Teabagger challenge

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
  • The unemployment rate is stuck at 9.2%, if we vote President Obama out of office and follow the guidance of the Tea Party, when will the unemployment rate be down to 6% or below?



  • Pick one job killing regulation and tell me how many jobs would be created if we got rid of it.



  • The vast majority of Government spending goes to privately–owned companies like defense contractors (military spending), medical professionals (Medicare), construction companies and major manufacturers. What happens to the jobs at these companies if one of their biggest clients stops buying their product or using their services?




  • What component of the Government would you get rid of first, how much money would it save the nation, and how many jobs would be created if we got rid of it?
 
How come none of the JPP Teabaggers feels like answering these questions?


:dunno:​
 
\(\(V\/V)/)/ said:
How come none of the JPP Teabaggers feels like answering these questions?


:dunno:​
Click to expand...

watch
 
Usually, concern with people "voting against their interests" involves interests that are arguably distant and even theoretical.

It's easy to lose sight of the connection between liberal politicians promoting strong environmental regulations and having clean water or clean air.


Even with issues like minimum wage and other job protections, it's private employers the average person is dealing with, not the government.


It's not smart to miss the fact that your job is safer, better, and pays more because of liberal politicians, then vote for politicians who will repeal all those protections, but it's not difficult to see how people do miss it after all.


It's a bit harder to comprehend how people can oppose government benefits while living off of government benefits, can oppose the publicly-funded health insurance while relying on publicly-funded Medicare, and so forth.


The contradictions here appear to be far stronger and more obvious than the contradictions in cases like those mentioned above.


These aren't professional pundits and politicians doing this, so they aren't just lying because it's part of their jobs.


These are regular people who must be presumed to be expressing genuine beliefs — especially since they are acting on those beliefs.


You can tell what people genuinely believe by observing their actions, so if their actions contradict professed beliefs you can reasonably conclude that their genuine beliefs aren't exactly what they are saying.


http://www.skepticism.org/propaganda-posters/tea-baggers-politics-of-resentment-self-destruction.html
 
Return of Dune said:
Good post, thanks.
Click to expand...


If people have constructed a self-image which is based, at least in part, on resentment against those who receive direct government assistance, then any attempt to provide them with direct government assistance threatens that self-image and will therefore be treated quite naturally as a threat.


The fact that they receive other forms of assistance is irrelevant so long as they can keep up the charade that it's not really from the government or that they "earned" it somehow (unlike those lazy X who don't deserve it).


A situation like this might make it possible for a person to both fight to preserve the government assistance they receive as "just" while fighting even harder to not receive any more government assistance because that would be "socialism."


Two contradictory beliefs may thus be genuinely held and acted upon, and it comes back at least in some ways to things like the Republican "Southern Strategy" of gaining more white votes by promoting resentment, fear, suspicion, and outright hatred of non-whites.


In a sense, this "white" identity which Republicans have worked hard to construct is helping shorten the lives and destroy the economic security of their white supporters. But neither good health nor economic security is actually necessary to secure votes and maintain power for the privileged elites, is it?


Indeed, a bit of insecurity and ill health may actually help because it will increase their fears — fear that they won't "make it" into the big leagues and/or that members of other groups might surpass them.


Such fears can make people desperate, inducing ever more extreme behavior.



http://www.skepticism.org/propaganda-posters/tea-baggers-politics-of-resentment-self-destruction.html
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top