40% of Tea Party Movement Democrats or Independent.
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
There is also this little poll from Gallup:
Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large. That’s the finding of a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28, in which 28% of U.S. adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement.
Tea Party supporters are decidedly Republican and conservative in their leanings. Also, compared with average Americans, supporters are slightly more likely to be male and less likely to be lower-income.
In several other respects, however — their age, educational background, employment status, and race — Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large.
At this point, the more the Left tries to smear, de-legitimize and marginalize the tea partiers, the more the left alienates independents/moderate conservatives and ultimately isolates themselves.Tea Party supporters are decidedly Republican and conservative in their leanings. Also, compared with average Americans, supporters are slightly more likely to be male and less likely to be lower-income.
In several other respects, however — their age, educational background, employment status, and race — Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
But I thought that the only people in the Tea Parties were racist, homophobic birthers as Obama says.
Tea Partiers want the government and civil service to stop expanding and imposing unfunded liabilities on the general population in the private sector who don't get benifits for life in the form of obsolete pensions and free healthcare almost 100% paid for by the taxpayers.
Private enterprize has learned to be more efficient durring the recession but it's a lesson the public service doesn't want to learn.
Since neither party has actually cut spending while in power it's understandable there would be support from a range of voters.
Eventually the "cure" will be a devaluation of the currency in a "market correction" which will cut the value of these benefits by half or more as well as the value in dollars of everything else.
Private enterprize has learned to be more efficient durring the recession but it's a lesson the public service doesn't want to learn.
Since neither party has actually cut spending while in power it's understandable there would be support from a range of voters.
Eventually the "cure" will be a devaluation of the currency in a "market correction" which will cut the value of these benefits by half or more as well as the value in dollars of everything else.
That's one possible cure.
None of them are painless.
And, unfortunately, it's becoming increasingly difficult to correct things voluntarily.
Things will never get corrected volintarily.
It will take some kind of crash or big slide in the currency.
The elegance of currency devaluation is it will cut the value of pure money being handed out while real assets will increase in value measured in dollars.
Sort of a neutron bomb that kills the value of unrealistic government benefits while leaving assets minimally damaged.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Assuming Obama is in power when this happens, he will institute a MASSIVE bailout which will exacerbate the problem. When people see this, they will transfer all their cash assets into tangible goods which will superheat the economy and hasten a complete collapse.
That "measured in dollars" part is the kicker. The wealth invested won't increase, just the price tag attached to the asset...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
That's pretty optimistic. Why don't you just wave your magic wand and 'deem' it so. Not to mention that Obama has no desire whatsoever to fix the problem.
World market forces would be what would drive this not some magic wand or Obama.
I'm just thinking about what might happen.
There would be an initial collapse from some event then the world economy would realign and things would restart again.
I'm just thinking about what might happen.
There would be an initial collapse from some event then the world economy would realign and things would restart again.
Pray For Inflation -- It's Our Only Hope
Posted Apr 09, 2010 12:30pm EDT by Peter Gorenstein
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/pray-for-inflation----it's-our-only-hope-yftt_464142.html
Everyone thinks the Fed's job is to fight inflation, but right now the Fed is actually doing everything it can to cause inflation.
Why?
It part to help the economy get cranking again. Inflation provides an incentive for people to spend cash rather than saving it, because if they save it, the cash will lose value rapidly.
Inflation also helps solve another problem, though--our debt problem. The more inflation we have, the less our dollars will be worth. Because our debts are based on a specific number of dollars and not a specific value, the less our dollars are worth, the easier it will be for us to pay off our debts.
(Imagine owing someone 100 Zimbabwe dollars at a time when the currency is collapsing. If you wait a week, the value of the Zimbabwe dollar will have collapsed, and you'll be able to pay off your 100 Zimbabwe-dollar debt with currency that is only worth half as much as it was the week before).
The Fed can't admit that one reason it wants high inflation is to reduce the real burden of our debt, but you can bet that that's one of its objectives. What's more, says Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman, inflation should be one of the Fed's objectives. Because that's how we've gotten out from under debt burdens in the past.
Here's Krugman:
So how did the U.S. government manage to pay off its [World War 2] wartime debt? Actually, it didn’t. At the end of 1946, the federal government owed $271 billion; by the end of 1956 that figure had risen slightly, to $274 billion. The ratio of debt to G.D.P. fell not because debt went down, but because G.D.P. went up, roughly doubling in dollar terms over the course of a decade.
In other words, after World War 2, we didn't "pay down" our debt. We grew into it.
And, importantly, this growth came from a combination of real growth AND inflation:
The rise in G.D.P. in dollar terms was almost equally the result of economic growth and inflation, with both real G.D.P. and the overall level of prices rising about 40 percent from 1946 to 1956.
So inflation is an important tool in getting us out of this mess. It's painful and unfair--those who have been responsible and saved money will pay the price for those who borrowed money, racked up huge debts, and spent more than they could afford. But it's what the Fed is (quietly) aiming for.
Posted Apr 09, 2010 12:30pm EDT by Peter Gorenstein
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/pray-for-inflation----it's-our-only-hope-yftt_464142.html
Everyone thinks the Fed's job is to fight inflation, but right now the Fed is actually doing everything it can to cause inflation.
Why?
It part to help the economy get cranking again. Inflation provides an incentive for people to spend cash rather than saving it, because if they save it, the cash will lose value rapidly.
Inflation also helps solve another problem, though--our debt problem. The more inflation we have, the less our dollars will be worth. Because our debts are based on a specific number of dollars and not a specific value, the less our dollars are worth, the easier it will be for us to pay off our debts.
(Imagine owing someone 100 Zimbabwe dollars at a time when the currency is collapsing. If you wait a week, the value of the Zimbabwe dollar will have collapsed, and you'll be able to pay off your 100 Zimbabwe-dollar debt with currency that is only worth half as much as it was the week before).
The Fed can't admit that one reason it wants high inflation is to reduce the real burden of our debt, but you can bet that that's one of its objectives. What's more, says Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman, inflation should be one of the Fed's objectives. Because that's how we've gotten out from under debt burdens in the past.
Here's Krugman:
So how did the U.S. government manage to pay off its [World War 2] wartime debt? Actually, it didn’t. At the end of 1946, the federal government owed $271 billion; by the end of 1956 that figure had risen slightly, to $274 billion. The ratio of debt to G.D.P. fell not because debt went down, but because G.D.P. went up, roughly doubling in dollar terms over the course of a decade.
In other words, after World War 2, we didn't "pay down" our debt. We grew into it.
And, importantly, this growth came from a combination of real growth AND inflation:
The rise in G.D.P. in dollar terms was almost equally the result of economic growth and inflation, with both real G.D.P. and the overall level of prices rising about 40 percent from 1946 to 1956.
So inflation is an important tool in getting us out of this mess. It's painful and unfair--those who have been responsible and saved money will pay the price for those who borrowed money, racked up huge debts, and spent more than they could afford. But it's what the Fed is (quietly) aiming for.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Agan, you're assuming there is some magic trick that would make this nebulous 'realignment' happen. Without the United States as an agent of stability, with a destitute Europe unable even to subsidize the collapse of Greece, there is no reason to expect things to 'realign,' whatever that word means.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
?
So with our eyeballs in debt we're the healthiest guy on the block, is that what you're saying.
You're the one who has been predicting some kind of crash for a while now.
By realign I mean if the economy gets disrupted companies that survive will figure out how to work under the new circumstances.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
And YET AGAIN, your definition is FLAWED because it is based on the ASSUMPTION that any companies will survive. Honestly you really have no idea what you're talking about, you're just babbling.
Assuming the economy would simply correct itself would not be unreasonable if free market forces were allowed to work.
But what the market has been wanting to do is to deflate while the government has been fighting that by pursuing inflating policies.
So, many of us start to question if the economy will simply correct itself easily (if at all) in light of government meddling.
Look at the USSR and it's economic collapse...
You're putting your usual bombastic hyperbole into your comments when you get worked up with the CAPS and miss first word of sentence spelling errors
Any companies survive?
People gotta eat etc.
The depression of the 30's didn't kill everything.
Hardly.
GM, Ford, Chrysler, General Electric, Quaker Oats, Movies etc etc and so many others.
They all survived.
I'm talking about an "illness" and you're seeing "death"
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Hyperbole? Really?You're putting your usual bombastic hyperbole into your comments when you get worked up with the CAPS and miss first word of sentence spelling errors
Any companies survive?
People gotta eat etc.
The depression of the 30's didn't kill everything.
Hardly.
GM, Ford, Chrysler, General Electric, Quaker Oats, Movies etc etc and so many others.
They all survived.
I'm talking about an "illness" and you're seeing "death"
"People gotta eat et cetera?"
Genius argument.
Did you even graduate high school?
What if there's no food?
Bah, never mind. You can't sing to people with no ears.
What would you say if I sang out of tune,
would you stand up and walk out on me?
Lend me your ears and I'll sing you a song,
I will try not to sing out of key,
Oh I get by with a little help from my friends.....
:F :invasion: