A Nation of Couch Potatoes

Remember when Gov. Chris Christie warned that if we don't get rid of these redistributionist government programs "...we'll have a bunch of people sittin’ on a couch waiting for their next government check,”?
That was an interesting choice of metaphors coming from someone who, as a consequence of eating too many potatoes, could easily function as a couch.
Other Republicons have gone even further than the politician who is so fat he could teeter-totter with Marlon Brando. They claim that we are already there.
Rick Santorum said "...a little less than 50 percent of the people in this country depend on some form of federal payment, some form of government benefit to help provide for them,"
Gov. Romney made the same claim recently when he slandered 47% of the American people.

When I first heard them start to use this talking point I was like, "what the hell are they talking about? Are they just taking notes from Rush Dimbulb's radio show now and repeating the garbage he routinely pulls out of his big fat lard ass and expecting us all to believe it? Don't they realize that we live in the age of computers and fact checking?"
So I went to my computer and checked out PolitiFact.com to see what the story is.
They rated Santorum's statement Mostly True!
However, when you dig deep and look at how they come to this conclusion, things get interesting and very informative.

I attribute the success of right-wing propaganda/talking points to four main factors:
1) They are able to construct very simple arguments based on superficial appearances and assumptions. This is very easy to do.
2) They are able to make these arguments in a way that strikes our emotional chords. These arguments provoke our sense of outrage by creating the impression that a grave injustice is being done. This is also very easy to do.
3) They are able to manipulate the media in away where they can endlessly repeat these arguments over and over until they are accepted as true. This takes much more skill but is still relatively easy because of factor # 4.
4) Countering these arguments requires a much deeper understanding of reality, of how things work, of the 'big picture.' This is much more difficult to do. Plus it cannot be done in a simple sound bite.

Let me give you a few examples.
Right-wing talking points:
Joseph Stalin was bad therefore Communism is bad therefore socialism is bad therefore anything we label as socialism is bad.
Could I show the fallacy of that statement? Yes.
Could I do it in one short sentence? No way.
It would take several paragraphs.

Universal healthcare is bad because it rations healthcare and creates Death Panels, plus it's socialism and we can't afford it.
Again, it would take several paragraphs to explain the problems with that one sentence.

Obama apologizes for American values and sympathizes with the terrorists.
It took me 13 paragraphs to show how the US Embassy in Cairo's statement was not an apology, did not sympathize with the terrorists and actually defended American values. I did that in the following post:
http://liberalbabyboomer.blogspot.com/2012/09/brave-mitt.html
No wonder the Obama administration decided to disavow the Embassy statement rather than try to win that sound bite 'debate' through the media.

Which brings us to the right wing talking point which is the topic of this post:
Redistributionist policies take from the producers and give to the moochers.

See what I'm saying? See how easy it is to make the conservative argument? See how powerful the emotional impact of those arguments are? If they are believed they will enrage conservatives and shame liberals.
Obviously, Republiconservative politicians and talking heads want us to believe that redistributionist policies are causing us to become unwilling or unable to work because we are lazy and dependent on government.
Now this is definitely a plausible argument that shouldn't be dismissed by the left and needs to be carefully examined, which is what I intend to do in the following posts.

I want to demonstrate how Christie's, Santorum's and Romney's arguments are based on twisted and distorted facts, mixed in with enough bullshit to balance out a scale with Chris Christie on the other end of it. And by my estimations that bullshit would have to weigh at least a ton in order to do that.
But because reading a long complex explanation is almost as difficult as making one, I've decided to make that explanation in a separate post. So please stay tuned.