Big gov't bigger threat than big biz: Poll

A poll result David Axelord and Mark Silva don't want readers to find out about:

"Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans have a favorable view of the “tea parties” held nationwide last week, including 32% who say their view of the events is Very favorable.

Thirty-three percent (33%) hold an unfavorable opinion of the tea parties according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure.

While half the nation has a favorable opinion of last Wednesday’s events, the nation’s Political Class has a much dimmer view—just 13% of the political elite offered even a somewhat favorable assessment while 81% said the opposite. Among the Political Class, not a single survey respondent said they had a Very Favorable opinion of the events while 60% shared a Very Unfavorable assessment.

One-in-four adults (25%) say they personally know someone who attended a tea party protest. That figure includes just one percent (1%) of those in the Political Class."

See Rasmussenreports.com for more

"80 percent of Republicans view big government as the biggest threat to the country"

Yep, the Rethugs would rather sell us out to their big business cronies (KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater etc). Which is all the better for the Rethug politicians who get $$$ kickbacks and lobbyist gifts for their "selfless" actions.

Medicare is Govt. And I want Medicare for All, so I suppose I'm a (shudder) Socialist!

Just imagine if we had not managed to stop the Bush/Republican stampede of idiocy, Social Security would be bankrupt if the Bushian Republican idiots had invested in the stock market like they wanted to.

Social Security: try winning an election while attacking this- then also attack Medicare- that will show who really votes in this country.

Could we have finally reached a point where the 28 years of Reagan Idiocy is over?

"What's a bigger threat?

Big government, or big business?"


You needed to take a poll to figure that out? Oy.

about:"Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans have a favorable view of the “tea parties” held nationwide last week, including 32% who say their view of the events is Very favorable.
Posted by: Party gal | April 20, 2009 2:31 PM
.

Ha ha ha! Thanks for the "fair & balanced" Faux "poll" results, Teresa.

There are many striking things about a bunch of self-entitled Republican white men, crouching down together, waving bags of dried tea leaves in the air as they whine vaguely about losing the country they've been in firm control of for eight long years. Not the least of which is the fact that they decided to call themselves "teabaggers".

How about a survey showing how many Democrats are on public payrolls as opposed to Republicans? In Chicago, it's like 99.9 percent (there's maybe one Republican in the post office). If you're on the public dole, sure you're going to love big government.

Republicans Less Popular Than Venezuela

New polling from CNN indicates that anti-American, oil-cartel, socialist block forming Venezuela is now viewed more favorably than the Republican Party.

Here is CNN's most recent favorable / unfavorable poll on the Republican Party:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Feb. 18-19, 2009. N=1,046 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3B
.
"Next, we'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. The Republican Party."
.
Favorable: 39%--54% Unfavorable
.
http://www.pollingreport.com/institut2.htm#Republicans
--------

Here is CNN's most recent favorable / unfavorable poll on Venezuela:

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. April 3-5, 2009. N=1,023 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
.
"Next, I'd like your overall opinion of some foreign countries. Is your overall opinion of each of the following very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable? . . ."
.
Country V Fav M Fav M Unfav V Unfav
France 15% 53% 19% 15%
Turkey 9% 52% 26% 8%
Mexico 9% 43% 26% 20%
Russia 6% 41% 35% 16%
China 9% 37% 33% 20%
Venezuela 8% 34% 31% 23%
Cuba 9% 29% 40% 21%
.
Overall, Venezuela comes out 42% favorable, 54% unfavorable in this poll, providing the country a slightly more positive rating than Republicans. China and Russia also easily outpace Republicans. Cuba, at 38% favorable, 61% unfavorable, isn't too far behind Republicans.
.
http://www.pollingreport.com/nations.htm

This has been another edition of "stuff more popular than Republicans."

Medicare is Govt. And I want Medicare for All, so I suppose I'm a (shudder) Socialist!
Posted by: Leah S | April 20, 2009 3:02 PM

Leah S.- skipped all of those civics and US government classes in high school huh?

Medicare is not government- medicare is a program where the government takes peoples earned income and then uses that revenue to pay for other peoples health care, all with no constituional authority... so, you are mistaken, your petulant expectation that the government "give" you medicare is actually facistic not socialistic---

We have a constitution that provides limited -enumerated- rights to our federal government. The whole point of the US constitution was to provide a clear definition of where the newly created centralized government responsibilities ends... everything else, by law belongs to the states (the people).

One of the few rights provided to the fed is the ability to enforce federal law-at the point of a gun - if necessary, and we DON'T want to keep this limited why?

51% have a favorable view of tea parties protesting the Bushies' bank and AIG bailouts.

Is there a website that gives specific information on polling?

Does it include the questions asked, gender, race, state, party affliation, age of people questioned.

From now on all media should reference a site to visit that has this information.

Leah S,
I could't agree with you more. It's laughable the way teabaggers like heartburn twist themselves up in knots making arguments against govt programs being govt programs so it will convienantly fit into their wingnut ideological agenda.

Govt fails (New Orleans) when the Repugs are in charge of it because they hate govt.

* * * * *
Posted by: heartburn | April 20, 2009 4:13 PM
.
You know, after a certain point, the difference between fascism and socialism becomes irrelevant. Fascists in Italy and Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s accepted continental socialism (i.e. non-Marxist socialism) as a basic philosophy of government. Fascists and socialists alike believe in the collectivization and regimentation of society under central government control as well as the establishment of a central font of wealth distribution. The only factor distinguishing socialism from fascism is that fascism has historically emphasized non-diversity and ultra-nationalism.
.
The long and short is that, yes, Leah S. really does support socialism. That’s because “Medicare for All” would necessarily require even more collectivization and redistribution of wealth in this country. If you want to call it fascism, that’s not wrong either. Either one is a betrayal of the founding philosophy of freedom.

* * * * *
Posted by: heartburn | April 20, 2009 4:13 PM
.
P.S. - You kept referring to the Constitution as giving the government “rights.” Actually, the Constitution confers “powers” on the government as well as limitations on those powers. (See U.S. Const., Art. I, §§ 8 & 9; & id., Amend. X.) People have “rights.” Other than that, I totally agree with what you wrote about the misuse of powers by the feds.

Posted by: see for myself | April 20, 2009 4:40 PM

Just do a search on the internet, using say; Government polls April 2009

Then check out the links, and be careful just incase you hit a corrupt site.

Big govermentt fits Obam's Socialist Agenda perfect.

Swamp Scoreboard:
-----------------------

Leah S - 3
kenneth - 2
antacid - 1
heartburn - 0
John W - 0

******************
Posted by: John W. | April 20, 2009 5:27 PM
.

Conservatives have been in a historical state of mind lately, and as it has been pretty entertaining to watch.

First came the teabaggers, the faux spontaneous uprising backed by corporate contributors, carefully planned Astroturf consultants, and Fox News sponsorship and promotion night and day. Then we saw the right-wing Governor of Texas casually throw out the idea of secession from the union. Now we see conservatives debating amongst themselves whether to call Obama a socialist or a fascist. (My favorite quote from the story on this is from former Michigan GOP party chair Saul Anuzis: "You've got to be careful using the term 'economic fascism' in the right way, so it doesn't come as extreme.")

Conservatives know this country is at a historical crossroads, and I suspect that what they fear most is that they are just as much on the wrong side of history as their ideological ancestors were in the 1860s when the end of slavery was being debated, in the early 1900s when women's suffrage was being debated, in the 1930s when social security and the minimum wage were being debated, and in the 1960s when the civil rights were being debated. In every single one of those historical debates, conservatives:

-labeled their opposition socialists (and worse)
-called for states' rights instead of a federal solution
-said that they were the true heirs of the founding fathers, and were the keepers of America's traditions and values
-warned that the charges being proposed were frighteningly radical, and would destroy the economy
-that big government would lead to a destruction of all of our most basic liberties

These conservative arguments have always been tinged with more than a little hysteria, just like today. And no matter what, conservatives always insisted they owned the moral high ground. Defenders of slavery argued that slavery was not an evil but in John Calhoun's words, "a positive good," and that Southern society was based on the institution. Those opposing women's suffrage said giving women the right to vote would destroy the American family. Conservatives in the 1930s argued about social security that "never in the history of the world has any measure brought here so incisively designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers, and to prevent any possibility of the employers providing work for the people." Southerners violently opposed the end of Jim Crow, arguing that it "encroached upon the reserved rights of the states and the people."

Conservatives have always hysterically opposed progressive change. They have used the same arguments-for tradition and states rights, against "big government socialism" -- in every era. In those past eras, history was not on their side. It is not in our time, either.

Posted by: John W. | April 20, 2009 5:27 PM

John W.- Good post(s)...you communicate very well.

Agree with your point about the blurred lines between Fascism and Socialism... my rant at Leah was pretty much due to the dogmatic ideological tone of her posts defining Medicare as Government...whether it is based in socialism or happy fascism- either way there is no support in our constitution for her "I want... ( fill in the blank) so government should provide (it).
||
To your point about the ultra- nationalistic trait of the fascistic governments of a number of early European countries- far be it for a left wing person here and now to assume any of the ultra loyal or nationalistic traits attributable to what we call fascism related to the US and our culture or form of government. Patriotism, core beliefs based on religion, or challenging government expansion are usually mocked and dismissed offhand. The progressive goal for the better part of the last hundred years has been to "bring it all down". That the fascists in Germany had similar goals cannot be ignored.

Govt fails (New Orleans) when the Repugs are in charge of it because they hate govt.

Posted by: antacid | April 20, 2009 5:11 PM

I challenge you to diagram this sentence.

* * * * *
Posted by: swamp scoreboard | April 21, 2009 12:06 AM
.
There is no scoreboard. You are a fraud. Is that you, JohnEEE-boy?

* * * * *
Posted by: Dean Victorino | April 21, 2009 4:23 AM
.
Thanks for the plagiarism. See
http://www.openleft.com/diary/12942/historical-hysterical-conservatives
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5500082
http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/pol/1132318921.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/historical-hysterical-con_b_189069.html
.
- all of which attribute your little spiel to a person names Mike Lux.
.
As far as Mike Lux is concerned, he gets an “A” for propaganda, but an “F” in history.
.
Anyone who is stupid enough to think of John Calhoun as a conservative is too stupid to be trusted anywhere near the media. The concept of “nullification” is not a conservative notion - especially when confronted with Article VI of the Constitution. The same is true of people who think that “states rights” aren’t in the Constitution (see U.S. Const., Amend. X), that the founding fathers favored a large, central government in Washington, that they favored the federal government over state governments (read Elliot’s Debates, and particularly the debates in the Virginia Ratification Convention), or that any of the above, or other concerns about individual freedom are “tinged with hysteria.” (The last one is a common propaganda tool: If you can’t answer an argument, call your opponent nuts.)
.
History was on the side of conservatives in the past. With each new era of times gone by came a fresh infusion of freedom. Freedom, as Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine of old would say, is the proper end of all governmental and social institutions. The abolition of slavery was brought about by those who took to heart the founder’s ideal that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - and more so, many would say, than even the founders themselves. That is also the ideal upon which conservatives oppose large government. Large government means less freedom in every area it touches.
.
True, history was not on the side of conservatives in the debate over social security. And now look and see where the resolution of the Social Security debate has led us. Social Security was sold to the American public by fraudulent means, and now threatens to overwhelm us with crushing debt (if Obama doesn’t do it to us first). Because Congress has been spending all the money we pay in payroll taxes, the Social Security Trust Fund (and if that isn’t an oxymoron, I don’t know what is) is funded only with government bonds - i.e. public debt. With fewer and fewer people paying into Social Security as the population grows older, the system will eventually run us into trillions of dollars in debt - especially as all the baby-boomers continue to retire in large numbers, unless the government collects even more revenue to pay off the obligations. And all of this is aside from the debt that we are going to incur from the doubling of the debt with all of this new spending. This is all too typical of what happens when “progressives” and other pseudo-liberals start acting without thinking of the long term consequences. The same is true of all the social welfare programs they have constructed.
.
Mr. Lux may be right that history will be on the side of so-called “progressives” (rather than conservatives) in the current debate over big government. Then again, reason, sanity, far-sightedness or the love of freedom won’t be.

.
Posted by: John W. | April 20, 2009 5:27 PM
.

Poor little Johnny Dubya,

If your half baked Ron Paul political views and your legal skills were worth a damn you wouldn't be spending all your time bleeting on the internet every day.

* * * * *
Posted by: huh? | April 21, 2009 6:22 PM
.
I was in trial from the end of February through the third week of March. After trial, in the evenings, and when I am not in trial, I spend my time working on a computer doing legal research. I come to the Swamp sometimes when I take a break. I can do that because I am my own boss. In which case, I am working all the time.
.
I’m sorry if you don’t realize that it doesn’t take me all day to write the stuff that I do. In which case, I am not spending “all my time” here.
.
So Mr. JohnEEE-boy, wannabe - put a sock in the B.S.