking system. As I said, we had no choice. The tea partiers just don't get that. They are complaining about the hands that pulled them from the fire. And if they think they are anrgy now, how would they feel if we were looking at 25% unemployment as a baseline, and a failed global banking system that would take a decade to rebuild? They don't get that either.

Agree.

When the tea partiers cry about his health care agenda, they neglect the fact that we face an even greater crisis if we do nothing. They are simply ignoring the facts. The entire basis for their movement is rooted in fantasy; much of which has been fed by the lies and rantings of people like Beck.

No one said we should "do nothing" regarding healthcare.

 

[WhoWee]

Right Turbo-1

Reading a legislative bill or law is done by aids so that a simple summary can be provided in a timely manner.

The legalese in laws is tedious to read mostly due to references back and forth. A bill may have wording on page 300 that refers to a sub section on page 380. The Arizona Revised Statutes has three pages devoted to defining a traffic light.

Republicans complained about the length of the Health care bill, but did they really read it? They do appear to know what is in it.




The ten longest bills in the last ten years.




http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1375-For-Bills-in-Congress-How-Long-is-Long-

I'm not disputing how things are done in Washington. My point is that if you want to understand what fuels the anger of Tea Party members - this is a good place to start (not a racist conspiracy theory).

The Delaware election is a wake up call to EVERY fat cat politician who falls back on the not my fault - it's the way things are done excuse. Politicians are elected to represent their districts- not themselves or their parties.

On a side note, I participated in an CE course on ETHICS in Corporate America this week. The average entrance score was about 50% - upon completion of the course 85%. The area 90% of respondents admitting to a weakness in - rationalism.

 

[Al68]

And the tea party would have us undo a century of legislation because they think life was somehow better a hundred years ago...This is also why I oppose those in the tea party who would take us back a century. The key to fixing Washington is not to take us back the days of the horse and buggy.

Can you provide any substantiation that the tea party thinks life was better a hundred years ago or that they would take us back to horse and buggy days?

Why is it that a (moderated?) science forum has so many posts full of such nonsense while saying absolutely nothing of substance?

 

[Al68]

That's the same kind of tactic used by Gingrich when said in a National Review interview recently that Obama's actions only make sense when seen in the context of a Kenyan anti-colonial world-view.

Yes, same tactic, different claims. If you think Gingrich's assessment of Obama's world-view is incorrect, then it's that assessment, not the tactic, that is wrong.

The tactic of objecting to an opponent's political beliefs or ideology instead of his motives is a particularly relevant classic example of sound logic. The logic is sound even if the claims are false.

The tactic of objecting to an opponents motives is a classic example of logical fallacy. The logic is flawed even if the claims are true. For example, objecting to someone being "for the rich" is a logical fallacy even if the claim were true.

 

[Al68]

Welcome to PF, where playing pathetic word games and using such hyperbole is transparent to 99% of the userbase. When I say "psychotic" it's clear exaggeration, but "Marxist ideology" and "Socialism" are being thrown around without a bit of irony or hyperbole. Biiiiig difference. As turbo-1 has pointed out, this is the kind of gaming that is being used, and certainly it works on a workable fraction of the public, but don't expect to spout it here and get anywhere.

I think you misunderstood turbo-1. While we disagree adamantly on many things, turbo-1 and I seem to agree on the appropriateness of using the word "socialist" to describe the ideology of Democrats:

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all socialist programs meant to provide safety nets for the well-being and health of ordinary citizens. And no, "socialism" is NOT a bad word, except when nut-cases conflate it with Stalinism, etc, as they frequently did when attacking health-care-reform.

The pathetic game here is someone espousing socialist policy then semantically objecting to the word socialist being used. The funny thing is that whenever someone makes a semantical objection to the word socialist, it's after they obviously knew exactly what was meant by the word, because it was used in a context that all but eliminated the possibility of misconstruing the meaning.

 

[mheslep]

Do you not see the circularity of your definition?

We have polls showing people self identified as having a 'strong or favorable' impression of the tea party in conjunction with their election choice. That's it. Those polls are the only real indicator of opinion, and the statements/actions of candidates elected with polls showing Tea Party support are the only things that have any substantive impact.

I'm not self selecting (I'm not selecting at all - I named all the big Tea Party people I knew anything about). I honestly do not know the others you mentioned besides having come across the occasional mention here or there. I'm going simply by what the news reporting conveys of the Tea Party.

Then possibly your sources of news have selected for you. I see interviews of Tea Party candidates all the time. Rubio has been on the Sunday talk shows a couple times, once in a debate with Christ.

And as far as I can tell, Sarah Palin has given prominent appearances (keynote speeches, etc.) at most of the big nationwide Tea Party events. She is virtually their figurehead, from where I'm watching. I know of Brown since I'm in Mass,. and I know about Paul, because he's been getting some news attention over the last couple months. Beck, of course, led the biggest Tea Party rally ever, and probably has more influence over election day decisions of way more people than all the other names you mentioned.

There's a not single ballot cast to suggest that the people there would actually favor Beck to run anything (or Palin presently) any more than the 50,000 that attended a Yankees game the other night indicates they want A. Rod to run things for them. Nor, to my mind, do the vast majority of the field of Tea Party candidates (as indicated by polling) resemble Palin/Beck in style, background, or experience.

PS: As for the teaparty.org website, I didn't think that was a site run by some random loon. For starters, the url isn't thisisteapartyxoxo.com or somesuch. And they've even got real world office locations in CA and TX with a third one on the way. But I could still be completely wrong. Do you believe that looking for "common sense" solutions to problems is not a primary guiding principle of the movement?

No need to ask what I believe that others believe, what ever good that what add. Poll data tells us what self described Tea Party supporters subscribe to:

[...]
And, would you describe your support for the Tea Party Movement more as a protest against the performance of the Obama Administration, a protest against the performance of Democrats in Congress, a protest against the Republicans in Congress, a protest against business as usual in Washington, or more of a positive for The Tea Party Movement? (RANDOMIZE.)
Protest business as usual in Washington.......... 42
Protest the performance of the Obama Administration ....... 20
[...]
Positive for Tea Party .............. 9
[...]

Please tell me which one or two of these are the main reasons you support the Tea Party Movement
[...]
Is committed to cutting federal government
spending and the national debt ......29
Is committed to reducing the size of government, including abolishing some
federal agencies..........25
[...]
[...]

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJNBCPoll09282010.pdf
These same top answers come up in poll after poll. Caci had essentially the same off the top of his head in #478. Everything else ascribed to a grass roots political movement with no official party leaders, everything outside of polling and the statements of candidates elected with polls showing Tea Party support, is hand waving.

 

[mheslep]

[...]
Say what you might about the effects of the stimulus bill, but the size and composition was pretty close to median values suggested by a sample of 55 economists (people that study this field for a living) polled by the WSJ. While some economists preferred no stimulus, others, like Krugman and Romer (who resigned recently - speculation is that the WH wasn't listening to her enough), were recommending a whole lot more that $1T.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123195389790581947.html

Here is an interesting article by John Cochrane on Krugman (his response to Krugman's criticism of him), along with some interesting tidbits on the subject of stimulus overall: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/krugman_response.htm

Also see this letter signed by some hundred or so economists, including three Nobel laureates. Maybe the WSJ sampling was poor.

"There is no disagreement that we need action byour government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy." — PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009

With all due respect Mr.President,that is not true.

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

 

[Gokul43201]

Also see this letter signed by some hundred or so economists, including three Nobel laureates. Maybe the WSJ sampling was poor.

www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

I don't get this. Are you seriously suggesting that your sampling technique via pulling names off a petition is better than WSJ's? If not what's your point? How does you list help identify the distribution of opinions?

Your complaint is that WSJ sampling was poor. Then help us find a better sample, not a poorer one!

 

[nismaratwork]

To essentially quote a signature here on PF, and in turn quote Einstein: "Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yn4OmgsG77IJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Authors_Against_Einstein+einstein+why+hundred+wrong&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

From what I can see, 30 years later there is still massive disagreement about the effects of "trickle down economics", with papers you can cite for, and against. Economics seems like a realm where arguments are unending, and it is more arcana than science or even art.

Maybe it's a good idea to steer back towards the basic principles of how the Tea Party, 9/12 Patriots and others behave, and their "grassroots" nature (or not), than debate economics that probably won't be settled for a decades?

 

[Gokul43201]

Then possibly your sources of news have selected for you.

That's entirely possible. I do not have a TV (well, I do, but it's sitting in a box somewhere) and get over 90% of my news from the internet, the rest from NPR.

 

[mheslep]

I don't get this. Are you seriously suggesting that your sampling technique via pulling names off a petition is better than WSJ's?

As you know I did not suggest that I or the source statistically sampled anything; the letter is of course one sided. The WSJ used the term.

If not what's your point? How does you list help identify the distribution of opinions?

Your complaint is that WSJ sampling was poor. Then help us find a better sample, not a poorer one!

It seems curious to me that so many noted economists were easily accessed saying they opposed spending stimulus when the WSJ has a median score showing a different opinion. From what I can tell the WSJ is not really sampling at all. They apparently have a group of 60 or so economists in their rolodex who work professionally as forecasters with various macro firms - no academics - that they continually go do for forecasts and surveys. In this context the CATO letter adds to the public knowledge of the opinion of economists on the stimulus.

 

[nismaratwork]

As you know I did not suggest that I or the source statistically sampled anything; the letter is of course one sided. The WSJ used the term.

It seems curious to me that so many noted economists were easily accessed saying they opposed spending stimulus when the WSJ has a median score showing a different opinion. From what I can tell the WSJ is not really sampling at all. They apparently have a group of 60 or so economists in their rolodex who work professionally as forecasters with various macro firms - no academics - that they continually go do for forecasts and surveys. In this context the CATO letter adds to the public knowledge of the opinion of economists on the stimulus.

I see your point, but isn't that still an appeal to authority x100? A fallacy is a fallacy after all...

 

[turbo]

It seems curious to me that so many noted economists were easily accessed saying they opposed spending stimulus when the WSJ has a median score showing a different opinion. From what I can tell the WSJ is not really sampling at all. They apparently have a group of 60 or so economists in their rolodex who work professionally as forecasters with various macro firms - no academics - that they continually go do for forecasts and surveys. In this context the CATO letter adds to the public knowledge of the opinion of economists on the stimulus.

And the WSJ is a perfectly neutral purveyor of "news" as opposed to opinion, right?

 

[mheslep]

And the WSJ is a perfectly neutral purveyor of "news" as opposed to opinion, right?

? Look all I'm saying is there are more sources of economic opinion out there than the WSJ poll that Gokul cited. Make of them what you will, as I'm not labeling them.

 

[nismaratwork]

? Look all I'm saying is there are more sources of economic opinion out there than the WSJ poll that Gokul cited. Make of them what you will, as I'm not labeling them.

Your point was to add opinions to the mix, but for no particular reason other than contrast?

 

[Gokul43201]

It seems curious to me that so many noted economists were easily accessed saying they opposed spending stimulus when the WSJ has a median score showing a different opinion.

It's easy to find people that oppose any big action, and much harder to find supporters.

If you agree with something, you sit on your couch in front of the TV and quietly nod your head; if you oppose it, you get out on the street with signs and protest. Opposers tend to have a lot more visibility, and are generally louder than supporters.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's easy to find people that oppose any big action, and much harder to find supporters.

If you agree with something, you sit on your couch in front of the TV and quietly nod your head; if you oppose it, you get out on the street with signs and protest. Opposers tend to have a lot more visibility, and are generally louder than supporters.

...With the obvious exceptions being sports fans.

 

[CAC1001]

It's easy to find people that oppose any big action, and much harder to find supporters.

Would this apply to academics and professionals though? Because with academics and professionals, you can just call them up, right? Whereas among the general populace, it is easier to find the people opposed to something big because, as you said, they come out and protest (ex. Iraq War protests under Bush, Tea Parties under Obama).