'The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters say when it comes to the major issues facing the country, their views are closer to the average Tea Party member as opposed to the average member of Congress. Just 22% say their views are closest to those of the average congressman. Even more (30%) aren’t sure.'
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/poll-unfavorable-views-of-tea-party-hits-record-high.php
In the poll, 47% of adult Americans said they viewed the Tea Party unfavorably, compared to 32% who said they viewed it favorably.
The latest finding continues a trend of the Tea Party losing popularity as it has became more well known.
'...half of voters (50%) say the Democratic agenda in Congress is extreme, while 37% see it as mainstream, also up five points from a month ago.'
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/04/04/poll-50-says-democrats-agenda-in-congress-is-extreme/
And this just in:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/04/scott-brown-2012-senate-race-poll-/1
And the Republican agenda to kill the Medicare program isn't "extreme?" Ryan's budget just came out so it's probably too soon to see a poll on whether seniors want to pay a much larger share of their income for insurance vs. sticking with Medicare.
It's not "extreme" to be fiscally responsible. It's extreme to spend more than what can be afforded.
And is "kill" an accurate word? When you use a word like "kill" it implies to me to totally wipe something out. Is that what is proposed? Total elimination of medicare?
Thank God polls don't mean anything...
"It's not "extreme" to be fiscally responsible."
However, what the right wing looney tunes folks want to do is not fiscal responsibility.
Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.
According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.
"It's disturbing to see the Tea Party Caucus requested that much in earmarks. This is their time to put up or shut up, to be blunt," said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste. "There's going to be a huge backlash if they continue to request earmarks."
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), for one, attached his name to 69 earmarks in the last fiscal year, for a total of $78,263,000. The 41 earmarks Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) requested were worth $65,395,000. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) wanted $63,400,000 for 39 special projects, and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) wanted $93,980,000 set aside for 47 projects.
Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) takes the prize as the Tea Partier with his name on the most earmarks. Rehberg's office requested funding for 88 projects, either solely or by co-signing earmarks requests with Sens. Max Baucus (D) and Jon Tester (D), at a cost of $100,514,200. On his own, Rehberg requested 20 earmarks valued at more than $9.6 million.
More than one member can sign onto an earmark. Still, there are 29 caucus members who requested on their own or joined requests for more than $10 million in earmark funding, and seven who wanted more than $50 million in funding.
Aderholt (R-AL) 69 $78,263,000
Akin (R-MO) 9 $14,709,000
Alexander (R-LA) 41 $65,395,000
Bachmann (R-MN) 0 0
Barton (R-TX) 14 $12,269,400
Bartlett (R-MD) 19 $43,060,650
Bilirakis (R-FL) 14 $13,600,000
R. Bishop (R-UT) 47 $93,980,000
Burgess (R-TX) 15 $15,804,400
Broun (R-GA) 0 0
Burton (R-IN) 0 0
Carter (R-TX) 26 $42,232,000
Coble (R-NC) 19 $18,755,000
Coffman (R-CO) 0 0
Crenshaw (R-FL) 37 $54,424,000
Culberson (R-TX) 22 $33,792,000
Fleming (R-LA) 10 $31,489,000
Franks (R-AZ) 8 $14,300,000
Gingrey (R-GA) 19 $16,100,000
Gohmert (R-TX) 15 $7,099,000
S. Graves (R-MO) 11 $8,331,000
R. Hall (R-TX) 16 $12,232,000
Harper (R-MS) 25 $80,402,000
Herger (R-CA) 5 $5,946,000
Hoekstra (R-MI) 9 $6,392,000
Jenkins (R-KS) 12 $24,628,000
S. King (R-IA) 13 $6,650,000
Lamborn (R-CO) 6 $16,020,000
Luetkemeyer (R-MO) 0 0
Lummis (R-WY) 0 0
Marchant (R-TX) 0 0
McClintock (R-CA) 0 0
Gary Miller (R-CA) 15 $19,627,500
Jerry Moran (R-KS) 22 $19,400,000
Myrick (R-NC) 0 0
Neugebauer (R-TX) 0 0
Pence (R-IN) 0 0
Poe (R-TX) 12 $7,913,000
T. Price (R-GA) 0 0
Rehberg (R-MT) 88 $100,514,200
Roe (R-TN) 0 0
Royce (R-CA) 7 $6,545,000
Scalise (R-LA) 20 $17,388,000
P. Sessions (R-TX) 0 0
Shadegg (R-AZ) 0 0
Adrian Smith (R-NE) 1 $350,000
L. Smith (R-TX) 18 $14,078,000
Stearns (R-FL) 17 $15,472,000
Tiahrt (R-KS) 39 $63,400,000
Wamp (R-TN) 14 $34,544,000
Westmoreland (R-GA) 0 0
Wilson (R-SC) 15 $23,334,000TOTAL 764 $1,049,783,150
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/12/tea-party-caucu.php
What a bunch of lying scumbags. And you and Herb want to defend them ... they're a joke, you're a joke.
They lie through their teeth and you jerks just suck it up hook line and sinker.
You are a bunch of fools. Stupid fools.
Psalm 14:1
Way to go Herbaroni! Up your old tricks again.
Teabaggers/GOPers/Herb: Ruining America one bad policy at a time!
Andy posts something tangible and pertinent to the thread, showing sheer hypocrisy, and Herb responded with a scripture from the Bible.
erm, wow. Herb, you're better than that.
Brianl, he is showing that he isn't. Just like Nixon, Herb, is out of his mind!
Thank you for helping me figure out that I am a Fool.
What are the total earmarks by party so we can put these numbers into perspective?
Fair and Balanced:
There is no value in that... these Tea Party Republicans ran on a commitment to their constitutents that they were going to Washington to reduce the size of government. It is hypocritical of them to propose budget expansions for the benefit of their constituencies while at the same time arguing that the budget needs to be reduced (of course, every where else)!
I distinctly remember several Democratics running on the platform that was distinctly "bring home the bacon." In fact I voted for one of them because the Republican was clearly deficient in multiple policy areas other than fiscal restraint.
I would need to see it in perspective to determine that, edust. In the perspective of the total budget that one billion is about 1/3,500 of it. If this is the extent of the problem with earmarks, then perhaps earmarks are not so big a problem as everyone thinks, UNLESS, this one billion is a drop in the bucket.
That's the system right now, and they still might have to play along a little. I will know whether or not to be outraged or disappointed when I see the TOTALS by party and compare it to that.
Plus, I am not going to judge them all by the actions of some. Many did not take earmarks, and many were relatively small.
But again, these figures are taken out of context (and I think purposely so) and cannot judge the total or the individuals fairly until seeing those figures in context of the overall amounts.
"Many did not take earmarks"
Many? What kind of math are you using?
Around three fourths did take them.
"and many were relatively small."
Now that's enough bullshit. There is one instance where the earmark
might be considered small.
What a total distortion of fact in an attempt to defend a point that was never made.
You have risen to less than zero credibility. Nothing you write can be taken seriously nor at face value.
Go to forum jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect psalms from Herb.
Bozos.
Were these earmarks before or after the tea party victory?
And note I haven't defended anything. I want to see the overall picture to see if or how bad it is.
Hypocrisy is bad at any level.
I asked a reasonable question. Actually two of them.
The first is what the total figures are in earmarks by party so these numbers can be compared, and the second is whether those earmarks occurred before or after the tea party coalition was formed.
"Were these earmarks before or after the tea party victory?"
Does it matter?
They were earmarks by people directly affiliated with the Tea Party movement. They ran on a platform pretty much solely consisting of fiscal restraint and responsibility, and AGAINST pork-barrel spending, yet they are rolling out the pork barrels.
Keep in mind that Obama signed something banning earmarks (for now). Y'know, the Teabagger's Public Enemy #1.
It matter to me if these earmarks were before or after a pledge not to do them.
Their entire campaign centered around these pledges.
The election was in early November.
The article is from mid-December.
You do the math.
Their HYPOCRITES just like the GOPers. There is a reason why they're CONers.
We learned above f&b doesn't do math. Or at least not a math most would recognize, where three fourths is considered "not many" and one in 52 is considered "many."
What more is there to say?
Classic leftist illogic:
Democrats, with a clear majority in Congress last year, didn't pass a budget. They kicked the can down the road.
Yet now it's the Republicans who are to blame for the left's irresponsibility?
I'm just waiting for Democrats to blame Bush.
"with a clear majority in Congress last year, didn't pass a budget"
Nice try. Let's look at that. I guess "clear" in new herbocrisy-speak means when the GOP minority filibusters everything that comes to the Senate, it's clear the majority is stifled by the minority, but it's their fault anyway.
NFW Herb. Come down to earth.
It matter[sic] to me if these earmarks were before or after a pledge not to do them.
Then, are you saying that if all of these earmarks were requested before the politicians behind them agreed to an anti-earmark pledge, you believe that all of the politicians behind the earmarks "saw the light" regarding earmarks when they were presented with the pledge? Even to a Fool like me (per Broadway's post), that sounds pretty suspicious.
"Go to forum jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect psalms from Herb."
I would type more kudos, but I am laughing too hard!
Democrats didn't pass a budget because they are divided economically.
There are "third way" Democrats, not materially different from Republicans on economic issues. They fucked us on Health Care Reform, preventing any real cost controls to be included in the legislation.
There are "Progressive" Democrats, who are the only economically left voting bloc of size in the Government.
There are "Moderate" Democrats, stuck in the middle, leaning this way or that, depending on a lot of things.
We didn't get a budget because the regressive economic majority, composed of the entire GOP, and the "third way" Democrats were not able to secure a majority vote, because of the Progressives and Moderates.
The balance of power changed this election, bringing a lot of regressives to the House, at the expense of moderate and "third way" Democrats. They now trump moderates and Progressives, easily passing regressive legislation.
The Herb troll is why Christians are abandoning their Churches in droves. 
Classic Democrat manoeovre.
1. Blame Bush.
2. Blame Republicans.
3. Avoid taking any responsibility.
4. Fail to provide leadership.
Even though Democrats held the House, the Senate and the Oval Office.
Nice try.
As Mr. Clinton would say: "That dog won't hunt."
On difficult questions
and challenging topics
We count on Herb
to be myopic.
Great non-answer.
Here's a clue:
It's not all grey.
There is a right and a wrong.
And mankind isn't smarter than the Almighty.
The almighty is made up
Therefore man is smarter.
Too bad you don't belong to the group of smarter men.
You belong to the group of chosen mental sickness.
Actually, I do blame a lot of Democrats for not being true to the party. "third way" isn't really any good for us, though it sells a bit easier.
And Herb, it's really easy to blame Republicans for our economic troubles. It is their agenda that got us here. What you won't hear from a lot of Democrats is our Coin Operated majority took us there right along with the GOP.
I think the right move is to select actual left leaning economic congresspeople and start reforming both parties, Dems first, of course, because they actually do have a left economic caucus.
Republicans always blame Clinton! LimBLAH was pissing and moaning about him on the other day. The guys been gone 10 years and they're still blaming him.
Nice Herb!
Classic CONer maneuver.
1. Blame Obummer.
2. Blame Dems.
3. Avoid taking any responsibility.
4. Fail to provide leadership.
Even though Republicans held the House, the Senate and the Oval Office until 2006.
Look at the shit they did to America!!!
Nice try.
As Mr. Nixon would say: "I AM a criminal, a liar and a cheat."
Actually Trixter, Mr. Nixon would shake his jowly head and pronounce: "I am not a crook."
'About 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist..'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Nixon was a scumbag
A cheat and a liar
But he's still got Herb
Singing in his choir.
Nixon wasn't very bad
He saved the Jewish state
Compared to Carter & Obama
He does highly rate.
Carter did more for Israel than Nixon, or probably any other President, has ever done.
He was also incredibly anti-Semitic.
You keep living in your little dream world, Herb. We'll keep an eye on reality for ya.
According to the numbers in the article, 29 of the 52 took earmarks, leaving 23 who did not.
I said many did not take them.
Does "many" mean "most"?
It depends on the situation. If 23 of 52 people on a plane were killed, I think to say "many" died in the crash would not be disputed.
Likewise, if there were a room full of 100 politicians, and someone said that "many" of them are honest, for this situation, that could be a number greater than 2.
Well, 29 of 52 is 56%. So, one can say "most" because a higher percentage did than did not.
You're arguing semantics here. The fact is that, using your figures, 56% of Tea-Partiers ran on a platform of eliminating pork spending, yet sponsored and took funding for pork projects themselves.
They're still hypocrites of the highest order.
Try 35 of 52, Mr. Math. 35/52= .67 or about two thirds. Clearly a larger number did than did not. "Many" would not be the best usage when representing the minority amount in this case, IMO. I will grant you that if you had written many did not but many more did take earmarks it would be clearer, but still poor writing technique. I'm not splitting hairs over this. In any event, one in 52 is clearly not "many." Your spin will be called out around here, if for no other reason, it is misleading. And no, in a room full of 100 politicians where two are of some trait, to refer to that as "many" is not good writing. It is misleading. But after all, that's what you righties excel at, being misleading and dishonest. Around here, we know all about guys like you, Herb, LA and Broadway.
It's all part of the right wing behavior and language, some of which is summarized at:
http://www.extremelysmart.com/humor/rightwingdictionary.php
You and Herb, especially, are exhibiting fascist leanings. You should take a long look in a mirror. In lieu of that, why don't you proofread what you write and see if are honoring the real facts in an accurate way. So far, I haven't seen it from you, and never from Herb. Rhetoric should be kept to a minimum or the members of the forum will call you out on it. Just some words of free advice. Ignore at your own peril.
Early warning signs of fascism: Powerful and continuing nationalism; disdain for human rights; identification of enemies as a unifier; supremacy of the military; rampant sexism; controlled mass media; obsession with national security; religion and government intertwined; corporate power protected; labor power suppressed; disdain for intellectuals and the arts; obsession with crime and punishment; rampant cronyism and corruption; fraudulent elections.
Why Nixon is the greatest friend Israel has had in recent history, from different sources:
http://blog.nixonfoundation.org/2010/10/how-richard-nixon-saved-israel/
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0798/twersky1.asp
http://www.patriotfiles.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111630
"The president asked Kissinger for a precise accounting of Israel’s military needs, and Kissinger proceeded to read aloud from an itemized list.
“Double it,” Nixon ordered. “Now get the hell out of here and get the job done.”
Later, informed of yet another delay — this one because of disagreements in the Pentagon over the type of planes to be used for the airlift — an incensed Nixon shouted at Kissinger, “[Expletive] it, use every one we have. Tell them to send everything that can fly.”
And do you know WHY Nixon sent Israel so much aid, especially military? Simple - the Soviets were arming every single Arab nation that wanted Israel obliterated. Israel was a pawn in the Cold War chess game.
The Camp David accords that Carter brokered, with that famous picture of Carter between Begin and Sadat, and the subsequent peace between those two nations that has taken place in the 30+ years since (opening the door to diplomacy between other Arab nations and Israel) impresses me much more.
Nixon used the fear and war there for his own personal profit. Carter reached out and created peace, with the interests of PEACE, in mind.
Carter was ineffective as a President (as, domestically, was Nixon), but Jimmy Carter is one of the greatest humanitarians that has lived, and certainly held the office of President of the United States.
Bullshit Herb. Nixon Hated the Jews. Nixon’s career-long anti-Semitism has been well documented, most notably by the man himself in hours of Oval Office conversations he clandestinely, and, it turned out, self-destructively taped. There is so much information to back this up in Nixon's own words. To think anything but the fact that Nixon was nothing more than a Jew hating anti-semite is contrary to all the facts. He only helped Israel for his own power lust. Wake up, Herb, stop being blinded by your right wing hatred of facts.
http://www.jewishchronicle.org/article.php?article_id=4432
http://www.slate.com/id/2174788/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1821745
http://www.slate.com/id/2063030/
You are dead wrong Herb. Every time you bring Nixon up as some sort of benevolent friend to Israel, the facts prove otherwise. He was both an anti-Semite and an autocrat who did not give a damn about the human cost of war in the region.
Like Brian said, the Arabs and Israelis were played hard against each other throughout the Nixon years. Carter was the first to embrace peace in the region as more than a talking point or an abstraction. To this date, he is still the only President to show any true dedication to peacefully ending the conflict.
As Andy pointed out, the way Nixon viewed the role of Jews -- and other minorities -- in our government and broader American society was well documented and nothing short of bigoted.
By way Herbert, what in blue blazes does Israel and Nixon have to do with the original topic?
"Try 35 of 52, Mr. Math. 35/52= .67 or about two thirds. Clearly a larger number did than did not. "Many" would not be the best usage when representing the minority amount in this case, IMO. I will grant you that if you had written many did not but many more did take earmarks it would be clearer, but still poor writing technique. I'm not splitting hairs over this. In any event, one in 52 is clearly not "many." Your spin will be called out around here, if for no other reason, it is misleading. And no, in a room full of 100 politicians where two are of some trait, to refer to that as "many" is not good writing. It is misleading. But after all, that's what you righties excel at, being misleading and dishonest. Around here, we know all about guys like you, Herb, LA and Broadway."
I got the number 29 from the article that was posted. Did I misread something?
I did not "spin" anything. Read carefully. I didn't justify the earmarks. I said I wanted to see what the total earmarks were for both parties so I could see it in perspective, so I could determine whether I should be disappointed or outraged.
Do you happen to have the earmark total by party?
And the comment about the politicians in a room--that was a joke.
"Early warning signs of fascism: Powerful and continuing nationalism; disdain for human rights; identification of enemies as a unifier; supremacy of the military; rampant sexism; controlled mass media; obsession with national security; religion and government intertwined; corporate power protected; labor power suppressed; disdain for intellectuals and the arts; obsession with crime and punishment; rampant cronyism and corruption; fraudulent elections. "
Looks like I'm in pretty good shape then, regarding the "f" word, as far as not being one.
Powerful and continuing nationalism: Could be guilty of this. I think the US is the best!
supremacy of the military: I believe in a strong military, but one that does not rule. That's the job of the three brances of government. But I think the military should be ready to kick anyone's ass who would want to bomb or otherwise terrorize us. I don't think I need to apologize for that one.
obsession with national security: concern is not an obsession. Who wants another 9/11?
disdain for intellectuals and the arts: the intellect is a great gift from God. Who would disdain its development? I only disdain intellectuals who have a mind but who don't have a heart. And I LOVE the arts. But if "art" means an appreciation of a crucifix in a jar of urine--sorry, I'm not THAT sophisticated yet.
corporate power protected: if I form a corporation, I want to be able to do business fairly. And if by protecting corporate power it means to not want them taxed to the point of wanting to leave the country, then I suppose I'm guilty of that. I just want them to have enough power to be able to hire employees, make a profit, and pay their shareholders. I don't want their power diminished to the point where their productivity is shackled. I don't see corporations as "the enemy."
obsession with crime and punishment: I hardly think about either.
rampant cronyism and corruption: I'm not a crony and I'm not corrupt. I think an example of cronyism and corruption is public sector unions. That seems to be a racket, but I've mentioned that before.
fraudulent elections: I'm not a member of the party well-known for their experise in that department, and would not want to win on that basis.
religion and government intertwined: would not be a good thing
labor power suppressed: only unfair labor organizations--ones that prohibit others to freely decide whether or not to join their union
disdain for human rights: negative. I want more human rights than you do. You don't give a rip for 3,000 who lost a very basic right today.
sexism: nope
I don't think there's enough evidence to convict me of being a facist or being on the way to becoming one. Putting that kind of label on someone because of a particular belief is cheap and easy. It's just another form of ad hominem, and not part of a discussion that is civil and that could shed any light.
You must log in to post.
