Well, here's where your whole train of logic breaks down.
You're assuming that because Fox _said_ they're FNC Tea Parties, that they're Fox news-based.
Guess what. They aren't. I can honestly say I've watched a total of 10 minutes of Fox news coverage in the last 6 months. If that, and then only because that's what the TV in the waiting room happened to be tuned to.
Rick Santelli may have provided a high-profile, made-for-media moment, but the Tea Parties are, really, not a Santelli creation (he was reacting to the first Tea Party, and suggesting they bring it to Chicago), and certainly not an Fox-created thing.
This is grass roots. Just as much as, if not more than, Moveon, DKos, or any of the other left groups when they got going (which, note, have evolved into online astroturf groups - I'm really hoping this doesn't head the same direction).
To give you the kind of answer you think you want, I wouldn't have been lynched, a lot of people would have wanted to think about it, and such a proposal would have been seriously received. That being said, fundamentally at that place, at that time, it's a distraction. Like I said previously _and you ignored_, that's not the set of bills that were passed, that's not the stimulus that got railroaded through, and that's not the debate we're having. So your continued insistence on it is a deliberate distraction. It's a smokescreen, so you can ignore the issue.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Fox decided to slant reporting to favor their corporate political agenda. They have one, so does every other network and print media source. I find it interesting that a group put, what, 1.5m people on the streets around the country, in a coordinated manner, in over 700 cities... and the best the Merc could do for coverage was a little blip on the bottom of the business section. Oh, and speaking of distorting the figures... Yep, Cavuto got caught. Guess what. The Merc did the same thing, in the other direction. And got caught, by multiple observers. Only thing missing is the open-mic smoking gun.
And frankly, you mistake my preferences, though I can see why. What I said originally was that IF we're going to do something like this, it should be done differently. The case studies say so, the historic models say so, and any idiot with a calculator says so. IF we're going to have Stimulus bill, it needs to be done differently. We've mortgaged our future on this thing, and spent the proceeds foolishly. We've used the next two generations as an ATM to prop up social programs we can't afford, and buy into new ones we definitely can't afford.
But that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the necessity of the Stimulus bill in the first place. The underlying issue was always getting the credit markets unfrozen (which, note, they still are, to a significant extent). Anything that distracts from that is wasted effort. Anything not aimed at that is, frankly, not relevant. We've already demonstrated that TARP was the wrong approach (and continues to be so). The Stimulus bill? No better.
My preference, that being said, is for smaller government. Frankly, (a) I have problems with the growth of the last 30+ years, and (b) I don't see that the Stimulus bill was a good idea _in the first place_. I'm one of those "balanced budget, less government is good government" people.
It's difficult to convert a negative protest movement into a positive movement for something. Yep. As the anti-prop-8 folks so clearly demonstrated.
no subject
You're assuming that because Fox _said_ they're FNC Tea Parties, that they're Fox news-based.
Guess what. They aren't. I can honestly say I've watched a total of 10 minutes of Fox news coverage in the last 6 months. If that, and then only because that's what the TV in the waiting room happened to be tuned to.
Rick Santelli may have provided a high-profile, made-for-media moment, but the Tea Parties are, really, not a Santelli creation (he was reacting to the first Tea Party, and suggesting they bring it to Chicago), and certainly not an Fox-created thing.
This is grass roots. Just as much as, if not more than, Moveon, DKos, or any of the other left groups when they got going (which, note, have evolved into online astroturf groups - I'm really hoping this doesn't head the same direction).
To give you the kind of answer you think you want, I wouldn't have been lynched, a lot of people would have wanted to think about it, and such a proposal would have been seriously received. That being said, fundamentally at that place, at that time, it's a distraction. Like I said previously _and you ignored_, that's not the set of bills that were passed, that's not the stimulus that got railroaded through, and that's not the debate we're having. So your continued insistence on it is a deliberate distraction. It's a smokescreen, so you can ignore the issue.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Fox decided to slant reporting to favor their corporate political agenda. They have one, so does every other network and print media source. I find it interesting that a group put, what, 1.5m people on the streets around the country, in a coordinated manner, in over 700 cities... and the best the Merc could do for coverage was a little blip on the bottom of the business section. Oh, and speaking of distorting the figures... Yep, Cavuto got caught. Guess what. The Merc did the same thing, in the other direction. And got caught, by multiple observers. Only thing missing is the open-mic smoking gun.
And frankly, you mistake my preferences, though I can see why. What I said originally was that IF we're going to do something like this, it should be done differently. The case studies say so, the historic models say so, and any idiot with a calculator says so. IF we're going to have Stimulus bill, it needs to be done differently. We've mortgaged our future on this thing, and spent the proceeds foolishly. We've used the next two generations as an ATM to prop up social programs we can't afford, and buy into new ones we definitely can't afford.
But that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the necessity of the Stimulus bill in the first place. The underlying issue was always getting the credit markets unfrozen (which, note, they still are, to a significant extent). Anything that distracts from that is wasted effort. Anything not aimed at that is, frankly, not relevant. We've already demonstrated that TARP was the wrong approach (and continues to be so). The Stimulus bill? No better.
My preference, that being said, is for smaller government. Frankly, (a) I have problems with the growth of the last 30+ years, and (b) I don't see that the Stimulus bill was a good idea _in the first place_. I'm one of those "balanced budget, less government is good government" people.
It's difficult to convert a negative protest movement into a positive movement for something.
Yep. As the anti-prop-8 folks so clearly demonstrated.