New Study Finds Koch Bros. Tried to Start Tea Party Movement in 2002

[boutons_deux]

"No one manipulated them thinking that we are spending too much money!"

sucker!

The "deficit" occurred because the VRWC got the taxes cut on the 1% and corps, while the Repugs SPENT on 2 botched, bogus wars, Medicare Part D/Advantage, etc. Now the VRWC/Repugs are saying the deficit, which THEY caused (St Ronnie doubled it, dubya tripled it, their financial deregulation cratered the economy+revenue), is the problem when REVENUE is the problem.

[Capt Bringdown]

No one manipulated them thinking that we are spending too much money! Did Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan manipulate people too?

What is the correct amount of spending?

[spursncowboys]

What is the correct amount of spending?

Annually?

[Winehole23]

I'm just relieved they have the sense and means to defend their research viability instead of bending over for rich -wads that don't have any interest in the public good.

State ins utions and nonprofits don't just get to spend their monies as they like. They either applied for a grant to fund their study, were given a donation restricted to use for the study, or used unrestricted donation monies as a defensive measure following a simple calculation that fewer taxes would equal less revenue for research.

EDIT: nice find, OP.

not private? sounds like you and DarrinS know a little more than me.

I yield.

[Wild Cobra]

anecdotal confirmation from WC.

The whole idea of the "tea party" never died. To say that one or two groups is responsible is so laughable...

[Winehole23]

zombification? I believe it.

[ElNono]

No one manipulated them thinking that we are spending too much money! Did Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan manipulate people too?

Is that the same Reagan that was talking up 'starving the beast' while he was paying with the national credit card?

[Winehole23]

Grover Norquist more like, but I know what you mean.

Did Reagan actually say that?

[Winehole23]

he backed it up rhetorically, of course, but what I would be interested to know is, did he ever use those exact words: starve the beast?

[ElNono]

he backed it up rhetorically, of course, but what I would be interested to know is, did he ever use those exact words: starve the beast?

Apparently it's attributed to one of his staffers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

[admiralsnackbar]

not private? sounds like you and DarrinS know a little more than me.

I yield.

NIH is a division of the Dept. of Health. Is that what you were referring to? I may have missed your drift.

[ElNono]

I don't know how I went from that Wiki entry to this article, but looks like a good read, so I figured I'll pass it along:

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...sed-community/

[Winehole23]

no no, my powers of reading obviously failed.

[boutons_deux]

I don't know how I went from that Wiki entry to this article, but looks like a good read, so I figured I'll pass it along:

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...sed-community/

"There appears to be no recognition that their defects are far, far deeper and will require serious introspection and rethinking of how Republicans can win going forward."

Repug "introspection" ?

Repug "re-thinking" ?

Repug is the fantasy-based community

Rubio is gonna SAVE THE GOP?

Rubio is gonna BRING THE LATINO VOTE?

Just like King Canute commanded the tide to stop!

[sjacquemotte]

I don't know how I went from that Wiki entry to this article, but looks like a good read, so I figured I'll pass it along:

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...sed-community/

Read it. One Thing I noticed about the bout the guy is his terrible timing. A dems against blacks book while Obama is being nominated. An economic book in the crisis. A bush book in 06. I almost feel bad for the guy. The other thing I noticed is his hatred for bush. I guess being blacklisted will do that. But that is probably when it happened. Not while researching. But kudos to his overall honesty. But Stating supply side is dead and being a supply side guy, then becoming a pure complete Keynesian? Come on... Krugman was right? In what?

[Clipper Nation]

No one manipulated them thinking that we are spending too much money! Did Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan manipulate people too?

Reagan certainly did... Iran Contra, for example...

[spursncowboys]

Reagan certainly did... Iran Contra, for example...

Reagan had no personal advantage or benefit in the Iran/Contra scandal.

[Clipper Nation]

Reagan had no personal advantage or benefit in the Iran/Contra scandal.

You asked if he manipulated people, and he didPERIOD

[spursncowboys]

You asked if he manipulated people, and he didPERIOD

You don't know what manipulate means. Also that is not the same context that is being used for the subject at hand. Maybe you should just go back to licking windows.

[ElNono]

Read it. One Thing I noticed about the bout the guy is his terrible timing. A dems against blacks book while Obama is being nominated. An economic book in the crisis. A bush book in 06. I almost feel bad for the guy. The other thing I noticed is his hatred for bush. I guess being blacklisted will do that. But that is probably when it happened. Not while researching. But kudos to his overall honesty. But Stating supply side is dead and being a supply side guy, then becoming a pure complete Keynesian? Come on... Krugman was right? In what?

He wrote the race book thinking Hillary would get the nomination and it would actually help the GOP. As far as supply-side, he says most of the "good" about it has been absorbed into mainstream economics, and it just isn't the novelty it was in the 80's. I actually think he's very honest in saying that when cir stances change, the 'solutions' need to change too (ie: supply side isn't the answer on a recession, it was a novel way to get out of stagflation back in the day). Eventually supply-side will become relevant again when we're in that situation, IMO.

[spursncowboys]

ElNono:

So I wrote Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past. Unfortunately, it was published the day Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses. But I still held out hope that Hillary Clinton, who was pandering to the white working class in unsubtle racial terms, would capture the Democratic nomination. The anger among blacks at having the nomination effectively stolen from Obama would make them highly receptive to GOP outreach, I believed. I even met with John McCain’s staff about this.

The book was already written.

I concluded that the anti-immigrant at ude among the Republican base was too severe for the party to reach out meaningfully to the fast-growing Latino community.

I know the Republicans were against the illegal immigration, but never knew they were against immigration. That was something the left and media used, not republican insiders. You think a Republican would have gotten that one right, like D. Brooks.

[ElNono]

The book was already written.

thanks, somehow I misread that.

[Wild Cobra]

In other news, New Study shows that Al Gore will be featured in the next edition of Rolling Stone.

[DarrinS]

Damn -- Al Gore drops this same article on Huffing Paint and it barely gets any responses. Perhaps no one cares about this "study".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gor...b_2689380.html

[Stringer_Bell]

I don't have to read a sham study on the origins of "The Tea Party." I know for a fact that it started to take shape during GW's 2nd term, before Obama was ever named the Democratic nominee. It was all about speaking out against the Fed Reserve and Patriot Act - but the movement eventually got hijacked by the GOP and old white people. 'Tis a shame, really. In fact, I recall the Tea Party having at least as many coloreds as whites. *smh*