Forum Post: A MESSAGE TO THE TEA PARTY:
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 6, 2011, 11:49 a.m. EST by AN0NYM0US
(640)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
You want smaller Government, you want our constitution to be upheld, you want free markets!
We all want those things in one way or another. People are calling us the left version of the Tea Party. So Join us! Join us and together we can demand from our government what we deserve!
If anyone knows any Tea Party groups, invite them!
I'm not for smaller government
I am for a government controlled by the people
Same here. A smaller Corporatist controlled Gov't serves no one but its masters here on Wall st.
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher
The government should be doing what it is supposed to be doing - 1) delivering the mail; 2) defending our borders; and 3) coining OUR OWN money. In the first - it is failing and needing a bailout; in the second two, our government has absconded its responsibility altogether.
1) Well, no, the mail has been delivered--without any tax dollars whatsoever for many many years. Until the Internet, the USPS was doing just fine, funding itself. This is not a failure as much as a readjustment to an unfortunate reality, to wit, people just aren't sending mail or paying bills through snailmail like they used to, because they're doing it all online.
2) Defending our borders. This is a euphemism for one of the key planks of the Tea Party, to wit: kick out all illegal immigrants. Unless you are a Native American, you're an immigrant. Diversity is what made this country great, but there's not a lot of diversity in the Tea Party (although they've been trying to increase it).
3) I think you mean "abdicated" its responsibility. I'm not sure what you mean by coining our own money and how that was a failure. We do have something called the US Mint--they coin money.
Anyway, quoting Margaret Thatcher doesn't make an argument. Whose money is the "other people's money"? Today, The "mega-rich" pay about 15 percent in taxes, while the middle class "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot. (source: http://tinyurl.com/3udnd56). Should they be able to pay lower taxes and keep more money than those who make so much less? Makes no sense.
Warren Buffett is right.
Somehow I don't think Warren Buffett is on our team. He didn't make his money through Hathaway by being a bleeding-heart supporter of the little guy.
Congress has handed over the control of our money supply to a private banking institution - the Federal Reserve.
And as for the borders, you are probably familiar with the present ATF fast and furious scandal.
I don't think you are on "our team" either - so stop trying to spoil the positive energy here!
No, and I'm not one of the 99% affected by the crisis either. The reality is that there are a lot of different viewpoints here, and apparently your view of "our team" doesn't include people like me.
Sorry, no, you don't understand the comment--I should have been more specific. Buffett suggested that the richest 1% should pay more in taxes. As one of the wealthiest guys on the planet (who made his money by buying companies and stocks, btw), he thinks that wealth should be more equally distributed. That's the point:
Warren Buffett calls for higher taxes for US super-rich • 'Mega-rich get extraordinary tax breaks' • Investor says move needed to tackle US debts • Strong Tea Party opposition to tax rises
"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks," wrote Buffett, whose personal fortune was estimated at $50bn (£30bn) by Forbes this year, making him the third richest person in the world behind Carlos Slim and Bill Gates. [source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/15/warren-buffett-higher-taxes-super-rich]
And yes, in spite of what you think, apparently he's much more of a bleeding heart for the little guy than anyone on the right. Not one person, including any of the people I've had to fact-down on this board, has agreed that more taxes should be levied on the wealthy. Not one. Of course, therein lies the ironic rub: Anyone who wants to join/integrate with #OWS, better seriously consider getting on board with the basics: INCREASE TAXES ON THE WEALTHY. Yes, I know I'm yelling, because that's what they're chanting down on Wall Street.
Borders: Yes, I read about it. Horrendous incompetence. A lot of what the government does is incompetent. Of course, no less incompetent are corporations. In fact, the government uses sooooo many contractors now, that I'd be shocked if a lot of what happened was a result of contractors. I don't trust the ATF or the FBI anymore than you do...
Yes, everyone on the right hates grandmothers, wants to starve little children, and wants to stick it to the poor.
Come on, we all want to change the system.
My point is that Warren Buffett is one of the foxes - for him to say that he's wants to pay more taxes, so the government should raise them - how are they going to squeeze money out of offshore accounts? Out of NGO's and charitable foundations? Because many of 'the rich' as you define them do not make money through salaries, they make money through Capital gains.
Warren Buffet is full of shit! If he wanted to pay higher taxes he could. The govt allows you to donate and he does not do that! The reason he pays a lower tax rate is because he collects his income passively. Meaning through investments. Most Americans do not! Our complicated tax system is killing the average American. You want Change yet you vote for morons like Obama and left wing loonies like Pelosi, Dodd, Reid.Frank etc. Get out of the streets and stop wasting tax payer dollars. You voted for them and now you complain! Your all a Joke!
There is a way to achieve what you both want. CUT OFF THE MONEY! WHY? Because .....Money is the Root of al Evil! Now wait,,,WAIT......I'm sure you have all heard this phrase. So if it is true....then to accomplish your goal of stopping Greed and the Evil that invades Wall Street and our Government.......CUT OFF THE MONEY! Stop the relationships between Corporate American and our Government. Amend the Constitution to have, "Separation of Corporation and State" Corporations are not People. They can not vote in an election and should not have a financial influence on our Government. Cut off the link between the two, namely Taxes and Lobbyist. Corporations should not pay taxes. People pay taxes. Corporation now just pass the cost of taxation on to the consumer in the price of their goods and services. No Taxes on Corporation is better business and then they have no say in Government. Tax all people Fairly. More on how to achieve this later.
Exactly my point. I completely disagree with taxing the rich. I think personal income tax is an abomination, whatever tax bracket you're in. And you're perfectly correct - I don't understand why people believe it when Buffett spouts off about wanting to pay more taxes.
Follow Herman Cain, he has the right ideas!
Wait, what???
Herman Cain supports the Federal Reserve, which is robbing the American people of both liberty and security by issuing fiat currency from a private agency.
Also, he thinks OWS is a bunch of whiners who should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. So in other words, he thinks there isn't a problem.
No Herman has solutions! The Fed needs to be audited and fixed, not tossed out! You ding dongs at OWL have no clue what you are doing or talking about. Most importantly you have no objective! The problem isn't on Wall Street it's in Washington DC!
Yes, it is in DC, but do you understand what the Federal Reserve is/does?
I know exactly what it does! Did you ever read the charter? The Fed is only one problem with the government. There are many!
whew. ain't that the truth. : ( . However, I think it's a biggie - every corrupt government (empire) in the history of humans enslaved the populace by debasing currency. Witness Rome.
OK so there you have it QE I and QE II, Who instituted this? Do you know? OBAMA! BERNAKE! & all the dickheads in Washington, NOT WALL STREET!
To go down that road, you have to keep pointing all the way back to 1913. Actually, to get technical - go back to the American Revolution and the Bank of England.
Besides, Bush appointed Bernanke. I think "Wall Street" is a red herring, because people don't understand the economy.
NO NO NO! You are operating with false information like most of the people at OWL!
The US did not go off the gold standard until 1971 (Nixon). It was the Europeans that went off the gold standard in 1913, and the genius President Wilson watched and did nothing!
What does Bush have to do with it? Who cares who put him there he's still an idiot he has to go!
1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed, no thanks to Woodrow Wilson. "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence
What a leader!
Well, wait, now you're talking about specifics such as reforming the tax code--in itself, a very good idea--when we were talking about whether Buffett is willing to have the rich pay more. The fact is, that's the main issue: the rich get very special treatment--including bailouts a louder voice in our political system--than those who aren't rich.
I think you miss the point: being rich isn't inherently evil, and I dont' think that's what #OWS is about. It's about the fact that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share, and as PolitiFact points out quite clearly, they're doing much better than the rest of us: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/
Buffett isn't "one of the foxes"--he's one of the wealthy who has maximized his wealth based on a system that enables him to do so. What he's done--and why he's actually one of the good guys--is to call out, specifically, that his privileges are unfair. How many wealthy people do that? Cain? The Tea Party straw poll winner? Not on your life.
Yes, the tax system would have to change to "get at" Buffett's assets--and he's apparently totally down with that. Who else who's rich is calling for that? No one, as far as I can tell--and definitely not the horrid Koch brothers...
We just disagree.
I think "Tax the Rich" is not a solution. It has been tried many, many different times in history, and it doesn't work.
I think corporations are the problem, not 'greedy' rich individuals.
CUT OFF THE MONEY! WHY? Because .....Money is the Root of al Evil! Now wait,,,WAIT......I'm sure you have all heard this phrase. So if it is true....then to accomplish your goal of stopping Greed and the Evil that invades Wall Street and our Government.......CUT OFF THE MONEY! Stop the relationships between Corporate American and our Government. Amend the Constitution to have, "Separation of Corporation and State" Corporations are not People. They can not vote in an election and should not have a financial influence on our Government. Cut off the link between the two, namely Taxes and Lobbyist. Corporations should not pay taxes. People pay taxes. Corporation now just pass the cost of taxation on to the consumer in the price of their goods and services. No Taxes on Corporation is better business and then they have no say in Government. Tax all people Fairly. More on how to achieve this later.
I agree that we should tax corporations. However, I fear this discussion is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
An independent trader posted a thread last night about our dire financial situation. I don't think most people know how close we are to a total breakdown. Once Greece defaults again in a couple of weeks, then the Eurozone is going down. Apparently Germany (the only solvent Eurozone country) has already poised itself to revert back to the deutsche mark. Once that happens, the U.S. dollar's days are numbered (a few weeks, a few months??). Bernanke has zero motivation to save the dollar, and anyway all of those guys went to the financial school that holds the philosophy that deflation is the cardinal sin.
Like I've said elsewhere, I hope you have a wheelbarrow so you can go to the store.
I agree with your comments above except for the Taxation of Corporation. Here we do Not AGREE! You missed the point completely! We should NOT tax corporation! Please, read carefully my comments again.
Ah, you're right. I didn't see the last part of your argument. Hmmm, yes I see your point.
Good luck convincing the anti-capitalists on the site, though.
I find these truths to be self evident and agree with your main premise that Corporation have to much control of our government and create a conflict of interest. I suggest that the reverse is also possibly true. The award winning documentary film " Inside Job" sheds light on the financial meltdown and why it happened (Greed). The main point is that Government has no business being involved in Corporations and Corporations have no business being involved in Government. Our government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth (Not a government of corporations, by corporation, for corporations). Just as we found there was no place for Government involvement with Religion and visa versa, we have the 1st Amendment "Separation of Church and State". Therefore we should move for another Amendment of "SEPARATION OF CORPORATIONS AND STATE"! There is no room for one meddling in the other. The governments role is to create laws to protect the people from Greedy Corporations that steal our money and livelihood.
Yes, we disagree, and that's fine. But don't think that corporations are going to go away. They are not going to go away. The only possible, realistic approach is to make the system somewhat more equitable than it currently is today. Nothing else is realistic, and the only alternative to that is to make it even less equitable.
That's the issue. We can disagree on specifics, but that's the issue.
Unless you're a millionnaire--and dude, I can almost guarantee that you're not--you should be for a more equitable distribution of wealth.
Oh, and btw, Reagan knew this, and agreed that tax loopholes for the wealth should be terminated. Reagan. Mr. Conservative himself. When people on the right don't agree with the patron saint of the modern conservatism, there's no way to bridge that divide...
There is a way to achieve what you both want. CUT OFF THE MONEY! WHY? Because .....Money is the Root of al Evil! Now wait,,,WAIT......I'm sure you have all heard this phrase. So if it is true....then to accomplish your goal of stopping Greed and the Evil that invades Wall Street and our Government.......CUT OFF THE MONEY! Stop the relationships between Corporate American and our Government. Amend the Constitution to have, "Separation of Corporation and State" Corporations are not People. They can not vote in an election and should not have a financial influence on our Government. Cut off the link between the two, namely Taxes and Lobbyist. Corporations should not pay taxes. People pay taxes. Corporation now just pass the cost of taxation on to the consumer in the price of their goods and services. No Taxes on Corporation is better business and then they have no say in Government. Tax all people Fairly. More on how to achieve this later.
Um, right. This makes no sense whatsoever. You don't understand how the system works. Taxes aren't how corporations have a "say" in government. They use lobbyists and campaign contributions to influence policy, not taxes. Your approach is, I'm sorry to say, not even remotely realistic; corporations are not gods. They should pay at least as much as individuals in taxes, who now carry an inordinate burden for revenue generation. Please read up on how the system actually works...
What part of my comment do you not understand? It sounds to me from your comments that we are saying the same thing. Sorry to disagree with you. My comments address how Corporations have a say in Government and control them. First they are given the right to have a say in government (using Lobbyists and because they pay taxes just as people do and secondly they are concidered people collectively and can contribute to campaign contributions. The law should be changed to stop Corporation from having this influence. They are not People and do not have a vote in elections. And if you think Corporation pay taxes, Boy are you wrong. People pay taxes. Corporation are Taxed, I agree, but all they do is pass that cost of taxation on to the consumer in the price of their goods and service. Therefore we the people pay the tax one way or another. We are the only ones pay for all of this Shit. If you don't believe me just look at a corporation accounting book and you'll understand. Therefore cut off the ties between corporations and Government (state). Amend the laws that give them these rights!
I find these truths to be self evident and agree with your main premise that Corporation have to much control of our government and create a conflict of interest. I suggest that the reverse is also true. The award winning documentary film " Inside Job" sheds light on the financial meltdown and why it happened (Greed). The main point is that Government has no business being involved in Corporations and Corporations have no business being involved in Government. Our government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth (Not a government of corporations, by corporation, for corporations). Just as we found there was no place for Government involvement with Religion and visa versa, we have the 1st Amendment "Separation of Church and State". Therefore we should move for another Amendment of "SEPARATION OF CORPORATIONS AND STATE"! There is no room for one meddling in the other. The governments role is to create laws to protect the people from Greedy Corporations that steal our money and livelihood.
I agree that corporations have too much influence, but you were stating previously that we should not tax corporations. But your point that the government shouldn't have any involvement in corporations couldn't possibly be more wrong, I'm sorry. The meltdown of 2008 actually occurred in large measure because the government had no involvement in derivatives trading and increasingly worthless securities (based on zero-down high risk loans). Removing the government from corporate actions is not the answer--it's a big part of the problem.
A free, unfettered, completely unregulated market is crazy dangerous.
The truth is that there was zero meddling in the run up to the 2008 meltdown. None. Zero. Zip. The corporations were free to do whatever they wanted--in fact, encouraged to do so. That's the result of a free-range market run amok.
Your last sentence is correct, but it contradicts your previous sentences: what do you think "protect people from Greedy Corporations" actually means? It means: regulation. I'm not saying regulate everything but there was no regulation of financial markets and risky / gambling by Wall Street banks, which were then bailed out by taxpayers. That's a big part of what this is about.
What do you define, specifically, as "protect the people from Greedy Corporations"? What does that entail...?
Maybe my point needs additional clarification, because I agree with what your saying. My point is not to have our government take over and tell a company how to run it's business. It should though pass laws that protect people and other companies from unlawful practices, misrepresentation, and misleading information, to trick them into a feeling of confidence that is not there (for example; when the mortgages were being sold as a safe low risk rating when they were Not and the originating Banks and lending institution were insured in making is high risk loans had nothing to lose). In other words what is not right should be stopped and made it right by passing a Law that makes these actions unlawful. Does this help clarify?
Um, vaguely. I think I see what you're saying, but it's very convoluted. Sorry, nothing personal. But your last sentence: "In other words what is not right should be stopped and made it right by passing a Law that makes these actions unlawful" the main issue. The divide between left and right is simply this:
They disagree on the definition what is right and what is not right. Strict conservatives don't believe in any regulation on companies. None. See my previous comment. There are more moderate folks who are relatively laissez faire, but believe some regulation is necessary.
What makes this so difficult is that there is a vast range of difference between the more hardcore conservatives who believe in completely "free markets" and those who believe that this leads to a corporatocracy...
Would you guys just stop confusing the issue with the facts. No one here wants to be constrained by the facts. It's much more fun to just go with want feels right.
:D Agreed. I stand corrected! LOL.
I'm not on the right. Don't pidgeon-hole me.
And I'm not saying that corporations are going to go away. It's just that they are the ones who need to pay their fair share. Their influence in our political system is literally killing us, and they need to have business practices that are responsible.
Okay, apologies if I pigeon-holed. Agreed that corporate policies are killing us--as are government policies. There's no real line between the two anymore, and that's a big part--well, the main part--of this movement. But you can't say "tax the rich" doesn't work, when, in fact, it does actually work. It reduces the federal deficit, and alleviates the burden which is currently on the backs of the 99%. It's not a panacea, but it does need to be done--as a starting point.
Otherwise, what's your suggested solution? The system isn't going away, and the only possible modifications have to be changes--drastic perhaps--but changes to the process. The problem is, the country is currently in a Cold Civil War. And my non-stop arguments w/ people on this board (who have mainly been rightists) is proof of that.
Eliminating the government is not a solution. Eliminating corporations is not a solution. Eliminating money from politics (finance reform) and redistributing the wealth (tax reform) are very real, very viable end-goals. Oh, and regulating the goddam banks--once and for all, w/o calling regulations "burdensome" FFS.
Stop the military-industrial complex. The reason why these things are happening is because our government now has more brute force than any nation in history.
I agree that the military industrial complex is the cause of a lot of our problems. $2 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan and who benefits? Corporations. A lot of our problems, but not all, and here's the thing--corporations do what they do: make money. If you don't regulate them, they will do that and worse--which is why wer'e having this conversation in the first place. The corporations and the wealthiest screwed up big, this time, and it's led to a revolution.
My concern is that there are deep philosophical divisions. The one thing in common between left and right (and yes, it is between left and right, sorry, I know that's not the #OWS line--this needs to be reconciled, because it's not enough to collectively hate the government. It's gonna be hard, but it has to be done. I admit that.
At least I'm now having civil conversations with those I disagree with. That actually makes me more hopeful than most other things.
I agree. Different sides of the political aisle (excuse the cliche) have been fighting for too long.
Since you consider yourself to be more progressive, and a common flashpoint is 'collectively hating the government', then why do you think we need to strengthen the government? Or am I misunderstanding your viewpoint?
Well, I'm progressive, yes; and we really need to come up with a different set of identifications. I consider myself an analyst who's empathetic to those who are less well off or otherwise vulnerable.
I don't think that just because the government is incompetent that everything it does sucks, like regulating the financial industry. Conversely, I don't think just because corporations do some things really well (like create jobs), that they don't suck in other areas, like self-governance. I've worked in the government (including the US Congress), and now work for myself and for a corporation. So I've seen many sides of this argument, first hand.
Now, I'm not sure that all corporations are considered evil in this movement, and they probably shouldn't be. If anyone in #OWS is using a smartphone, that's not provided by the mom and pop corner convenience store. And yes, one could argue about labor practices, but that doesn't stop people from buying their products and using them to tweet and youtube everything under the sun.
So....
We all agree government needs to be responsive to the public, become more efficient, and it needs to have money removed from the governance and politics--and most importantly, corporate money. The two bodies that make and implement the laws--congress and the Federal government--are both pretty incompetent and unresponsive to the needs of people.
But I think it's worth looking at the meltdown at a glance, from a pure, free market perspective, first, and why "smaller government" did us no favors here:
1) Zero down home loans (the personal accountability that, well, "conservatives" like to bring up. It's partially true.) I agree that people shouldn't buy homes that they can't afford, but they did--freely. But they got no bailout, whereas the other folks? Not so much.
Wall Street did much the same thing--made very bad decisions--and got a bailout, hence the chant: "They got bailed out, we got sold out!" But consider that people shouldn't have even had the opportunity to buy them. And in fact they didn't used to have that opportunity until the banking industry was deregulated. Not all regulations are good, but this was a particularly bad idea, and should not have been allowed. People say, well, it's up to people to make that decision, well they did, it was pure free market capitalism, and not only did it not work, it completely fucked up the housing market and led to the mess we're in.
Again, people were free to buy homes they couldn't afford, and they shouldn't have. And banks were allowed to lend them "zero down, no collateral, you can't afford bud but here you go" loans. Both were stupid, but only one could be regulated, but weren't: the banks. The banks? They got billions to save their asses and for making inane loans. People? They got underwater and were told Dick Cheney style "go fuck yourself, loser." It's not right.
2) Mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps were also not regulated. This was very very bad, because there was no transparency into their worth. The market was allowed to package and repackage increasingly worthless bundles of highly risky securities until their worth became almost non-existent. Those who held them and lost their shirts then received TARP "too big to fail" bailout funds. But again, consumers didn't. Why? Because corporations are more influential than people. That's what I call "laissez faire," (or my new favorite made up term, "laissez un-faire"...)
In both scenarios, the government (big or small) should have regulated these situations. Why? Again, because the free market--what some on this board call "pure capitalism"--more than just didn't work, it failed on a spectacular scale. And this is really really important: free market capitalism doesn't always work. There were no government restrictions on AIG, so they didn't exercise restraint. It was the perfect "let the market" decide scenario, and it blew up the economy an led to the bailout. This isn't conjecture. It's dead on, sun will rise again tomorrow fact. And the 1% knows this. Oh, and the constitution wasn't written when these financial instruments were around; it can't possibly be a guide for dealing with this stuff, which really is pretty freakin' complex. (read more here: http://tinyurl.com/ablrzt)
Now, you can blame the government for putting together the TARP bailout, but you can only blame one thing for the initial meltdown itself: The Free Market.
Yes, Adam Smith's wet dream was allowed to flourish in the years leading up to the 2008 meltdown. So, when people call for completely unfettered market forces to run free? Wait a second: That's what led to the meltdown!! People who couldn't afford it, were free (not constricted, but free) to buy homes at zero percent! Foreclosures and mortgage backed securities were the result of completely free market processes. Banks were allowed to lend them the money to do so! And Wall Street was allowed to trade increasingly worthless securities--the value of which could not be tracked; that's a big issue here, that I've discussed elsewhere on this board.
Insane. Completely insane. So, it's more than Government bad, "free market good," because the free market = corporations = doing whatever the fuck they want = financial meltdown of 2008.
This is not all fine and good. We don't have to accept the fact that corporation are Free to do what they want, just because that's the way the Free Market works. Or the old adage.....Let the buyer beware! Fuck This! I would hope that we have learned a very expensive lesson and that we would know how to prevent it from happening again. I have seen no one come up with a plan on how to prevent this and changing the course of the government and the financial institutions that helped create this fucking mess. Obviously deregulation was not the RIGHT thing to do, so there should be government laws (restrictions in place to prevent these bad loans). Secondly the corporation got these mortgaged backed securities highly rated (3A?) when they were not and sold them under false pretenses to unsuspecting investors (the people) who then got screwed. Then when all Hell broke loose, The Banks, Financial Institutions, and Corporation get bailed out. So.....the people get fucked coming and going, thanks to the Govt. Why? Because Money is Debt and Debt is Money. So to stop the collapse, our Govt and the Central bank (Fed) had to take on more Debt and make more money.
So, Man of both experience in Government and Corporation. What would you suggest be done to ease the pain of the 99% ? Oh! I see we should wait for the sun to rise again for the next 4 to ? years like the other 1%. They can afford to wait, not like the rest of us 99%.
Please, Help, guide, educate and move this assembly to something better, fair, right, and easier to change to the current situations that this state of affairs requires. You would think that in this current state of hi tech Internet and instant access to information.....People could vote for just about anything if it were set up with the current securities of checks and balances established. Then we could change everything constantly as the people needed. We could even vote for our own bailout, make our own money to bailout others. Wow this is getting to be more socialistic with every word........I quit!
Government intervention caused the housing bubble, too.
To wit: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/07/the-governments-role-in-the-housing-bubble/60333/ Besides, it just makes everyone feel good to say that every American should own a home. Until it blows up in the middle class' face.
Agreed, home ownership is overblown, definitely. But people were flipping houses, and it was the go go '00s. My point is that the basis of the Tea Party is individual freedom and market freedom: both of those concepts held full sway, in no uncertain terms, and the economy exploded as a result. Yes, individuals played a role and screwed up, but so did corporations. Of the two, who got a bailout?
Okay, I read the piece about the government's role, and this is the key concept:
"As it happens, I think that the government did play a role. A big role. But I think it's rather subtler, and thus, rather more problematic, than most people on either side are discussing."
This attacks some very old, very basic components of the housing market--from a purely strategic perspective. Not the tactical, hands on, 2000 - 2008 reality. More of a Government's actions in the aftermath of the Depression and how our system today is screwed up because of it. Should the government have allowed banks to loan money to home buyers. Maybe, maybe not, but it's really almost academic at this point. Not really germane to the whole "No money? No Credit? No problem!" loans that were permitted that helped lead to the meltdown.
Nobody here has called for Socialism! We want JUSTICE and we want our democracy back. Right now its been hijacked by the top 1% and their Corp. $$$. Corps. are NOT people and $$ is not speech!!
if we had or own money, we could pay each other for labor
YES!! That is exactly my point. Right now, we have worthless pieces of paper, backed by nothing, created by banks out of thin air from fractional reserves, and we have a Federal Reserve who has tripled our money supply. The Fed is neither federal NOR are there any reserves.
Does the dollar in your pocket say "In silver payable to the bearer on demand"? It would if it were 1934. That's because we've been duped.
Money is a means of exchanging products and services
using gold or kryptonite won't change that
Yes!! You are still backing the currency with something of value - not just nothing... I believe they are doing that very thing in either Paraguay or Uruguay - backing their currency with a unit of labor, or something like that. I heard John Perkins give a talk on it - it's long, over an hour, but it's very good. Talks about our current world crisis, and what we can do to change it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mqqtCoes50
the value of money is the labor and products one can but with it
I think this is the future of commerce anyhow. I believe the current system is going to break down and become decentralized. When that happens, our monetary system will become localized and based on community barter. There are forums out there that believe that our current system is based on infinite growth, and therefore it is unsustainable in the context of peak oil. (Collapsenet comes to mind).
if/when the post apocalyptic utopia/distopia comes around,
I ain't trading my cans of tomato soup and tuna for gold.
I ain't got any
and I don't need any
There are plenty of survivalists out there who agree with you. "You can't eat gold", as they say. On the other hand, Bernanke is full of it when he says that gold isn't money. Gold has been money since the beginning of human commerce.
due to rarity and being able to press it to coins
but have I have no gold and have no intention of letting those that do have the gold claim the wealth of labor and products.
Also it has industrial applications, but not as many as silver. Silver is used in microprocessors and other industrial parts owing to its reflectivity and conductivity.
is it's reflectivity taken advantage of in chip baking
Not sure about that one, I'm not a techy, but I do like silver and gold, because they can't print anymore and rob me via inflation.
that's fine but it wouldn't put wealth in my hands
How to stop rabid awful spam poster? Have you seen all new threads? How do you notify the webmaster / forum leader ?
conversation is over here http://occupywallst.org/forum/stop-all-new-posts-we-are-being-spam-attacked/#comment-24974
Wonderful example of two people disagreeing, yet remaining civil and discussing those differences with respect. Bravo and thank you. We all learn when we observe two people having an intelligent conversation.
we're trying to figure this out. This is not agreeing to disagree
I live in San Diego and I've had no problems with Mexicans
The point is not whether or not you've had any problems with them.
Our government is bound by the Constitution to defend our borders. Yet they admittedly have been running guns to Mexican drug cartels, and despite the lipservice of any number of politicians on this issue, they do not perform this prescribed duty.
What do you think about a government that doesn't even follow its own laws and duties? Yet creates more and more agencies of unelected officials to create more and more rules? What do you think about the TSA? The FDA? Those agencies and many more are not described in the Constitution.
Wait, the government is "running guns to Mexican drug cartels"? Really. Where's your proof?
As for the Constitution, dude, if you followed it strictly, here's what would have happened:
A) You'd be speaking German.
B) You'd be driving over dirt roads that criss cross the country
C) You wouldn't be having this conversation because the Internet wasn't required in the Constitution.
As for the FDA, they oversee the safety of your food. Now, maybe that doesn't matter to you, but I don't trust corporations to just "do the right thing" and ensure that salmonella isn't in my kid's peanut butter.
The Constitution is an important document, but a "strict interpretation" doesn't necessarily translate into smart policies, because it was designed as a high level, living, breathing guide--that's why there are amendments to it.
A lot of people here understand quite well how the government works. Insinuating that they're ignorant just because they don't agree with you is pretty arrogant.
We do not have an outlaw government--which, btw, is made up of a lot of people who live in Maryland, not far from where you live. It's a flawed entity, but the most serious problem with your argument is the underlying assumption that somehow the free market--AKA corporations--can take care of everything. They can't, they won't, and they shouldn't.
When Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of the modern conservative movement suggested that taxes should be higher for the wealthy, was he an outlaw? Was he engaging in class warfare? Answer the question. (source: http://tinyurl.com/3be89m4)
This kind of specious reasoning is why it's going to be very hard indeed for these two movements to reconcile with one another.
The last president who was a sincere champion of the American people was JFK - and look what happened to him.
I do not support Ronald Reagan's ideals. Corporate income tax and Capital gains tax, I agree with. Personal income tax, I do not. Even in 1913 (the same year The Federal Reserve Act was passed), the highest tax bracket was 6%, and the lowest was 1% (Wikipedia).
Here's a news story regarding Fast and Furious from a liberal news source: looks like Eric Holder is under the gun, so to speak (no pun intended).
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html
Also, the FDA is a corrupt and bought institution that has a revolving-door for hiring CEO's from the very corporations that are polluting our environment, stamping out small businesses, and allowing pharmaceutical companies to profit from poisoning us. Perhaps it was originally founded to protect us from food-bourne illness, but it is a far cry from that now.
The last president to champion the American people was JFK. Really. Do you think that he if were president today that the far right woudn't call for his impeachment for all the girls he had in the White House they way they did Clinton? Really?
You don't support Reagan's ideals, great. My point is that Reagan is now considered moderate compared to the new right. That's not a good thing, BTW, he often put the country ahead of ideals, and that meant sometimes raising taxes. That's not insane or un-American.
Taxes aren't inherently evil, okay? But unfairness and letting the super rich keep a higher percentage of their income than middle income Americans is. That's what this movement is all about, at least in part.
Wait, you're telling me that the FDA has a revolving door. Don't you mean John Boehner? Many of his ex staffers work on Wall Street as lobbyists. He carried the Tea Party's water during the debt ceiling negotiations, as you may recall.
As for the FDA being corrupt? Based on what facts? What data?
Look, government isn't perfect, but one of the reasons the FDA doesn't do a good job today? Because of budget cuts! Get the circular logic here?
I'll read up on Fast and Furious; I'm unfamiliar, and you may have a point . But just because the ATF is incompetent, doesn't mean that corporations (the logical end of "no government") aren't. They're all made up of fallible people. There's no conspiracy in the government, there's just stupid humans--just like there are everywhere....
Here's a general article about the FDA corruption and its revolving door. They have plenty of money - they go to work for the corporations, buy stock in drugs that will get approved, go back to the FDA to approve said drugs, and so on.
http://www.smart-publications.com/articles/lies-and-deception-how-the-fda-does-not-protect-your-best-interests/
Look, I'm sure the FDA needs to be cleaned up. Most Federal bureaucracies do. Regarding that article:
"Did you know that many retired FDA officials go to work as special advisors to the pharmaceutical and food industries?"
Yes, this is known as "Washington, DC"--and it happens in all agencies and on capitol hill constantly. Here's the thing: How should we stop this? By eliminating the agency or.....by instituting oversight. Oh, wait, that sounds suspiciously like regulation, doesn't it? Welcome to the circular logic of the Tea Party. So, who would oversee this and ensure that it doesn't stop? A law should be passed to stop the practice, and there are some on the books that are easily gotten around. But one thing is certain--you can't conflate this truth with the truth of food safety inspection. You just can't. It doesn't follow logically.
Yes, Monsanto sucks--they've put chemicals in everything now. And it needs to stop. Just like allowing corporate farmers to stick growth hormone and antibiotics in animals should stop. I agree. But you can't--logically--ignore the other elements of the a government entity in its entirety simply because part of it is damaged. The food safety inspectors? They still perform a role, and they still protect your kid's freakin' peanut butter from getting salmonella. That's my point, and the Tea Party hack leaders in Congress are interested in cutting them even more:
"A new budget proposal put forth by House Republicans Monday would cut the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's budget for Fiscal Year 2012 by $285 million, an 11.5 percent reduction from FY 2011, just as the agency moves to implement an ambitious new food safety law.
The draft budget legislation, unveiled by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, cuts $2.6 in discretionary spending, which is over $5 billion below the President's FY 2012 budget request for the programs under the purview of the subcommittee."
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/05/house-fy-2012-budget-proposal-seeks-285-in-cuts-at-fda/
If you don't like the Constitution, then you can take steps to change it. BUT our government isn't even following its own laws! And how are you going to change the Constitution if people don't even understand how government works? If they don't understand history?
Should we let lobbyists rewrite our Constitution? Because that is who is currently writing our laws. Sorry if I'm ranting - but these are legitimate questions. We have an outlaw government - tinkering with the amount of money (fiat currency) you are taking from one class of person to give to another class is not the answer.
"I am for a government controlled by the people"
The Federal Government is like the most out of control, and completely bankrupt corporation - with almost totally unaccountable leadership. The best way to deal with it is to shrink its power, until it is accountable again. How else can true accountability happen if the FG's power is basically unlimited? Why would they ever listen to us otherwise? (they haven't for generations!)
You would prefer that big corporations lead us?
As the government collect less and becomes smaller and the corporation pay less taxed and grow, that's what will happen.
Which corporation do you want to lead this country? Will you have a say in that corporation?
Where did you get that? I'm simply saying that in our fight with crony capitalism, about the biggest violator of all is the federal government - you don't see that?
End the FED, take back the creation and control of our money - and you will see WAY more accountability in all aspects of society and life.
Ron Paul 2012
money is power it decides what products will be purchased it decides what jobs people will do if any
those who control the money have that power
the government is an institution that should represent the populous
"those who control the money have that power"
My point is that you cannot reform this current Government Corporation, until you end the FED and take back the creation and control of our money. All of that is VERY Constitutional.
who's gonna create/control the money
http://economicedge.blogspot.com/2009/12/freedoms-vision-introduction.html WHO – There are two choices here, the government who represents the collective People, or the bankers who represent themselves as individuals. Currently it is the BANKERS who issue and control the quantity of money, not the government as most are led to believe. By design, the system is backed by debt and PRIVATE central bankers collect interest payments on the debt backed money from YOU. In other words, big banks get to collect hundreds of billions of dollars annually just so we can have the “privilege” of trading for goods with their private debt-based money. We know this sounds harsh, but it is true! This system concentrates the money power into the hands of a few allowing them control over politics and works to MINIMIZE FREEDOM for the vast majority of Americans.
There is a way to achieve what you both want. CUT OFF THE MONEY! WHY? Because .....Money is the Root of al Evil! Now wait,,,WAIT......I'm sure you have all heard this phrase. So if it is true....then to accomplish your goal of stopping Greed and the Evil that invades Wall Street and our Government.......CUT OFF THE MONEY! Stop the relationships between Corporate American and our Government. Amend the Constitution to have, "Separation of Corporation and State" Corporations are not People. They can not vote in an election and should not have a financial influence on our Government. Cut off the link between the two, namely Taxes and Lobbyist. Corporations should not pay taxes. People pay taxes. Corporation now just pass the cost of taxation on to the consumer in the price of their goods and services. No Taxes on Corporation is better business and then they have no say in Government. Tax all people Fairly. More on how to achieve this later.
thank you
My pleasure - best wishes to you!
Ron Paul 2012!
http://economicedge.blogspot.com/2009/12/freedoms-vision-introduction.html This brings us to Bill Still’s quote from The Secret of Oz [ http://economicedge.blogspot.com/2010/08/bill-still-secret-of-oz.html ], “It’s not WHAT backs our money, it’s WHO CONTROLS its QUANTITY!”
There are four key words in that sentence that are simple to understand:
WHAT – The problem is that our money is now backed by debt. In the past, our dollar has been backed simply by the rule of law, debt free – supported by the “good faith and credit of the United States.” Such was the case with Colonial Script or Lincoln’s Greenbacks. The dollar has also been backed by both gold and by silver. While those who support commodity backed money have the right idea in that they seek to control the quantity of money, this has proven to be much harder in practice than in reality and is why today no modern country uses commodities to back their money. Yes, it is possible to create the national money debt free AND to control the quantity of money. What most reasonable people can agree is that of all the things NOT to have behind our money, debt is it!
WHO – There are two choices here, the government who represents the collective People, or the bankers who represent themselves as individuals. Currently it is the BANKERS who issue and control the quantity of money, not the government as most are led to believe. By design, the system is backed by debt and PRIVATE central bankers collect interest payments on the debt backed money from YOU. In other words, big banks get to collect hundreds of billions of dollars annually just so we can have the “privilege” of trading for goods with their private debt-based money. We know this sounds harsh, but it is true! This system concentrates the money power into the hands of a few allowing them control over politics and works to MINIMIZE FREEDOM for the vast majority of Americans.
CONTROL – Here’s the simple truth – NO SYSTEM OF MONEY has ultimately withstood the test of time. WHY? Could it be that regardless of WHAT backs the money or WHO controls the quantity, any time that the quantity of money gets out of control CONFIDENCE will eventually be lost? Of course. But throughout history, some systems have fared better than others. Is it possible to have the advantages of flexibility and to still keep prices under control? We think so, and we’re going to spell out how.
QUANTITY – Too little quantity and the economy will suffer. Too much quantity and the economy will also suffer, just in a different way. Finding the right balance, then, is where a sustainable and productive system will be found.
There is a way to achieve what you both want. CUT OFF THE MONEY! WHY? Because .....Money is the Root of al Evil! Now wait,,,WAIT......I'm sure you have all heard this phrase. So if it is true....then to accomplish your goal of stopping Greed and the Evil that invades Wall Street and our Government.......CUT OFF THE MONEY! Stop the relationships between Corporate American and our Government. Amend the Constitution to have, "Separation of Corporation and State" Corporations are not People. They can not vote in an election and should not have a financial influence on our Government. Cut off the link between the two, namely Taxes and Lobbyist. Corporations should not pay taxes. People pay taxes. Corporation now just pass the cost of taxation on to the consumer in the price of their goods and services. No Taxes on Corporation is better business and then they have no say in Government. Tax all people Fairly. More on how to achieve this later.
"Corporation now just pass the cost of taxation on to the consumer "
that statement is not true. Corporations will change the consumers "whatever the market will bare". If the product cost less to produce , the corporations don't lower their prices. .
You Think? How will corporation change the consumers? What do you thing happens when a corporations are offered lower tax incentives in a State to do business there?
there are plenty of business in California
that is where there are people
even though California has higher taxes
Most Corporation move there businesses where there is a Tax incentive. That's how Michigan is getting the Movie Industry to make more movies there. Those states that have no income tax and the lowest corportate taxes are the fastest growing states in the Union.
I was considering
corps may well being using tax and regulation to weed out small business competition
it's just much cheaper to make movies these days
it think by population California is growing pretty fast
If people had to actually pay for their government (ie no more debt which favors the bankers), it would be small.
If by "small" you mean the size it was during the Clinton years (during which time budgets were balanced and the deficit was erased), then sure.
Returning to Clinton-era taxes for the rich would be a good way to help pay for our government and keep it "small" in this sense of the term.
Of course, government should also regulate markets and prosecute white-collar criminals far more than they did in the Clinton years (a time of deregulation and faint-hearted prosecution of corporate crime), which is why we're not promoting a return to the 90s.
We want real solutions to the real problems of today. That's why we're demanding higher taxes on the rich, more regulation of the markets, and more prosecution of white-collar crime. That's how we're going to hold Wall Street accountable.
SisterRay - yes, prosecution of white-collar crime is essential. Do you remember that the last time we saw one of these guys do the perp walk was back in the Enron days? The only exception is Bernie Madoff - and that guy wouldn't have taken a fall either, except that he happened to rip off some rich clients.
So yes, I absolutely uphold the rule of law and prosecuting crimes.
that's number games
the people that try help the country won't disappear when/if the money disappears
I don't mean less powerful. I mean less intrusive and controlling. No more Patriot act and really high taxes on the middle class. The federal government should go back to what it was meant to do
I don't own any property for the government to intrude upon.
the police confiscated my car due to a computer "error" in the court system
o.o Wow...That is bull, if they know it is an error, why don't you have it back?
paid $420 dollars get it back
never got that back
this case was dropped and I didn't have the desire to fight over the money
maybe a gene deficiency in a capitalist system
Which will result in smaller government...
why?
One other comment - this article from Lew Rockwell today talks about the fall of Rome and its timely comparison to our own U.S.
Rome fell not because of foreign invaders, but because it was cannibalizing its own people through crushing debt, taxes, and eventually, collusion with private debt collectors - like what Obama just chose to persue.
http://lewrockwell.com/rep2/will-next-false-flag-be-cyber.html
Also the demonization of the so-called 'rich'.
I like your link.... kinda chilling but very informative.
Debt will destroy us all :/
We need a nation that does not live on debt and the exchange of eachother's debts...
Lew Rockwell is pretty good, but yesterday they ran a hit piece on OWS that was entitled, 99% wrong. That was not a good article.
You have to read all types of media, the MSM is worthless - all they do is shill for the corporations who own them.
My favorite website for news at the moment is Activist Post.
Do you know why? Rome was a Republic. Like us.
Not a republic- a bloated, vicious, corrupt, military empire - like us. Their senate didn't REPresent Romans any more than Congress represents us now.
Tried to email your Congressman/woman lately? Got any results other than some canned email response? They are not listening. Does it matter if we vote? What's the difference between red versus blue team?
We are all target practice for the Freelancers!
and then a pseudo republic when powerful government positions were offered for sale to the highest bidder... Blago read his history LOL
Sounds just like us lol
We want government to restore our civil liberties and private freedoms; but we want a strong government that can regulate markets and prosecute white-collar criminals.
We want out Constitution upheld; but we don't accept the revisionist reading of the Constitution promoted by the Tea Partiers.
We want free markets; but we want strong regulations of them to ensure real competition, real opportunity, and protection from the inequality and the devastation -- environmental, social, and economic -- that results when greed goes unchecked.
People who embraced the Tea Party are welcome here. But Tea Party ideology and Tea Party goals are antithetical to this movement.
Agreed and excellent rejoinder. There are some overlapping goals--no bailouts, for example, but the Tea Party has some pretty diametrically opposed core beliefs (see: http://www.teaparty.org/about.php).
And who's calling you the "left version of the Tea Party"--no one in #OWS that I've heard? Dialogue is good, but no one that I've heard in the #OWS has chanted "Free Markets Now!." That's a TP euphemism for Corporations Uber Alles, or complete de-regulation. Ironically, that's what brought down the economy in the first place and gave rise to #OWS! (Although, to hear some folks tell it, it was all the fault of stupid homeowners, and they conveniently forget that Credit Default Swaps were completely unregulated). A completely de-regulated, tax-free world isn't what's needed; and drastic cuts to social programs are also not what's needed. How those opposite views would be reconciled with the TP is a huge question mark, at a minimum.
Today's government doesn't work well, but corporations who pay lower and lower taxes are also not the answer for handling the social needs of our country--and at the end of the day, that's the Tea Party vision in a nutshell. The Tea Party and its representatives (many of whom are corporate-backed) have a very conservative agenda, headed up by the likes of Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Glenn Beck--all neatly packaged by the "fair and balanced" Fox News.
Philosophically, these are two very different movements: On the one (left) hand, the #OWS stands up for the common weal--what's best for the group as a whole, and doesn't believe that higher taxes on the wealthiest to help for the poorest and most vulnerable is wrong. On the other hand (the right one), the Tea Party is most interested in exalting the individual, and that government programs and higher taxes on the least vulnerable to help the most vulnerable aren't just wrong, they're un-American. The Tea Party is so far right, that Ronald Reagan couldn't be a member today, because he agreed that the rich should pay more (see: http://tinyurl.com/3be89m)
The #OWS should reach out to all people, not just the Tea Party, which today represents the most extreme wing of the right (where even John Boehner isn't conservative enough!?--Source: http://tinyurl.com/5v78sy7).
Groobiecat www.groobiecat.blogspot.com
You notice how I was vague, I like how you interpretted them your own way. That was my intention. These are basic goals, They depend on how we want to reach them.
Which is why we need people like the Tea Party to join the discussion and make this a true democracy and the 99%
I partially disagree, the original Tea Party movement had much in common, but they allowed themselves to be high-jacked by the extreme right. (see Jerry's comment above) Please don't let this movement be high-jacked by the left or the right.. the centrist majority needs to be FINALLY represented
I don't know what you think the Tea Party movement was really about, but unless you see it as an anti-governmental movement that demands lower taxes, less governmental spending, and less governmental regulation, you're just appropriating the movement's name while discarding its actual substance.
The Tea Party's anti-governmental ideology is antithetical to ours: we support government as the only institution that can provide an effective check on the destructive power of the unfettered market.
The Tea Party's anti-tax stance is antithetical to ours: we support a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, in the name of fairness and in the interest of stabilizing the government's long-term fiscal health.
The Tea Party's anti-spending stance is antithetical to ours: we support expanded government in vital sectors of the economy -- infrastructure, education, technology, and the social safety net -- in times of economic contraction and hardship.
The Tea Party's anti-regulatory stance is antithetical to ours: we support regulation as the only means for ensuring that a crisis like the one that brought us to this point will not happen again.
These are not lefty or rightist views. They are centrist, incrementalist, practical and just. They are real solutions to real problems. And that's why they must be realized.
While I respect your viewpoint, I disagree completely. The pro-government expansion view that you have is leftist socialism. I am completely opposed to the government having more power - they are inefficient at best, corrupt at worst.
They are in an unholy alliance with corporations such that the corporations are running our government. Maybe that's the one thing we can agree on.
Why is it that leftists keep returning to the government as the savior, as the one who if only they were powerful enough and spent the money on the things you think they should, that we would be living in a eutopia. That is simply not so. Hasn't the western world proven this? Look at Europe - like us, they are teetering on brink of financial ruin. And they don't even have the perpetual war machine running in high gear like we do.
I consider myself to be a pro-constitutionalist, anti-war, libertarian.
You may not have any respect for the founding fathers (which is probably owing to a public school education, like mine) however, "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...." - Thomas Jefferson
I don't want the government to educate my children for me - I want to do it myself. I grow my own food, I have been working hard at developing skills that help me take care of myself, my family, my neighbors and my community.
The pro-government stance of this movement is not socialist.
Libertarians tend to think that a capitalism that promotes the rule of law is not capitalism at all. This idolatry of the free market has the virtue of ideological purity, but its inability to recognize a difference between regulated markets and the elimination of markets altogether -- whether due to a lack of intellectual sophistication or due to a deliberate ignorance of the relevant positions -- is pure ideology and couldn't be farther from the reality.
Why do leftists keep turning to the government to check the power of corporations? Because government is the only institution with the authority to check the power of corporations. If you think things are bad when "corporations are running our government," you're going to like it a lot less when corporations are running our lives completely unchecked and accountable to no one.
I do have tremendous respect for our founding fathers. I think their greatest insight, on which they based our constitution, was that the problem isn't power itself but rather the ability to wield power without being accountable to others. This is why they imposed a rigorous system of checks and balances on the exercise of government power: to ensure that government is accountable for its actions. By contrast, corporations are not accountable to anyone besides their shareholders; there are no built-in checks on corporate power. That is why it is essential that the government hold them accountable for their actions through regulation and through vigorous prosecution of corporate crime. The founding fathers recognized this imperative of government and so granted congress the power to regulate commerce.
I commend you for your commitment to autonomy and self-reliance. If more people followed your lead in taking care of themselves and their communities, America would be in much better shape than it is. But one should not confuse the virtues of individual freedom and responsibility with the vice of unrestrained free markets, for the freer markets are from government regulation the less responsible market agents will be. Without the government to hold them accountable, corporations would wield their ever-expanding power greedily, viciously, and with impunity. That is a world we must reject, and that is why this movement supports the government in our struggle to hold Wall Street accountable.
I understand and agree with many of your points. However, libertarians do want the government to follow the rule of law - the concept of capitalism that is being demonized is not what our system is - it has many names but for me, corporatism, predatory capitalism, and plain-old government collusion come to mind.
You said, "you're going to like it a lot less when corporations are running our lives completely unchecked and accountable to no one". I argue that that is exactly what is happening now. Among the many issues we are discussing, corporations unchecked are at the heart of what is wrong in America today.
One part of the solution is to make corporations accountable again. Bring back the charter renewal system, whereby corporations have to come before Congress (once we get corporate money out) periodically to prove that they are beneficial to society's good.
Also the Federal Reserve must be abolished. It is destroying our currency and therefore, our way of life.
And yes, I think government is way too big - I would like to do away with the TSA, cut down the military substantially, get rid of the FDA, the BLM, all of the revolving-door corrupt and bloated alphabet agencies. They are controlling the minutiae of my life - by not allowing me to grow hemp, outlawing raw milk, telling my state what to do, trying to outlaw alternative medicine and supplements - these are all issues of fundamental freedom.
I actually don't understand the position you put forward here. On the one hand, as I would expect a libertarian to do, you call for doing away with many of the regulatory agencies that are supposed to keep corporations in check. The FDA, for instance, is supposed to ensure that the food corporations sell us is handled safely and that corporations don't lie about the medical effects of the drugs they sell us. I shudder to think about how I would navigate supermarkets if I had no assurance that the food I'm buying isn't spoiled and that the labels on the package accurately reflect the contents, or how I would navigate the drug store if corporations could lie about the science behind the supposed benefits of their medicine. Perhaps you think I don't have sufficient reason to believe in the safety of the food and drugs I buy or the accuracy of the labels as is; but then you should be advocating for a better FDA, not for the elimination of the only institution capable of imposing and enforcing adequate standards of safety and accuracy here.
Meanwhile, you surprisingly argue on the other hand in favor of a charter renewal system, which amounts to a massive regulatory program that seems inconsistent with your goal of reducing government and governmental regulation. Just imagine what it would take for the government to do an adequate job assessing all the claims made by every corporation in existence that they are working for society's benefit! It would be like putting every corporation on trial every few years, requiring massive amounts of oversight to ensure the truth of the corporations' claims, massive amounts of regulation as to what makes something beneficial to society, and massive amounts of money to conduct these trials and maintain these oversight and regulatory mechanisms. This strikes even me as too interventionist, and I'm the one defending government regulation!
If you think corporations have too much power and too little accountability, then don't do away with the institutions designed to hold them accountable. Reform them so that they can do a better job.
Holding Wall Street accountable is no small task. But the means to this end are surprisingly mundane. Allow the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire. Regulate the markets more effectively with the institutions we already have in place. Prosecute white-collar criminals. These are real solutions to real problems. This is how we wil hold Wall Street accountable.
The corruption of the FDA is an entire website forum in and of itself.
Whereas it was probably founded with good intentions, it is now rotten to the core, and it protects the very industries it is supposed to regulate - a true example of the fox watching the hen house. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that the hens and the foxes keep getting hired for each other's executive boards and sleeping in the same bed, and then they pat each other on the back and say, "Good job! The people still think we are enemies!"
The revolving door between the alphabet agencies and industry is extensive.
The FDA aids and abets the pharmaceutical companies and Monsanto (which is arguably the most evil corporation in the world). Did you know that before Donald Rumsfeld was in Bush's cabinet, he was the CEO of Searle? He was partly responsible for getting aspartame approved for consumption, in spite of the fact that the FDA had banned it in the 1980's, based on research suggesting it could cause brain tumors. Aspartame is a neurotoxin and ofcourse is now in 1000's of consumer products. But that is another long story.
This is a good general referenced article on the revolving door at the FDA: http://www.smart-publications.com/articles/lies-and-deception-how-the-fda-does-not-protect-your-best-interests/ As for reforming the FDA - the first thing we must do is stop the revolving door of money and people.
In defense of the charter renewal, it would put companies out of business that damage the environment or have unfair labor practices. I think that it would severely limit their power and put the burden of proof on the companies - it's not a given that they can operate in our country. However there are other ways you can accomplish this - putting social pressure on Home Depot to support fair rain forest wood (which was done, by the way). But it can be hard to coordinate that, too.
OK. But even if it were true that the FDA is so corrupt that it can't be reformed (a diagnosis of the present that I strongly disagree with, but am willing to grant for the moment), that still does not justify a rejection of all governmental regulation of the food and drug industries, as libertarian ideology is committed to because of its judgment of all governmental intervention as wrong in principle. All you would need to do is support setting up a new administration in place of the FDA that has better rules about regulators working for the industries they're regulating. What would be wrong with that? And, for that matter, what would happen if the current FDA could be made to accept those same rules right now? Wouldn't that answer most of your concerns here?
The charter renewal strikes me as an overly interventionist proposal, tantamount to a permanent inquisition of every corporation in America. This would require duplicating the regulatory and oversight duties of the administrative agencies, it would come at great cost, and I'm suspicious of its constitutionality (specifically, it seems like forcing corporations to defend themselves perennially without accusing them of any crime would violate their due process rights).
Consumer pressure to effect change, as in the case of Home Depot, is great when it's possible. But it would be impossible to replace every good and just regulation currently governing American industry with such pressure, both because it would be impossible to organize around that many issues and because it would be impossible to enforce corporations' promises to abide by consumers' demands.
Luckily, that's not necessary: all we need is better-run regulatory bodies. And it seems like we can agree that that shouldn't be so hard to accomplish if we can only get better rules passed about industry participation in these regulatory bodies.
You said: "(specifically, it seems like forcing corporations to defend themselves perennially without accusing them of any crime would violate their due process rights)". The Citizens United decision was wrong and should be reversed. Corporations are not persons, so they do not have due process rights.
While I disagree with the Citizens United decision and I do not think that corporations are entitled to all the rights that persons are (especially 1st amendment rights and 14th amendment rights), I do believe that they are entitled to due process rights. This is just the flip-side of believing that it ought to be possible to bring legal action against a corporation: insofar as they are to be held legally responsible, they are entitled to fair legal proceedings.
SisterRay, what do you think about this line of argument: 1) many of the laws and regulations currently in place were written by lobbyists at the behest of the corporations (Congress used to write them, but rarely anymore - I believe there are 28-some lobbyists for every Congressperson today) 2) it is a substantial financial burden for small businesses to comply with paperwork, mandatory health insurance, etc. 3) small businesses go belly up because they can't compete with large corporations, in spite of the fact that they are more innovative, more responsive, and they hire more workers proportionately 4) corporations' competition is eliminated (sometimes by litigation by a cadre of corporate lawyers, in the case of Monsanto); and 5) in the case of agriculture, the corporations will buy up the competitions land (i.e., family farms) so that they can conglomerate ever more power.
That's all fine and good. But the question is what's the real problem here and what we should do about it.
One possibility is that the problem is the bad laws and regulations currently in place that are causing difficulties for small business and giving big business an unfair advantage. The solution, then, is to replace those bad laws and regulations with good laws and regulations. That strikes me as common sense.
Another possibility is that the problem here is that laws and regulations are inherently bad. This libertarian view -- now quite popular because of the Tea Party movement's success at mainstreaming the fringe right -- means that the problem isn't THESE laws and regulations but ALL laws and regulations, since all legislation and regulation is supposed to be wrong in itself. The solution then is not only to eliminate bad laws and regulations, but all laws and regulations, along with those governmental agencies responsible for passing them. That strikes me as not just counterintuitive, but hopelessly misguided. If small, honest businesses have a hard time competing now, imagine how they would do without any anti-trust laws or anti-fraud laws.
So, yes, I recognize the problems you discuss here. But I take this to constitute a straightforward argument in favor of good laws instead of bad laws, not an argument in favor of deregulation and an end to lawfulness.
Yes, we agree on that. If I could make a generalization about bad laws - I would say those are the ones written by corporate lobbyists - which unfortunately is many of them.
Therefore, the reform lies in the process. Perhaps Dylan Ratigan's proposal is correct - he is proposing an amendment to the Constitution that makes it illegal for Congress to accept any money from anyone.
Also, Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul have introduced a bill that would do away with the Federal Reserve.
The root of the problem is that we have to stop corporate money from buying Congress. And the money itself has to be sound so that the people are protected from their own government.
Man! We have reached a consensus! Isn't that not supposed to be possible anymore? Thank you for an enlightening conversation. Now we just have to bring the message to the rest of the world!
: ) Right back at you!
Hey have you noticed that this completely offensive post is getting repeated over and over?
How do we notify webmaster?
Ha. Nah, I didn't notice. There were some racists posting stuff before that the webmaster eventually deleted, but I'm not sure how to tip the webmaster off. I'm sure someone will take care of it in due time.
All the best to you!
the two groups also disagree on what to do with the constitution... return to it or rewrite it.
I'm asking for the original Tea Partiers, Not Palin. They want what we want, just have different ways to reach them. We need to collaborate to come up with the best solutions. Unlike Washingston.
The original tea party was a Ron Paul lovefest - a racist gold tycoon has nothing to teach us except being a slimy liar.
Umm, many of our members support Ron Paul...
Certainly what you describe it as, is what it indeed became. Yes, now it is antithetical to centrist views. I agree that taxes need to be fair and proportionate. That being said, I don't believe in free rides in general, regardless of income class. Handouts to upper and lower classes have been passed on to one group, the middle class, which is quickly evaporating thereby leading to revenue shortfalls.
Why won't they join? They are very skeptical it seems, they check out people and groups to avoid being embarassed publicly. The group behind these protest are frauds.
I came to this site Friday night to offer my assistance as a non-profit organizer. I can do basic coding of web pages, accounting, and other functions.
Mainly I wanted to get some sanitation facilities out to Zucotto (sic) park.
In a matter of about 20 minutes I found over 15 contact listings, and left vmail and email on every one of them.
24 hours later, no response. They aren't even updating the site anymore.
Where did everyone, and the "tens of thousands" http://afgj.org/?p=1765#more-1765 of dollars go?
Well, the General Assembly never was in the US, they are operating out of a hotel room somewhere in Nicaragua, and the money has been deposited in a Central American bank.
How could the people do this to our citizens, how can members of our government support this?
They have to know, it only took me 20 minutes to find out, and they had days and hundreds of people on their staffs.
When government works with corporations to perpetuate fraud against the people you have corporate fascism.
Until the people realize that it's the government that is the root of the problem - allowing corporations to perpetuate fraud without fear of consequences - nothing productive will get done.
Obama is as much a part of the problem as Bush was - realize that and perhaps we can move forward with proper reform.
You are right. Both are to be held accountable.
I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, but there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers yourselves. Consequently, I have posted the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to support a Presidential Candidate Committee at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Former tea party activist(very active) here. If I may....I've been here for about on hour. I read a few comments and think, "THERE YA GO!" That's what we (the tea party BEFORE it was over-run with opportunistic politicians) were rallying around. Then I read a thread that is calling the tea party, "tea baggers", "right-wing nuts", "propagandized, uneducated conservatives" etc. Some are just extremely confrontational, showing that MANY involved in this have no idea what the tea party was about in the beginning, before the self-appointed "tea party candidates" stole the movement from us. Its clear that many get their opinions from the Jon Stewart, MSNBC, ABC, and even FOX version of the tea party which have TOTALLY distorted the goals of the tea party, as have ultra-conservative politicians claiming to be tea party candidates.
In the beginning, the tea party had very simple goals:
1 was that we DO NOT endorse candidates, that was quickly ruined by politicians claiming to be tea party candidates (thats when I left)
-smaller gov't run BY THE PEOPLE. -end the fed -no more bail-outs -Banks need to lend the moneys we gave them to lend (they blew it on bonuses) -end cronyism -term limits -constitutionalism-most of us had the preamble memorized. -and MOST OF ALL- a FAIR tax policy for all.
There are many more similarities, but to be 100% honest, the tea party was just plain.... more civilized. I could see myself and many others get involved here if it weren't so over-run with the hate-filled juvenile, misinformed, kids. It just won't be taken seriously by the masses as long as you have litter, disorderly conduct and arrests on TV everyday. Tea party had the tri-point hats,stupid costumes, and tea bags hanging from their clothes. The left wing media had a field day making fun of it. OWS has dreads, masks, drum circles and punks. The right-wing media IS having a field day with it.
That is why we need you! You forsake them because they are kids. They are "kids" because you forsake them. Talk to people on this forum, not as a Tea Partier but as a human being. A wise, experienced human being. They need help, they are young and emotional. (I am young and rational it seems)
The tea party was not unlike this movement in its infancy. Beware the infiltration.
I know all too well
An open letter and warning from a former tea party movement adherent to us, the Occupy Wall Street movement:
http://www.reddit.com/r/occupywallstreet/comments/kyjo2/an_open
I read it. That is why I wrote this
Excellent brother. I am One with you. ♥ And nothing will divide us.
Divided by Zero
Feel free to watch this & share:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK2WJd5bXFg&feature=player_embedded
@ Mgiddin1 and @ sister ray - your civil convo that ended in a consensus made my cry .. Thank you- that is all :-)
teabaggers beware the birth of the anti-teabagger party is going on now.
Free Markets = Big Government.
The only difference between "Free Market" of Adam Smith and "Socialism" of Stalin is that one is private government and the other public government.
I think the Tea Party did (past tense, here) one good thing: It highlighted, front and center, that our government leaders are simply doing the unsustainable: spending more than we take in. Solve that and America will be much stronger, and all boats will rise with the tide; that is, once we get the unreasonable CEO wages more inline with the rest of the world.
Yep.
We are all against the government of the 1%.
I am NOT for smaller government. Deregulation=corruption. I am NOT the tea party.
I meant in the daily lives of PEOPLE. Corporations aren't people.
Thanks for this inclusive invite! We share common ground - OWS and the Tea Parties - we need to End the Fed, we need to take special interest money OUT of politics.
I see no connection between OWS and tea party. Tea party wants to embrance corporations and preventation taxation of rich. Tea party hates unions (remember events in the midwest earlier this year?). Tea party wants deregulation. Tea party doesn't even believe in science or climate change. I support OWS. I completely oppose tea party.
"I see no connection between OWS and tea party." - Then you are not 'the 99' - plain and simple.
"Tea party wants to embrance corporations and preventation taxation of rich." - where do you get this - they certainly err on the side of blaming government (which is the most recalcitrant, out of control corporation there is), and need to focus more on the criminality of the corporations and big banks - but there is a strong libertarian focus within the tea parties that does just that. Besides - do you know how many different kinds of expressions there are within the tea parties - your points sound like talking points from the DNC...
"Tea party hates unions" - Yes, the TPs have tended to demonize unions - and vice versa! Let's keep in mind that there hasn't really been an effort to connect the two movements - if there were perhaps we'd see the unions are also massively corrupt at the top, as are the political parties, many/most large corporations, and the captured government politicians...
Tell me your sense is that we can all learn from each other - or are you too stuck in the L/R political box that the bankstas and 1% love us to fight in?
"Tea party doesn't even believe in science or climate change." This is so bogus - there are people of every ilk in the tea party - some that do and some that don't believe in the imminent danger of climate change - and huge numbers of scientists, engineers and just people of every stripe.
Are the TPs center/right - no doubt. Must you figure out a way to connect to the tea parties if you really want to be the 99, or even more than say the 20? Yes.
I oppose your intolerance and non-inclusivity.
Yes, invite any Tea Partiers you know. They will most likely be misinformed about the movement due to the media.
Yes, there is common ground. For instance ending the Fed is a foundational cornerstone without which true changes cannot easily or ever occur.
I disagree with the Tea party on many issues but there is one place of agreement; we both want our voices to play a role in their government. James Madison ( the "Father of the Constitution") wanted a large House of Representatives, one of his greatest fears was a too small House. He wanted each Representative to represent no more than 50,000 citizens. The House was envisioned to grow with the country, but in the early 1900's congress decided to limit the House to 435 people. This was a mistake. Let's try to fix this error by calling an Article V convention to amend the Constitution and place this concept back into our government. The OWS movement is spreading to every state and to call a convention only requires 2/3 of the States to do so. So let's try to get the tea party on board because that is something everyone can agreee with. Google "thirty thousand house of Representatives" for a website with more info.
Great idea! Fix the republic and add some direct democracy too!
We are the silent majority. we are watching. expect us. go home
Why didn't you just join us? You would be welcome at any tea party meeting.
Because the Tea Parties goals are too short term and short sighted. plus, they have been engulfed by the main stream Republicans
In case you haven't noticed, the Dems and Unions are lining up to exploit you guys...and I challenge the notion that our goals are short sighted. Main Stream repubs have yet to figure us out.
I have noticed. unfortunately, others haven't.
And if that is true, then join this movement before it gets taken over
I want a small government controlled by the people.
Well said. The tea party was on the right track before it got hijacked by the ultra right. We need to learn from that and not become the pawns of any group that does not reflect our core values. All the more reason to be clear about what those values are!
Have you considered that we likely were not hijacked, that the opposition would like you to believe they were? What if the core of the country is far more conservative than you suspected, and those conservatives have finally realized they can speak out and create change, at least on those core issues around which they have agreement?
I would agree that a large portion of the country is conservative but not the ultra extreme conservatives that are now dominating the tea party. One of the original points and goals of the tea party was to address the corruption in Washington with big money corporations buying off politicians and corrupting the democratic process. And the wasting of our money and youth in 2 no win immoral wars. Where are those messages now? Have you considered that the ultra right is also the big money buying off congress and making money from the wars? Look behind the smoke and mirrors that diverts us from finding the root causes of our problems. Think for yourself what those causes are, as we all should be doing!
The VAST majority of government spending is other then defense. In 1986, defense comprised approx. 20%. Today it's down to 16%. It's the entitlement programs that are killing us, just like Greece, Spain etc. The best way to solve the debt problem is to get private industry employing more people, thereby paying more taxes. The best way to get private industry going is to stop allowing foreign manipulation of their currencies and foreign exploitation of trade agreements, and closure of loop holes that make it attractive for US companies to export jobs.
It isn't foriegn companied. It is OUR companies! You think you iPhones and Macs were made in the grand ol' USA?
Agreed, and it's our policies that make it attractive for these items to be made abroad. China enjoys favored trade status with the US while they manipulate their currency values to keep their goods cheap.. uses slave prison labor... engages in unparalleled industrial espionage to steal intellectual property.. doesn't honor patents or trademarks.. all while our politicians stand by and let it happen and while Wall St. ships the jobs overseas.. lowers their costs and pockets the difference... anyone who thinks the savings gets passed on to the consumer is gravely mistaken
Did Rush Limbaugh post this?
Yes, right, the way to eliminate inequality, unemployment, corruption, greed and the raw deal that the 99% are getting is to reduce government and all their programs that serve the 1% like social security, medicaid, medicare, business regulations, free secondary school, and loans for post secondary school.
Yes, that will level the playing field and make society fair.
This is a great idea. I'd mentioned it in cough one of the threads that got deleted last night, to one 'Hank Rearden,' who said that he'd been involved in the early stages of the Tea Party. Hopefully he'll see this, since he seemed to have direct contacts in the movement.
A radical left-right coalition could, at the very least, transform the shape of the debate, and hopefully decouple the Tea Party from the FOX-Palin rubric.
However, I'd argue that the "smaller government" line item is exactly the point of contention, since any focus on economic justice really presumes what any libertarian would qualify as 'big government.' It might be worth rather drawing up the terms of a limited coalition for working for common aims, rather than just opening the doors to a most probably divisive meeting of the minds.
You can define smaller government in different ways. I define it that the government has become large because it is now it's own entity. If it was for the people by the people. All of the problems of it being too large would be irrelevant.
I think the point of initial agreement could be that government inefficiency needs to be addressed and trimmed down; then the strategy could be a matter of defining 'inefficiency,' 'government waste,' 'overspending,' etc. The Tea Party have a core ideological inconsistency, because what they're really pissed about, at base, is the welfare state. The outrage is less piqued at how the government supports corporations and is beholden to lobbies and special interests (because, again, special interests for the Tea Party means social interests). So the language of 'too large' is a red herring. It should be converted to questions of transparency and democratic responsiveness, not 'size.' That's why this could be a productive exchange, because the motivation and numbers are certainly there with the Tea Party, and if they are at all amenable to logic, they should have to be able to recognize that when we are talking about "freedom" and "democracy," what we're talking about, vis a vis the government, is transparency and direct responsiveness to their constituents, without interference from interests that can outspend any individuals--not 'size.'
Excellent point Michael. I'm all for smarter government, therefore efficient government which may result in smaller government.
If you guys want to attract people to your rally don't let any one group take it over. The tea party made that mistake. Right now letting big labor into your protests was a massive mistake and will marginalize everything you guys have set out to do. The media will make your protests into an Obama/Democrat re-election rally and the message will be lost.
Which is why I want the original Tea Partiers to join us! They will balance it out.
It's called Libertarianism and yes, there is common ground on which to unite.
Sorry I disagree with the libertarians on many things. This shouldn't be about ONE political view. We're all against the bail outs for fraud and golden parachutes for the few. We're all against corporate take over of our election process, we're all against corporate lying media. If you want to find the common ground it can be done but, naming something and calling it the one way on all matters is not going to be a good thing.
We should be all for making the government for the people again, in my mind, that is smaller, as it is no longer a seperate entity
Until we get corporations out of our election and voting process and media no one has a voice anyway. Once that is done then everyone can be assured their vote matters again and whether it's your view or mine of the world everyone will have their say again. Right now voting doesn't even matter anymore. We have no voice, no rights, no say so. I say concentrate on getting our voice back and corporations OUT of our media, our elections and voting process, and make the 1 percent pay their fair share. When that is all done we can go back to discussing small/big government and all the rest. Until then we're tilting at windmills. The one percent control what does or does not happen now.
I completely agree with you. I just mentioned this to entice Tea Partiers to think about joining us.
Though I think we need to go beyond just a Republic, we need more of a democracy too.
It can happen if people can get to this point. Agree on those few things, change them. That's it. Then go back to getting your voice heard on other matters for once in decades.
16 tons and what do you get..
This is the world the libertarian party wants. It's only a common ground if you're white and rich.
Be part of the solution, not part of the problem, which today appears to be divisiveness.... personally I've had enough of political pandering to any group.. pandering is the tool that a minority party uses to divide and conquer the majority
...but a lot of your demands would require larger government. Would they not?
Some would involve safety nets that would NOT necessarily make the government a lot bigger. Medicare, Social Security are all things we have already paid for. We are told those programs are a problem even though especially social security was completely self funded until the government stole from the fund and put in worthless I.O.U.'s. Whether you agree or not on those points one thing is for sure everyone wants the corruption OUT of our election process and our government. Everyone wants accountability. The working class and poor have been demonized in this country in favor of the elite few for decades while they steal from us. I am sure there is plenty of common ground there. Everyone knows they've been taken, not everyone knows why they feel that way but people know when they have been purposely manipulated. Everyone knows we've been taken for a ride from the media, our politicians, the corporations and the bankers. They keep us distracted and fighting each other to get away with the sweet set up they've got going. It's a scam. Stop fighting back and forth on what you don't agree on and start fighting back on the issues you do agree on. It's the only way the 99 percent won't be co opted by liars seeking to stop you having fairness while they line their pockets with your hard earned money and steal your children's futures. The time to fight back at the real enemy is now and the enemy is not any of us. It's the 1 percent.
No, a lot of demands that are being called for are able to be done by the states. But even so, those aren't our final demands, those are some ideas, that haven't been counterbalanced yet by the other side.