Forum Post: OWS and the Tea Party are mutually incompatible
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 2:36 p.m. EST by stray
(219)
from Philadelphia, PA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Yes, they are part of the 99%, and they may mean well, but the only spot we're going to agree with Tea Partiers is that bailing out the banksters was a bad idea.
Mostly, we want government to be accountable to US, not the 1%. They want to get rid of government for the sake of preserving their own wealth, however little it may be. They are scared, and I don't blame them, we might be in the worst situation since the great depression. Extreme right wing media has them stirred into even more of a panic, and they might mean well, but their actions are empowering the 1% more and more.
I think the less government idealogy of the Tea Party is a good thing. But banks and corporations are not people so the government isn't being intrusive when it regulates banks.
Teacher,
But its not just the banks that need to be regulated. Koch industries for example basically invented the oil derivative. Derivaitvies are largely unregulated. Regulation of the Kochs would be viewed as a form of persecution. They Tea Party is against regulation of corporations on principle. There is very little common ground with them.
hmm i'm pretty sure the first "oil" derivative appeared in ancient greece, when thales of miletus bought option contracts on the olive mills in expectation of a large harvest.
OP,
How many tea party people have you sat down and spoke with face to face?
No one in the tea party thinks you should be able to dump benzene in the rivers or shoot mercury out of the smokestack at a power plant. Sure, there are some highly paid figure heads that get on TV and spout nonsense but that does not reflect the core values of the movement, just like #OWS is not a bunch of commies.
You need to break free of the dem-rep paradigm and the MSM propaganda machine.
marsdefIAnCe,
I presume you were posting a response to me though it seems out of context with what I stated in my post. Nevertheless let me say
The town where live I Frederick MD is full of Tea Party advocates. Having seen them represented on TV it is obvious their primary tenet is no regulation on industry. That is why they want to abloish the EPA. Now how are you going to prevent dumping benzene in the rivers or shooting mercury out of the smokestack at a power plant if you don't regulate the industry.
OWS on the other hand wants regulation. Its deregulation that has lead to the establishment of the banker crime syndicate that is killing this nation. What can't you see about that? Tea Party positions are fundamentally self contradictory.
Ditch these platitudes ASAP: "You need to break free of the dem-rep paradigm and the MSM propaganda machine." and try thinking for yourself for once.
Real tea party people don't get on TV. It's the exact same phenomena as the MSM painting #OWS as commies and talking about one dude who pooped on a police car.
Simple, and absolutely dead on.
I dissagree. We just need to concentrate on what we have in common. I think one thing we can agree on is that we want corpoate money or maybe all money out of Washington. We don't want the people we elect to be beholden to the companies who fund their elections. Maybe we, both occupiers and tea partiers, can (and I know this would be difficult) put our ideology aside and say this: Whatever ideology wins, whatever laws are enacted, we want those things to be the result of what the people want - not the result of joe shmo the polititian needing to satisfy a major monied interest who will bury them in negative advertising if their wishes are not obeyed.
Unfortunately, Tea Party rhetoric is based in the idea that only the "53%" deserve a voice in government. They WANT money to matter when it comes to political decisions. I don't see how you reconcile that.
The Tea party only advocates reform that benefits corporations is that what OWS stands for?
We want accountability from the corporations, for the most part, not to give them a free pass. The Tea Party seems more interesting in making sure TARP was "on us." It was our gift to them, we'll make the poor foot the bill, eventually.
The Tea Party has been taken over by corporate interest. Most of their supporters though would probably agree with OWS, if they ever took the time to learn about it.
They also tend to lean towards hate and intolerance as they have been conditioned by the right to think that the 1% isn't the problem but rather blacks, latinos, and other people of color
Yeah but that only means they need to be educated :). Hard to do, considering how much Fox News they watch.
agreeable, I have just had some intensely bad experiences with the crowd and not enough good one's I guess!
Well I had none since I don't live in the US :). But you have to be pragmatic about it. I mean you definitely can't ignore them since they probably constitute a considerable part of the population.
This is ignorant BS. The Tea Party is the most inclusive grass roots organization to spring forth in recent history.
Spread your ignorant propaganda elsewhere.
Yes, they've bought totally into the Gov't is the problem meme and no amount of talking with them is going to change that. They'd prefer a Somalia if it meant they were in charge. The Tea Party IMO is a deeply authoritarian movement for many reasons, all of which are highly resistant to reason or facts. Its a mostly emotional reaction and less a movement for real change. In short, its reactionary not Revolutionary. Its aims are some kind of return to the early 19th century or earlier ( maybe the 15th century, who knows?)
Libertarians or True teabaggers call for EVERYONE ABIDING BY THE SAME LAWS. Not one set of privileges and laws for the banking class and one set for the working class. Marxist theory requires everyone get paid the same for variable amounts of labor, which in the end forces people to not work well. There needs to be some level of meritocracy.
Incorrect, OWS & Tea Party are perfectly compatible. Many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted 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/
because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org to support a Presidential Candidate -- such as any given political opportunist you'd like to draft -- in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link above, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Congress replacing the "old" Congress according to your current Occupation & Generation, called a Focused Direct Democracy.
Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet; it's the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under, in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing & Group Investment Power, that's important. Sequence is key.
Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.
The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.
Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupation & Generation.
So please JOIN the 2nd link, so we can make our support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for by e-mail from the group in the 2nd link, and then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the strategy of the 1st link as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your Occupation & Generation.
Please show incontrovertible proof that the "Tea Party" wants to get rid of government. Show me where THEY are not demanding that the government be held accountable to it's citizens.
Did you ever bother to do your own research and actually speak to and interview actual Tea Party people or did you just buy the &^%$ propaganda spewed about them?
If you weren't willing to do that before, and you aren't willing to educate yourself NOW-then you can shut the hell up about all those "weak minded, zombies" that do the exact same thing to OWS.
I agree the Tea Party's interest lays with deregulating. If we want the banks to pay we need to regulate them.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: One of the main pillars of Conservative propaganda is that both parties are the same. Nothing they say is further from the truth. It is an insidious lie intended to demoralize progressives, and discourage them from voting. Do not fall for this canard, because if both parties are the same, there is no hope for change, and therefore no reason to vote. The truth is that there is a difference between the parties. A stark difference! One party works for the rich, the other party works for all Americans. One party takes money from the needy to feed the greedy, and the other party takes money from the greedy to feed the needy. One party has plans and policies to create jobs, and the other party has a long list of lame excuses for not doing anything. Liberals want to change things. Conservatives want things to stay the same. There is a difference. One party wants to tax the rich, and the other party wants to tax the poor. One party wants to destroy Unions, and the other party wants to support them. One party supports the Occupation of Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to rebuild America, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to provide health care for all, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to regulate Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One Party wants to end the wars; the other party wants them to go on forever. There is a difference. One party is Myopic, and the other party is Far Sighted. One party wants to help the Middle Class, and the other party is at war with the Middle Class. One party wants to fire Teachers, and the other party wants to hire them. One party wants to create more jobs in America, and the other party wants to create more jobs in Asia. There is a difference. One party wants to protect pensions, and the other party wants to loot them. One party has a heart, and the other party has Ann Coulter. One party protects the right bear Arms, and the other party protects the right of freedom of assembly. One party believes that the only role for the Government is to provide for the common defense, and the other party believes that the Government should also promote the general Welfare. There is a difference, and anybody that tells you there is no difference between the parties is simply not conversant with reality. In addition, anyone that blames the Democrats for the current state of affairs has no understanding of who controls the Government. One Party has the Presidency, and the other party has the Majority in the House, controls the Senate, has a majority on the Supreme Court, and is responsible for current economic policy. So, if you’re angry, and you want to start a real fight, I submit that we should start a real fight with the Conservatives! America has a Two Party System. One party is clearly on your side, the other party thinks you’re and Anti-American mob. At some point in time you’re going to have to pick one. Choose wisely, your future is at stake
THAT oceanweed was one of the most blatant, undeniable pieces of propaganda and rhetoric I've ever seen. You used every technique in the books didn't you? Hopefully these people are at least smart enough to know THAT much. If they aren't-God save us all.
Do not let this one sided, lying, completely dishonest moron tell YOU what to believe. Don't let ANYONE from ANY SIDE tell you what to believe. Do your own damn research or people like oceanweed will become your new masters. HINT #1-people who talk in absolutes (everyone on this side thinks-says-feels-acts...and everyone on this side thinks-says-feels-etc) are ALWAYS lying. It is a statistical impossibility for a group of individual human beings to be exactly the same.
oceanweed has been called out in multiple threads tfor attempting to hijack the OWS in his own little way to push his own agenda. The OWS has come out on numerous occasions and stated it wishes to remain bi-partisan and oceanweed trolls the forum spewing anti-Republican, anti-conservative, anti-everything he/she doesn't agree with all over the place. Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain.
no just by republican sack holders
Well said.
stop blaming both sides equally you are misleading when republicans have done nothing but demonize the movement from the start OWS is not stupid
When you have spoken to every Republican on the planet and can prove that NONE of them have done "anything but demonize the movement from the start" THEN you and I can have a conversation about that.
But until then, anyone that believes that the "truth" can be established by simply saying that something is true, and gets MORE true the more people say it-IS STUPID by definition of the word STUPID.
Do you ever get tired of copying and pasting the same stuff for hours on end? LOL, you even included the "reply permalink edit delete."
What's frightening is that I think you actually believe this stuff.
move along dude you are not ows im fighting for the middle class
LOL!
Ya dude ... you were going to tell us all about the middle class
Stop copying and pasting moron troll
Another hate filled speech from a close minded liberal. Typical. You have been brainwashed by the leftest media and understand very little of the conservative mentality.
Both parties are the same. They take the same bribe money, pimp the same companies and have almost zero positive effect on the country. A neocon and a neoliberal have implementation differences but in the end both will drive a LEXUS or an SUV. Nancy Pelosi flew in a private jet, OBama burns millions in that retarded Airforce 1 and Conservative GOP get freebie flights. The difference between the 2 parties is who they HEIST. The Democrats use the government to heist people. The GOP uses the military or the corporate anarchists to HEIST people. Obama is now sending the military to Africa...the doofus is more interventionist than BUSH
i agree with this post
This is more bullshit divide and conquer. You'd better get used to the idea that this movement is full of all kinds of people, with mutual goals, who will have to work out their differences after we do something about the criminal banksters and their politician partners. The very first people to protest the Wall St bailouts were the tea party people. They are not the "teocons" who later jumped on the bandwagon. The first tea parties were about ENDING THE WARS, ending the Fed, and restoring our constitution to stop this runaway tyrannical government. Those goals are completely consistent with those laid out by the people who got this whole thing going. Here is the text of the first message that went about the civil disobedience that became OWS:
*“We are a decentralized non-violent resistance movement, which seeks to restore the rule of law and fight back against the organized criminal class.
One-tenth of one percent of the population has consolidated wealth in unprecedented fashion and launched an all-out economic war against 99.9% of the population.
We are not affiliated with either wing of the two-party oligarchy. We seek an end to the corrupted two-party system by ending the campaign finance and lobbying racket.
Above all, we aim to break up the global banking cartel centered at the Federal Reserve, International Monetary Fund, Bank of International Settlement and World Bank.
We demand that the primary dealers within the Federal Reserve banking system be broken up and held accountable for rigging markets and destroying the global economy, effective immediately.
As a first sign of good faith, we demand Ben Bernanke step down as Federal Reserve chairman.
Until our demands are met and a rule of law is restored, we will engage in a relentless campaign of non-violent, peaceful, civil disobedience.”*
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/a-report-from-the-frontlines-the-long-road-to-occupywallstreet-and-the-origins-of-the-99-movement.html
So why not go for stopping and reversing bank bailouts? Since that is the only issue that might be 99% agreed on?
I agree with you mostly. But, I also think you may mis characterize the OWS movement. My feeling is, and correct me if I am wrong, that OWS realizes that our current government structure is innately flawed, and therefore believe that the government should be turned over to the people entirely. In other words, This isnt about teaching politicians how to behave in the best interest of the people. This is about effectively removing them from power, and returning the governing of this country to the people, including indigenous peoples.
First, I want to say "Thanks" be to OWS.
I don't know the tea party well enough to criticize... but I will anyways.
They seem to promote big corporate interests by wanting to ban the EPA.
They seem to promote the same globalism that took away our jobs (by not demanding trade tariffs) even though they appear to be "small town".
And they want America to go backwards because they are against clean, unlimited renewable energy (which must be created in robotic factories to become cheap enough to create almost unlimited install jobs).
Everytime I ask a tp on Huffington Post, about these issues, they do NOT respond! Instead, they simply repost the same old anti global warming and anti democrat arguments. They don't seem to realize that both parties are bought out by corporate interests that appear to have America (and the rest of the world) turn into one big and ugly fascist playground.
All I've ever gotten from TP is talking points. I point out glaring flaws, and get talking points. I try to start discussion, and get talking points. Its sad, frustrating, and disheartening that they don't seem to want to process, or question things for themselves, they seem to think 'someone else knows better'.
i don't think that an organic group of citizen activists would want to be part of a paid astroturf mob which seeks the violent overthrow of the government, spews antisemitic vulgarity, compares out president to hitler and quaddafi, shits on police cars and fakes injuries and protest images to promote themselves.
All concerned being Americans, thius ought to work, if there is support for use of the constitution to defend itself. An exchange about Article V and the tea party.--
TIOUAISE, You must have intended to refer to Article V when using a quote with the word "institutionalized". "Occasional conventions were envisioned by many of the country’s founding generation of leaders to be a sort of institutionalized avenue toward THE IDEAL OF REVOLUTION EVERY TWENTY YEARS, often attributed to Thomas Jefferson. According to Samuel Williams of Vermont (1743-1817), it was to be the means to accomplish periodic constitutional adaptation to changing times.”END WHAT IF; there was a doctrine of natural law, chopped up and partially included in the Declaration, then later, more cut out and placed in the Bill of rights, and this was self evident when the missing parts are recombined with what is carried by our social contract? There is still 70% more still unknown that has exactly that status. What it means is that free speech is not enough to assure that communication are adequate to see that vital speech for survival is shared and understood. The doctrine logically provides fixed criteria which engages public support for speech that reasonably qualifies with priority recognized by moderate numbers of citizens signing petitions. The corporate media will never expose secrets faithfully, but it can deal somewhat IF the public already knows. That is what I'd propose for revision of the first amendment at Article V because the misleading of the people by media is a tragic thing. That is logically followed by election reform. Info then decision.
Well, actually, technically, legally, congress is in violation of the constitution for not convening delgates long ago. Another wiki piece that is verified. WIKI- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution"Congress acted preemptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention."-- Legally, based in that, American citizens have had their first right violated for a long time. Here a law suit uncovered some facts about congress and Article V. http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.htmlGood links, resources. Also, congresses interpretations of Article V lack the constitutionality that is in the intent of the constitution when the 9th amendment and 14th amendment are considered, so all of their decisions based in the erroneous, unconstitutional interpretations are questionable. I'm quite certain that IF OWS focused on Article V, and called for the tea party to "Join in defense of the Constitution by use of the Constitution", the level of embarassment known by tea partiers in NOT using the constitution would have them either converting the tea party or parting ways.-- ON EDIT: TIOUAISE wrote: "THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS ILLEGAL and therefore MUST be challenged by all patriotic and law-abiding Americans,"END- Yes, and after many years of knowing that the failure of Americans to drive congress to convene, after the civil war, and formally end it, I found the "Lieber code" and that it was used by congress to allow the defacto military government to
IIt's true OWS and the Teabaggers are diametrically opposed.
The Teabaggers are quite happy to be the plantation slaves of Goldman-Sachs and the Koch Brothers. It would be a violation of their principles to think of regulating their larcenous plundering of the American economy.
OWS on the other wants to put both the CEO of Goldman-Sachs an the Koch Brothers in jail for their crimes against the American citizenry and regulate the industries to prevent it from happening again.
So what the Teabaggers idolize as model behaviour by the corporate elite, OWS sees it as crimes against the nation.
The Teabaggers basically want to secure their place as plantation slaves and OWS is revolting to get off the plantation.
They're totally different phenomena.
The two groups will have a lot more in common if the Tea Partiers succeed in convincing Occupy Wall Street protesters to vilify the Fed.
Checkout the Tea Party's 15 core beliefs from http://www.teaparty.org/about.php
Certainly there is some common ground between OWS and the Tea Party. Just stay non-partisan and operate under the 99% banner.
I think you guys need reform in your political system. I'm from Romania so I have an outside opinion, but I think you have far bigger problems than whether the government should be big or small. If everything you get out of this is a bunch of regulation then I think that would count as a loss.
The Tea Party is a populist movement much like your own, but it seems to me like it was taken over by the GOP. What you need to do is find the things that everybody can agree with, even Tea Party supporters, and push those first. Things like taking money out of politics and cleaning house in the banking system. The people that led those banks to the cliff should loose their jobs. That's something every American can get behind. Also the people that invested in those banks should loose their investment. And once you've achieved these goals, or at least have enough support for them, then you can start talking about what to do in the future so that it doesn't happen any more. But it looks to me like the lack of regulation is not the problem but a symptom.
The tea party wants a smaller government not because it benefits corporations, but because the government limits personal freedom.
That also includes the freedom to fail.
That's great, but we prevented them from failing in '08. TARP happened. Now we can't break them up, can't regulate them, can't do anything until... they fail AGAIN, and NEXT TIME, they won't get bailed out!!! Bwahahahaha that will show them!
Do we pick up the pieces or force them to fail again? NOTHING will change while we're fighting each other on what to do.
I did not agree with the bail out. I also did not agree with the stimulus package. They should have been allowed to fail last time, and if they get themselves in the same situation again, they should be allowed to fail.
I am not sure what you mean by, force them to fail again. If you mean personally boycott them into failure, by all means. If you mean tax them or regulate them into failure, no.
I was all for the stimulus just not the bailouts....I wanted to see the strings attached.
We propped them up with NO STRINGS, and now the Tea Party manifesto is that we can't EVER regulate them, or tax them, or what have you. Who does that benefit? We handed the TRILLIONS between TARP and the Fed, and we aren't allowed to hold them accountable?
Corporations were not given trillions. Billions, yes.
I did not say they should not be held accountable. Are you suggesting that they be taxed or regulated into failure on purpose?
So that $16 trillion in 0% loans that showed up in the Fed audit was fictional?
Let me try to put this in a way a Tea Partier can understand... you want to end unemployment and turn it into a work program or something, right? You want people to be "productive" and "accountable" when they get money from the government.
But when it comes to corporate or bank bailouts, you're perfectly OK with LETTING THEM TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN. See the disparity? Why do you want people to be accountable, and not corporations?
When did I say that I am "perfectly OK with LETTING THEM TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN."
You said, "force them to fail again" and I have been trying to figure out what you mean by FORCING them to fail.
And why would you even go there... "Let me try to put this in a way a Tea Partier can understand" A little condescending huh?
I can tell that you just want to argue... you believe that you have already had this conversation a million times before and you know exactly what the TP stands for...
I can tell from your generalizations... you are arguing about points that I never said.
I can also tell from your lack of acknowledgment on the items I have agreed with you on. You continue to argue them even after I have agreed with you.
Gah I can't nest deeper. Anyway:
Government DOES have the power to limit the size of a company, relatively speaking. They're called "Antitrust" laws. I know the rhetoric says "REGULATION IS BAD AND BLABLABLA" but the argument is no more sensible than saying that murder should be legal. Without antitrust laws you would basically be allowing economic murder.
You really should take an econ or business course. The bigger a company gets, and more importantly, the more of a market they take over, the less jobs there are. Competition breeds redundancy; if a company gets bigger by overwhelming or buying out its competitors you lose jobs because there's less redundancy. Instead of 2 clerks per store between 4 stores (8 clerks) you can have 3 or 4 clerks for one store. That means less jobs, and more importantly less pay, because there's more workers than there are jobs.
I know the TP fantasy dreamland is the "free market" but that is also a fallacy, because the cost to compete toe to toe with the 'big 6' or in any other market that has seen competition collapse is exorbitant. You can talk up "competition" all you want but there really isn't any on the horizon.
So we're back to the first option, where bigger actually means worse. You want to castrate government from keeping these companies from consolidating MORE, taking more jobs away from us. Great.
You might think you mean well, but your actions don't benefit anyone but the 1%.
When did I ever say I wanted them to fail? I'm used to strawman arguments from Tea Partiers, if that wasn't your intention, then I apologize.
What I'm saying is that we bailed them out and are now letting them run free. No accountability, no oversight, no anything. You want to regulate them even LESS. I'm not sure how the end result of that can be anything but watching them implode yet again.
"Do we pick up the pieces or FORCE them to fail again?" It might be semantics, yet that is why I kept asking...
When I think of the term regulate, I think of putting restrictions on how, when and where a company can conduct business. I do not want to restrict a business from growing, or in limiting their earning potential. Just my thoughts on REGULATIONS. Some liberals use the work REGULATED in a disciplinary way. For example, that company makes too much money, they should be REGULATED from making too much money. (changed due to Freudian slip. reads the same though.)
As for payback. I think that the companies that received federal money should be expected to pay it back. They should be accountable for paying it back. We should not have GIVEN them money, no strings attached. What would you really expect them to do? I would expect them to put it into their back pocket.
Let me get this straight...
Can you seriously not see the fallacy in that? I'm sorry, but I facepalm every time I try to talk to a Tea Party member. You don't like "too big to fail" but you're A-OK with letting them get bigger and bigger than too big to fail.
Do you really believe they were too big to fail?
I have said several times that we should have allowed them to fail, so I obviously do not believe that they were too big to fail. There is no contradiction if I do not believe in #1.
So are you saying you want the government to have the power to limit the size a company or corporation can get because it could potentially get "too big to fail"?
I see it as a company grows, it creates jobs. As it gets smaller they cut jobs. So do I want companies to get bigger and grow? Yes. But keep in mind, I am talking about all companies and corporations. Not JUST the ones that were given federal money.
America is about not despising your neighbor for having more than you, but rather motivating you to do better, providing the framework to make that possible. Be careful about the goal of the protest - or we'll be calling Obama Putin.
I think we both agree the FRAMEWORK is what is broken...