...according to politifact.com and The Daily Beast
http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2762/1/ (http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2762/1/)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-hypocrisy-lawmakers-tea-party-ties-government/story?id=13259014 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-hypocrisy-lawmakers-tea-party-ties-government/story?id=13259014)
QuoteTea Party Hypocrisy? Some Lawmakers With Tea Party Ties Are on the Government Dole
QuoteThe biggest recipient was Rep. Stephen Fincher, a Republican from Frog Jump, Tenn.
While the self-described Tea Party patriot lists his occupation as "farmer" and "gospel singer" in the Congressional Directory, he doesn't mention that his family has received more than $3 million in farm subsidies from 1995 to 2009, according to the Environmental Working Group.
Those damn Tea Party hypocrites. I bet they even travel on federally-funded roads, fly in and out of federally-funded airports, and I even bet they use the Postal Service.
The horror!
Quote from: Townsend on March 31, 2011, 09:49:45 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-hypocrisy-lawmakers-tea-party-ties-government/story?id=13259014 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-hypocrisy-lawmakers-tea-party-ties-government/story?id=13259014)
The biggest recipient was Rep. Stephen Fincher, a Republican from Frog Jump, Tenn.
While the self-described Tea Party patriot lists his occupation as "farmer" and "gospel singer" in the Congressional Directory, he doesn't mention that his family has received more than $3 million in farm subsidies from 1995 to 2009, according to the Environmental Working Group.
That's only a bit over $200K/yr for the family. How many wage earners in the family? They aren't even rich as a family as they are below Obama's magic $250K figure.
I'll ask the Fincher family to give back a lawful assist when Buffet, Gates and friends start volunteering to give the Federal Government a lot more of their millions in taxes.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 31, 2011, 11:40:18 AM
Those damn Tea Party hypocrites. I bet they even travel on federally-funded roads, fly in and out of federally-funded airports, and I even bet they use the Postal Service.
The horror!
Damn Socialists.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 31, 2011, 11:40:18 AM
Those damn Tea Party hypocrites. I bet they even travel on federally-funded roads, fly in and out of federally-funded airports, and I even bet they use the Postal Service.
The horror!
So they should take the federal funding when they say there shouldn't be any?
Do as I say not as I do?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 31, 2011, 11:40:18 AM
Those damn Tea Party hypocrites. I bet they even travel on federally-funded roads, fly in and out of federally-funded airports, and I even bet they use the Postal Service.
The horror!
Tea bagger lingo? ;D
Quote from: Townsend on March 31, 2011, 12:25:23 PM
So they should take the federal funding when they say there shouldn't be any?
Do as I say not as I do?
I'll agree, accepting direct payment from the government when you campaign on austerity smacks of hypocrisy. However, I know nothing else about their farming operations, so it's hard for me to say one way or the other if they should have been taking subsidies. Should they have gone out of business instead? Our family farm was in a Federal CRP program in the 1980's where we were literally paid not to grow anything on a portion of the land. It was a "soil conservation program" devised by the USDA to help farmers cope with the grain embargoes against the USSR and limiting the amount of grain on the market. Basically our lessee planted tall grass to keep the soil from eroding.
That said, the article is a "gotcha" piece. Name one business in this country which does NOT enjoy some sort of government subsidy, whether it's a tax break, using public infrastructure, the postal service to send and receive mail, etc.
I'm not a fan of the government picking the winners and losers via it's actions up to and including direct payments. Yet it's how we try to stabilize the economy and bring votes home for our beloved legislators. Ghack!
(interesting note: there's a photocopied sign on the wall of the Donaldson Station which states the U.S. Postal Service does not receive taxpayer funds. News to me)
Quote from: Conan71 on March 31, 2011, 12:43:28 PM
I'll agree, accepting direct payment from the government when you campaign on austerity smacks of hypocrisy. However, I know nothing else about their farming operations, so it's hard for me to say one way or the other if they should have been taking subsidies. Should they have gone out of business instead? Our family farm was in a Federal CRP program in the 1980's where we were literally paid not to grow anything on a portion of the land. It was a "soil conservation program" devised by the USDA to help farmers cope with the grain embargoes against the USSR and limiting the amount of grain on the market. Basically our lessee planted tall grass to keep the soil from eroding.
That said, the article is a "gotcha" piece. Name one business in this country which does NOT enjoy some sort of government subsidy, whether it's a tax break, using public infrastructure, the postal service to send and receive mail, etc.
I'm not a fan of the government picking the winners and losers via it's actions up to and including direct payments. Yet it's how we try to stabilize the economy and bring votes home for our beloved legislators. Ghack!
(interesting note: there's a photocopied sign on the wall of the Donaldson Station which states the U.S. Postal Service does not receive taxpayer funds. News to me)
"gotcha" or not you didn't run for office using sales points exactly opposite of what you and your family have done for years. I say get money where you can but don't take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed.
I don't pretend that any politician is trustworthy. They should at least try to run with some of the values they've lived in the past not what sells them to the believers. I know, I know...
Where has Alan Simpson been coming from? Has he been on the dims tea leafs?
I never cared much for him for years but after his work on budget recommendations, and now this from Mathews, he might as well go full on against the Right Wingnuts. So much for the Tea Party not being the Religious Right. Even old-school Republicans are starting to admit it.
Quote from: Teatownclown on April 12, 2011, 03:22:20 PM
Where has Alan Simpson been coming from? Has he been on the dims tea leafs?
I never cared much for him for years but after his work on budget recommendations, and now this from Mathews, he might as well go full on against the Right Wingnuts. So much for the Tea Party not being the Religious Right. Even old-school Republicans are starting to admit it.
I don't think the Tea Party is the religious right, but it's where most of them are finding their political home within the GOP these days.
Sorry, you must not be old school.... ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on April 12, 2011, 03:28:14 PM
I don't think the Tea Party is the religious right, but it's where most of them are finding their political home within the GOP these days.
You don't have to think. They're mainly white male boomers who were anti-government countercultural hippies in the 60s. Seriously. You'd think they'd be mainly former Reaganites, but no.
Quote from: nathanm on April 12, 2011, 06:44:40 PM
You don't have to think. They're mainly white male boomers who were anti-government countercultural hippies in the 60s. Seriously. You'd think they'd be mainly former Reaganites, but no.
I think the 60s hippies didn't even know that the word Republican existed. Remember, I was there.
Quote from: nathanm on April 12, 2011, 06:44:40 PM
You don't have to think. They're mainly white male boomers who were anti-government countercultural hippies in the 60s. Seriously. You'd think they'd be mainly former Reaganites, but no.
Huh? All those cats either worked for Clinton or Obama or voted for both of them.
I'm just telling you how people who self-identify with the Tea Party movement report in polls. There was an article in the New York Times about this latest poll and a couple of other minor articles, but as with most truly interesting news, it goes mostly unnoticed.
Sort of like how the poll showing that most Tea Party supporters (as opposed to activists, who are around 20% of people who self-identify as Tea Party supporters, or about 4% of the US population) think their taxes are fair. :P
Take the 2010 polling numbers with a big grain of salt, though. The Tea Party has been losing significant support lately. Basically everything that's not shiny and new is being viewed rather unfavorably at the moment, including Obama, although his favorables are much higher than Congress'. People are just pissed off.
I also saw an interesting poll regarding Libya the other day that showed most people claimed to be opposed, yet when asked about the specific actions we've actually been taking there, they were all viewed favorably by the majority of respondents. Very similar to how people have an unfavorable view of the word "liberal," yet overall strongly support traditionally liberal causes. Take from that what you will..
Quote from: nathanm on April 13, 2011, 12:34:25 AM
Very similar to how people have an unfavorable view of the word "liberal," yet overall strongly support traditionally liberal causes.
Supporting a generic goal (cause) is not the same as supporting the method to get there.
Fill in your own examples.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 13, 2011, 08:14:25 AM
Supporting a generic goal (cause) is not the same as supporting the method to get there.
Like it or not, most people in this country are in favor of progressive taxation. They are in favor of welfare, so long as there's a path to work involved for those who can work. They are even in favor of a public option for healthcare. Too bad the Democratic leadership wasn't in favor of that last one.
It never ceases to amaze me that the discourse in this country (and more particularly on this board) is far to the right of Teddy freakin' Roosevelt. If I advocated the things he advocated, I'd be called a communist.
Quote from: nathanm on April 13, 2011, 01:41:20 PM
Like it or not, most people in this country are in favor of progressive taxation. They are in favor of welfare, so long as there's a path to work involved for those who can work. They are even in favor of a public option for healthcare. Too bad the Democratic leadership wasn't in favor of that last one.
It never ceases to amaze me that the discourse in this country (and more particularly on this board) is far to the right of Teddy freakin' Roosevelt. If I advocated the things he advocated, I'd be called a communist.
I believe most people are in favor of giving a helping hand over a hand out. Better healthcare yes. Public option, maybe as a last resort. I don't believe much of anyone wants to see people starve and lose their home because of medical issues. How we get there is the obvious difference.
It doesn't amaze me that you are amazed. Different vantage points.
Quote from: nathanm on April 13, 2011, 01:41:20 PM
Like it or not, most people in this country are in favor of progressive taxation. They are in favor of welfare, so long as there's a path to work involved for those who can work. They are even in favor of a public option for healthcare. Too bad the Democratic leadership wasn't in favor of that last one.
You mean to tell me that the majority of Americans want stuff and have others pay for it? I am shocked.
Quote from: guido911 on April 13, 2011, 02:43:22 PM
You mean to tell me that the majority of Americans want stuff and have others pay for it? I am shocked.
Sometimes I can't believe how bitter you are about living in this country.
Quote from: we vs us on April 13, 2011, 03:07:10 PM
Sometimes I can't believe how bitter you are about living in this country.
Bitter about living here? Nope. Bitter that I have to pay while nearly half don't? Yep. Incidentally, to the joy of a few in here, I have looked into moving to Grand Cayman. Love that place (except for turtle stew), and its tax structure doesn't punish the successful.
Quote from: guido911 on April 13, 2011, 03:50:51 PM
Bitter about living here? Nope. Bitter that I have to pay while nearly half don't? Yep. Incidentally, to the joy of a few in here, I have looked into moving to Grand Cayman. Love that place (except for turtle stew), and its tax structure doesn't punish the successful.
Please, try it out. Let me know how well it works out for you when some other country figures out how to become an even better tax haven. You have a strange definition of punish, by the way.
Tim Pawlenty is accidentally honest and then dials it back.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110413/ts_yblog_theticket/tim-pawlenty-is-running-for-president-he-just-doesnt-want-to-formally-admit-it-just-yet (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110413/ts_yblog_theticket/tim-pawlenty-is-running-for-president-he-just-doesnt-want-to-formally-admit-it-just-yet)
QuoteThe unfortunate thing for Pawlenty is that his honest admission--and let's face it, the Minnesota governor's supposed gaffe was a case of him actually telling the truth--focuses a spotlight on the sillier aspects of the behind-the-scenes plotting of a presidential bid, which proceeds every four years with the help of the media.
Most average people won't get why Pawlenty's aides tried so hard to knock down the story--especially when it's more likely than not the former Minnesota governor will ultimately "formally" admit in a few days or weeks that he's actually in the race.