Forum Post: Question to the Tea Party
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 18, 2011, 12:32 p.m. EST by stray
(219)
from Philadelphia, PA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I don't understand something, so help me out here. Some of you seem to be against "corporate welfare." Okay, great, we seem to be on the same page.
Except... your platform is to get rid of or massively lower the corporate tax, to do away with many if not all regulations, and some of you want the minimum wage done away with, as well as other worker protections. You guys typically seem to despise unions.
My point being... how is this NOT corporate welfare?
I'm not part of the Tea Party, but I can speak to this.
The issue is the fundamental belief in how best to create a powerful economy, which in turn builds a powerful nation.
The belief is that lowering corporate taxes lowers the cost of doing business and allows them to hire more employees, invest in new ideas and ultimately pay stakeholders a larger sum.
This in turn activates the cyclical nature of the economy. An example of this is: The new jobs that are created by lower costs allows these people to buy new products, which in turn raises corporate earnings, which in turn can be used to create more jobs to keep up with the new demand. And on and on it goes.
The issue with the above economic concept is that it does not account for human greed. These savings are usually passed on to stakeholders directly rather than actually used to boost the economy through the stated process. So, personally, I straddle the fence. When you look at taxation, it is considered a form of social engineering. So, why do we tax payroll? Doesn't this dis-incentivize hirings? What I would propose is lowering payroll taxes and increasing consumption tax - thus simultaneously creating a more excited employment rate and reducing national debt by curbing our overall appetite to purchase.
When it comes to regulation, it becomes more a political ideology issue rather than an economic principle. These people believe that an unfettered environment will lead to more economic prosperity and that most regulation is hidden taxation.
I completely disagree with this notion. We have seen how non-regulated industries behave (Love Canal, repeal of the Glass Steagall act, etc). Corporations innately act like selfish children in the pursuit of higher profitability. Rather than self-policing, they do what is fiscally cheap. Proponents of deregulation say the free market will ultimately deal with this, but I disagree and think this is reactionary.
The minimum wage issue deals with the actual results of it. Minimum wage is nothing more than disguised inflation. Raising the wage does nothing but revalue the dollar at a new price point so that the effect of the raise was negated by the market.
I completely agree with this. Economic principles hold true. Demand push inflation takes place and the value of the dollar is revalued. By the time 12 months have passed, the purchasing power has reset so that the new wage buys exactly what the previous wage could. But during that readjustment, companies are forced to pay these higher wages which reduces bottom lines. The way to respond to this is laying people off or taking it in the bo-bo.
Worker protections -- I'm not sure the Tea Party is actually against worker protections. I think that is just extremists that feel anything provided by the union is ultimately bad. Again, the stealth taxation concept comes into play.
When it comes to unions -- it is because they raise the costs of doing business exponentially. Not just through the regulations pushed, but by dues and other extraneous nonsense. They don't actually care about the corporations life cycle and will push agendas even in places where such an agenda will kill jobs. Ultimately companies are forced to close doors and plants.
I'm on the fence. There is no doubt that the above is true. But conversely, how would corporations behave if there was no one pushing the worker's agenda? There was a time and a place for unions. They used to have a purpose and represented something. They ensured that workers weren't being exploited. Now -- that really isn't the case. Workers aren't exploited and the new agendas become tomfoolery and they push agendas to prove they are doing something ... and not because it's the right move.
There is a middle ground that needs to be reached. For every progressive idea we need to counter-balance to ensure it doesn't have a disastrous effect. Corporations, while ultimately greed-centric and not caring about the employee, aren't necessarily evil and are necessary in this world.
You seem to assume that unions have both a level of power - unfettered - and stupidity that I have not observed in the real world. I've heard a lot of rhetoric.
Let's look at the auto industry. Wages were high, yes. But until management kept choosing car designs that consumers liked much less than Honda or Toyota, the industry did well. The unions did not choose the car models that people didn't like. They also did not make the cars unreliable compared to the competition. Management, however, will never admit responsibility for failure if they can duck it, in my experience.
It is rhetoric, sir. Someone asked about Tea Party mentality so I went about explaining it.
When it comes to unions, I'm very torn. I've seen them in good light, and I've seen them in negative light. I've been on both sides of the fence.
I can see where it can be both a benefit and a problem.
I've seen unions ensure safer workplaces. I've seen unions ensure health plans are equitable. On and on.
I've also seen unions push workers to strike at plants that run below profit margins despite pleading from corporations - and cause the plant to close. I've also seen union workers refuse to engage in other work because the union has defined their role.
So, unions can be both a worker blessing and an efficiency curse. Certainly management has to accept some responsibility - but when management has made those blunders and the union does not allow for concessions to help the company stay afloat - it's a one-sided beast that doesn't necessarily help the worker.
I explained in the original post both the negative views and some positive. I fail to see why this seems to bother you.
I've never seen a business forced to close. That would be dumb. In my experience, votes only follow the leadership if people think it makes sense. However, if you've seen it, then you have examples I don't have.
It doesn't come out in the press that way, but it is the "behind closed doors" discussions that are had. GM plant closings in the Niagara Peninsula are an example of some.
Again, I'm not inherently opposed to unions. But much like spending money on the military - they have to flex their muscle in order to justify the cost. And I'm not sure that flexing that muscle necessarily leads to good things.
The reverse is also just as much of a real problem -- what would the state of the workplace be without unions? Would corporations naturally "do the right thing"? Doubtful.
Let's learn from this mistake. Obviously, deregulation didn't work so well for the financial industry. We do however need to deregulate a government that requires little girls to get a business license for a lemonade stand.
I completely agree, although I would say we need to "regulate" the government and handcuff their powers more.
I noticed below that you are more libertarian, so we agree in more areas than not.
I'm not completely libertarian and don't believe in a completely unfettered, deregulated market - as these have shown the propensity to become problems and create issues in and of themselves. But, I don't believe in an overly powerful federal government either.
There has to be some in-between. Either extreme is not pleasant, in my opinion. An unwatched government will lean towards power consolidation, rights infringement and unfettered spending. An unwatched industry will lean towards greed motivated decisions, wealth consolidation and oppress the workers. It's the nature of both beasts.
One of the issues I have with OWS is that a lot of people seem to be pushing for help from the government. Make the government consolidate more wealth to their coffers and more power. This is a major mistake in my opinion - as it can only lead to one result. Assuming that the government is any less of a threat than corporations is folly.
The issues this country faces, in my opinion, are rooted on the foundation of a corrupt and broken political system. Broken and corrupt because we haven't been watching them and have allowed them to be held unaccountable for the rules/regulations/laws they are passing. Meanwhile, the populous is being divided by increasingly polarizing party/political ideologies.
So what are the issues facing us, in my opinion:
We have politicians that are bought and paid for by wealthy elites, corporations and unions. No longer does the political system represent the best ideas for the nation, but rather who paid the highest dollar at auction. That's a massive corruption of our basic political process. Regardless of political ideology, this is obviously a real issue!
Our government - both federal and state - have no fiscal accountability. Rather than having a legitimate discourse on reviewing our spend and determining the right way to raise the proper capital ... we debate one side or the other. There is no concession! While I disagree, ideologically, with the notion of the federal government instituting programs not in its constitutional authority -- it is what it is. So, if this is the world we live in - then we have to balance this. We cannot continue to overspend and run roughshod over economic principles that govern every other entity in this country.
If we plan to continue running federal programs, a major issue is that we refuse to acknowledge that most of our social and government programs are intrinsically flawed and review them to ensure that they incentivize the right behavior.
The way government budgeting works is to reward inefficiencies. The way the government operates is a broken system. The government needs to be pushed towards efficiency. In that way, we might have meaningful discussion on tax reform and the costs that it truly takes to run this country. We might be surprised that it takes far less than we realize and rather than raising taxes, we might be able to lower them.
Now, with all that said, I would push for lower federal powers. The job of the US government should be to ensure that the rights, liberties and freedoms of the people are not being infringed on. In that way, I can see the need for interstate EPA authority, FEMA, etc. To ensure that people across state lines aren't impacted or infringed on by corporations and/or other entities in other states. But, most powers need to be relegated back to the states.
Breaking up the power consolidation at the federal level can help disparage wealth consolidation as well. Further, it allows more direct representation of the will of the people within the state. If you don't actually like the laws and/or regulations, leave. This will innately cause competition among the states to which processes are most efficient. It will also allow tax dollars to be accounted for within the state in a more open manner.
Anyhow, I'll get off my high horse. :-P Just felt like typing, I guess.
Considering how much money has gone to the top 1% since the anti-union policies started 30 or 40 years ago, I don't agree that unions have lost their purpose.
In a true free market profit would be capped by competition, and wages would be higher because of the redundancy created by that competition. Corporations consolidate competition into one vehicle favoring investor interest, to compete by not competing. That gets paid on down the line... corporations can dictate their profit margins by how much the market would bear, they can dictate labor costs by how little the market will bear.
Government and unions serve as, or emulate market forces, and counterbalance to corporate interest, as I see it. Unions may have gotten greedy, but since their relative demise we've seen the greed go incredibly far in the other direction, and it's not healthy.
In a nutshell: America was founded on checks and balances. There's no checks and balances to corporate power in the Tea Party rationale, in my understanding.
I do agree with you, there is a balance to be found. But I don't think that balance is going to come around without taking into account the interests of all involved parties.
There's no one clear or consistent message coming from the Tea Party, just like there's still no one clear or consistent message coming from OWS.
Loopholes that make it so that behemoth corporations like GE get tax refunds and that cause our tax dollars to be "spent" by the federal government to enable 1 corporation to have a competitive advantage over another are what they're referring to with the term "corporate welfare". Most believe neither is fair, neither is good and pretty much all sides agree (Dems, Reps, TP'ers) it should be fixed. Corporate welfare is giving multi-million dollar tax breaks to GE for its investment in "green" R&D. That "green" R&D was research the company was going to do anyways in order to make products that will appeal to its customers in order that it can make a profit. By giving them a massive tax break, they gained a new competitive advantage over competition - was it warranted?
The general notion behind the recent fiscal holdouts was that governments, like corporations, are self-serving and ever-growing. No government department will ever admit to needing less in next year's budget than was needed in this year's. So, money is wasted, throughout all levels, departments and causes. That's inherent and unavoidable as a construct of the system. The holdouts say they don't want to give more until there are across the board cuts that force refocusing of efforts, review of where money's going and "sustainable" spending in line with "income" (taxes). Debt rolls over from one year to the next. Our current interest payment on our national debt is larger than the entire national debt was just a few years ago. Many economists (non-Keynesians) believe it's not sustainable and that it's only a matter of time before the interest payments exceed what we're able to make, which would cause our nation to be in bankruptcy.
The most common tax reform message from these folks is a call for simple, clear corporate taxes that enable more businesses to more easily conduct business - compete. Many want the tax loopholes that make it so that some companies have unfair advantages over others removed. They want corporations to pay fair and equal taxes - not that the revenue (taxes) raised from corporations should necessarily be lowered. What they're asking for is the removal of federal involvement in determining which businesses win and which lose. They wish for consumers to be allowed to decide which businesses win, based upon their purchase decisions alone.
Regarding unions: Many believe that unions have gained too much power. They believe they are led by corrupt and greedy leadership and that they need an overhaul just like the government. The US auto workers unions and their unreasonable demands given the nature of the automaker competition are a major component in the recent (near) failures of the US auto manufacturers. So, yes, there's a lot of anti-union sentiment. They can hurt a businesses' ability to enter an industry and they can hurt an organization's ability to be able to compete in an industry.
Regarding minimum wage; there are arguments going back to Adam Smith as to why minimum wage laws stifle new businesses, hurt competition and increase unemployment. The basic argument is that if there is demand for low paying jobs (people wanting to work for the wage offered) then a business should be allowed to pay the wage. Workers will leave an employer for an employer that pays more for the same work, all else equal. With this knowledge, the argument is, why is there need for a minimum wage law if they can only hurt competition and increase unemployment?
Your confusing corporate welfare with fair tax and stimulating the economy. Not all conservatives agree with all you have listed here.
When a Conservative talks about Corporate welfare, we are talking about govt grants and guaranteed loans to the private sector. Like giving co called green companies, that are not really " Green" ( A bull shit term" by the way), money to develop products that consumers don't want. For instance all the money that GM was force to put into electric cars when there is no market for it. Liberals do this because they think they know better. Like Solyndra! govt should not be in the private sector.
Lower tax rates stimulate the economy. Higher taxes are passed on to the consumer.
The increase in bank card fees is a direct result of the Dodd/Frank legislation. You think the company is going dip into profits for regulators? No way they pass it on to us. They increase tax on airlines and who pays the extra charge? We do consumers. Not the company. So when you increase taxes on Business, they just pass it on to the end user.
You're still talking about, and advocating for a government that puts business before people, IN EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE, when all is said and done.
If we do that, apparently, you're saying things will get better for the people? When has it ever actually played out that way? How is that any different from the rationale behind TARP?
It's not the govt's job to have anything to do with business. Govt is there "for the people" and more importantly "by the people". To protect the welfare of the people.
It always works! It is when govt interferes with business that the people get hurt in most instances. Not that the govt's intentions aren't good, they are it just doesn't work.
Our issue now is that govt is corrupted by big business. You don't fix that by going after the guy that "offered" the bribe. You go after the person that took that bribe in this case the politician. You put people in office that won't take the bribe!
Our problem is not the system, it's the apathy of the people that actually control the system. (The People) Only 25% of Americans vote. Of that 25% Many are union members that vote along party lines. Union members are always voting Democrats. They are taking huge some of cash from the unions. That's why you have Obama, and that's why we usually have Dems in control of house and Senate.
This movement is focused in the wrong direction. It should be occupy the White House.
That makes no sense... you get rid of a weed at its root, if you just cut the weed it grows back.
They also have to mention why they approve of a major felony, which is what the Boston Tea Party was. Imagine if our movement went on a private ship and threw off tea..lol Michelle Bachman would want us jailed or killed.
Tea Party Racists!
Tea Party = Racist
They Back Herman Cain in order to just look good.
Minimum wage is bad - Lowering corporate tax would bring back a lot of the jobs that have left the country. Regulations sounds good but don't work. It would take to much for me to go over all of these. I will go over minimum wage for you and why it is something that doesn't exist but gets you to the polls. When you force an employer to give a "minimum wage" it forces the employer to pass that cost down to the product being sold. So everything you buy will go up in cost. So if minimum wage is 7.25 an hour or 25.00 an hour your buying power would stay the same. Also it makes inflation go up and hurts people in the lower 50%.
you should watch this and read the book "How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLmD9TeUC54
Question the Tea Party. A union of selfish old predominantly middle class people. Angry: Yes. But what are they angry about? Taxes? Stupid. They lack historical perspective or don't want to acknowledge it. They don't recognize what they got from their parents. Now they are too selfish to pay it forward. If they get what they want, America will be severely weakened in the global economy. And militarily.
I recommend the following book as the start of a manifesto for OWC:
“The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity” Written by Dr. Jeffrey D. Sachs
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/18/141421746/income-disparity-and-the-price-of-civilization
http://www.amazon.com/Price-Civilization-Reawakening-Prosperity-ebook/dp/B004KPM1FS
Yes. Read it and you will applaud how much he has zeroed in on the real problems. And the real solutions.
Where did you get your information?
The Tea Party platform is pretty simple.....get the US government financial house in order...ie.....balance the budget. They do rail against corporate welfare, and corrupt politicians.
They do have a problem with the Unions. Their view is that the Unions are causing the rest of the middle class (about 85% of the labor force in America) to pay for the lavish compensation packages of the Unions (about 35% higher).
I do agree that there is something wrong when only a small group of people (about 15%) cause the other 85% to pony up all the taxes to cover the Union contracts (I am referring to the public sector). The Unions are in it for the Unions, not the average worker in America. The Unions drive the tax burden higher for all "non-Union" workers.
Unions also drive up wages in the private sector if there are enough in a given type of work. That's research from Harvard.
As unions weakened, pay stagnated and pensions started to bleed away, starting in the private sector. It is too bad we haven't been able to build private sector workers back up, but the focus is on tearing down rather than working together to build.
I am not necessarily faulting the Unions for "looking out" for their members. They have "moral" duty to do so....as do corporations to their stockholders. But, they also have a "moral" duty to respect all individuals that are effected by their decisions. There needs to be "balance".
There are those that would say private compensation and pensions should actually mirror union compensation and pensions and not the other way around...
Of course, then you couldn't as easily pay a CEO 300x what an average employee is making.
But then I'm sure the 1% wants us to beat down the unions til they're dead, so we can all live in equal misery.
They've certainly been effective. Lots of people want to drive public wages down to the average wage, despite the very high education levels most public sector jobs require.
Divide and conquer has been so very effective.
401ks give Wall Street several hundred times as much in fees for the same mutual funds and other money management products as what pension funds pay. It's one of the reasons they've paid to bad mouth pensions.
The neoliberal rationale to privatize EVERYTHING is just scary... they desperately WANT THAT MONEY!!! no matter where it is, where it came from, or what it is intended to be used for.
I'm not really into living in a corporate totalitarian state.
I'm with you on that!!
unions de-incentivise people
What?
the employee ranks are no longer based on ability and will to work but, on seniority so the slug that has been there forever is ahead of the guy that works his ass off
People work hard if they care about what they are doing. I've seen people with seniority protection who did a great job because their work mattered to them.
Promotions that weren't based on seniority, in the same place, often were not based on ability, unless you mean skill in flattery.
I'm just using an example from my workplace and the union in control of Kroger co. mostly only promotes on seniority. so, basically they're the unions bitch
I saw something that surprised me. Some of the para-professional jobs became promotion-by-seniority. One level was key to my work, and I was concerned that good quality people be in those jobs.
After a time, I realized that the quality of those folks was the same as when management hand picked them. Very much the same - not at all worse. I remember one woman I would never, ever have picked to promote, but she grew into the job and was great to work with.
There are factors in the "personality" of a workplace that go beyond seniority/no seniority, I think.
well the idea was they have been there longer so they deserve a promotion and have more experience. that is sometimes true, sometimes good people are promoted the problem is if they are a slug it is almost impossible to fire them. For example there is a worker that sits around and does nothing his whole shift and gets away with it UNDER MANAGER SUPERVISION , it doesn't help that him and the managers are buddies.I would also use the public school system. Good teachers sometimes aren't hired because bad teachers have to keep their jobs so it also seems the teachers union has the public school system as it's bitch too.
To fire someone, they had to show that they weren't doing their job or that they did something very inappropriate at work. There has been the claim that no one gets fired, but that is not what I saw.
The biggest difference is that they can't be fired because a manager didn't like them. Bosses just hate that, but saying that would not get them any sympathy. So they claim that no one can be fired.
In addition, if a slug gets promoted, there is a probationary period in which they can be demoted very easily. This can vary from 3 to 12 months that I've seen. If the boss doesn't act, that is his responsibility.
To be blunt, I've seen managers goof off on supervising, but never take any blame. They blame the union when they could have acted. It's a great out.
that is true, they probably think nobody gets fired because it is hard to fire people so they don't really try unless they do something super radical.
Because all of those things fuel SMALL business. Small business is the key to taking the power away from big business. Unless we should have a world with no business?
Small businesses typically thrive in new markets, in a lot of cases through, or because of disruptive innovations. Think MP3 vs. CD or telephone vs. telegraph or something like that. Those aren't quite as common as you would like to think.
No offense, but you're delusional if you think a small mom & pop is going to be able to compete with Walmart or some kind of corporate behemoth just by doing away with regs and taxes. Corporations like that benefit far too much from economy of scale. Quite the contrary, long run it makes it easier for Walmart, or whatever market leader exists to more easily snuff up and comers out.
Have a scaled tax on the size of the business then. Businesses under 50 employees pay no tax. Businesses 50-100 pay 5%. etc. That's just a quick example.
Who said a mom and pop shop could beat Wal-Mart at their own game? But if we encourage a mom and pop shop to be in business and local people will support that, it chips away at the Wal-Mart empire. When that happens outside of every Wal-Mart, there's some real power being kept in those communities. In terms of business, it's a complicated problem because we live in a society now that SUPPORTS huge corporations. Unless we address the mentality of the people, taxes and regulations and the like aren't going to fix anything.
Well... giving the big supermegacorp a tax break that the mom and pop doesn't get isn't a good start. I think a large part of it is that people just don't have the money to differentiate. There's just no market to compete on quality because the profits have all been going to the top for 30+ years, everyone else has been stretching their dollar further and further.
Grand scheme, I believe you get a healthier 'capitalist' system if the money is spread out in a more equitable way. You aren't supposed to be able to "win" in a free market, the more you try to justify "winning" the more the entire system unravels.
a LOT of people have disposable income that they choose to dispose of poorly. Those are the ones who could really make an economic difference with what they buy.
But the real problem is a problem with the people.
I won't shop at Walmart, but most people do. A little price difference gets them, even when they aren't poor.
The Tea Party Platform seems to fall in line with globalization of the workforce. It makes sense why they would not support any form of unionization of the workers.
They support voluntary unionism. They do not support compulsory unions(meaning in order to get a job, you are FORCED to join a union that has a monopoly on that position)
Here's the take-home-message: Don't let OWS be co-opted!! I don't know what the tea party stands for to some people. But it started because a lot of us were sick of Bush and the republican party, because we are fiscal conservatives and these fools were anything but. In addition, they were fascists.
Reasonable cutbacks to me are one thing, but once you start going off the neoliberal deep end you lose me. It feels like a giant handout to the banks and corporate giants that already sold our country, and yet some people consider it "punishment" to give corporations our welfare money.
I'm all about discussion, but it's hard to get sometimes.
well I'm not an anarchist. I do see that the government is needed for certain things but right now it is MASSIVE. It's involved in every aspect of my life and I would take a chainsaw to it if I were in charge.
Greed is a wonderful thing. If you want to put me in pop culture terms, my attitude is that of the fictional Anne Rice character Lestat. I am preppie, Ivy League, elitist Capitalist. I have abandoned the mask of Liberal hypocrisy, in favor of thinking and acting like a shameless CEO, since I admire shameless CEOs. I go out of my way to get to know these winners, because I want what they have and I I am a shameless self promoter. I want everyone to come out of the closet and be what nature intended them to be; to be social, but in such a way that they advance their rational self interest. I don't like the Tea Party, because the Tea Party seems to want me to live in the gutter and simply respect the wealth of others. Rather, I want a society where everyone has the opportunity to create and participate in wealth.
If Americans just do more with less and bow to everything billionaires want, then how do the rest of us get the chance to get rich? I want money and I need money more than I need spoiled billionaires, sitting on money, so the billionaires have to work with me, or deal with the crazy Socialist types, but I am not digging a ditch for the amusement of trust fund babies. I am a spoiled, preppie, Capitalist and I want money. If you don't like that you can go F yourself.
This is what I want people to tell me. I don't want to hear Communist bull sh-t. I want people to tell me that they want money and to pursue getting rich; that they want to be rich, that they need wealth, not that they want to destroy the rich. The cure for poverty is creating wealth, by moving up and moving forward. This means creating high paying careers, for most people, since they don't have access to loans or to resources needed to start their own business, I want protestors to be unashamed Capitalists and to tell the billionaires, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Ron Paul benefited from a medical system that artificially limited the number of graduates entering the medical profession, thus artificially boosting his income and contributing to exponentially escalating medical costs in this country. He begrudges me the same? Well f-ck Ron Paul. I need wealth and a high paying career, for me, not for Ron Paul.
Just an addition/aside - it's dehumanizing and wrong to say that these folks want to remove environmental protections and consumer protections so that businesses can run rampant destroying our earth and killing consumers. They deserve to be looked at for the legitimacy of the argument whether one agrees or disagrees, which in short is that they believe in "capitalism" where "market" demands for goods and services determines which products succeed, which leads to the success or failure of 1 business over another.
The "free market" you stand behind is a fallacy, WHERE is this competition going to magically spring up from? The cost of entry is far too high in many if not most markets.
At the end of the day, you might not want that, but that IS going to be the result of the agenda you're pushing. You're giving corporate interests an all-you-can-eat buffet for as long as they can maintain it.
corporate welfare, i saw a documentary about fracking for gas. A politican put pressure on the EPA to make it so fracking could poison water supplies! People getting sick because of it but EPA laws say it is OK.
things like that make me think well federal govt regulations dont really work to protect people, if it was state or local regulations it would be harder for companies to get away with stuff like that. On the state or lower level, Its not some far away unreachable govt department making laws but instead the people making the laws are closer and easier to keep accountable.
(I am not a tea partier i like ron paul thu, thu it seems hes not the usual tea party type & he was there before it got taken over by others)
The Tea Party is largely driven by racist sentiments.
http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/republican-party-racism/republican-tea-party-racism
And the OWS is largely driven by antisemitism.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/11/occupy-wall-street-has-an-anti-semitism-problem/
^^ Look, I can generalize and demonize too!!!!
But I can show that one side is right about what they say they are angry about while the other is full of it (meaning it's likely a proxy for their racist sentiment).
http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/tea-party/occupy-wall-street-ows-vs-the-tea-party-a-brief-comparison
"proxy for their racist sentiment"
Yes, of course...but then again, I can just as easily cherry pick links from the internet to show that OWS is antisemetic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMjm4LxFa1c
note: I am using a different source, whereas you chose a different from the same site as your first attempt.
You're not responding to my comment, but rather restating your original response. The Tea Party claims to rail against taxation and size of government, both of which they are clearly wrong about. They are heavily Republican (see various polls) and there is clear correlation between racism and the the republican party. Finally, check the actual sources on the site. You'll find that each page has a myriad of non-partisan sources. What's more, this 'OWS' person is yapping on about the Federal Reserve which is more inline with Ron Paul cult members, who do in fact frequent and attempt to co-opt Occupy Wall Street. I got into it with a few of them in LA.
All you are doing is generalizing and hoping that the slander sticks. I simply pointed out how easy it is to do the same to OWS.
If OWS ever hopes to represent the actual "99%" and not simply a portion of the political left, then it has reconcile it's declarative "we are the 99%", with the fact that a significant portion of the 99% are/were supportive of the Tea Party.
here here!
No, I am not generalizing. I am giving solid evidence by way of history, policies, anecdotes and pointing out the flaws in their stated purpose.
http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/
We need to become more powerful than the tea party!!!!
I agree, but they have their own video game. How can we beat that???
http://teapartyzombiesmustdie.com/
Or how about work with them and actually represent "the 99%".
Set aside ideological differences for now and find common ground on common problems (bribes...errrr..."campaign contributions" anyone?).
There will be plenty of time for the ideological battles on various issues, but how about we have them in a political environment free of the corrupting influence of corporate/union money.
Corporate welfare is giving a corporation money they didn't earn. Solyndra is a good example, the bailouts, etc... Allowing a company to keep more of it's profits is not welfare, it's just fair.
Really, it's all about staying competitive and allowing the most freedom in order to get the most innovation. Starting a business today is really, really complicated. Just getting a contractors, and then business license in the state of CA was a COMPLETE nightmare and took far longer than it should have. My husband spent months getting everything to go through while he was unemployed, and a great deal of it just waiting... time he could have been supporting our family with his skills was wasted due to bureaucracy. Then, down the line hiring employees (and creating more jobs) is an entire new nightmare.
Really, it's just about the US making it hard for companies to start up and thrive. Unions are another roadblock to a competitive market. My husband gets more headaches on a daily basis due to unions, than anything else. They also make it really, really hard to hire employees and get work done.
Honestly, IMO corporations are the biggest roadblock to a competitive market. Imagine a world where investors had to COMPETE if they wanted a slice of a market? Instead you guys seem more concerned with giving corporations unlimited leverage, but I digress.
I don't care about "fair" personally, in the liberal sense or the conservative sense. I care about functional, personally. Many conservatives seem to be motivated by sheer self interest, you guys seem to believe a corporation keeping more of their profits is going to benefit you, in the long run. It hasn't played out that way, in the past, and I don't see why it would in the future.
Here's my problem: how much more power are you willing to give the corporate power structure before things finally work the way you're billing them? The 1% keeps demanding more and you keep giving it to them, with no benefit to us. How much is enough?
First of all, you exaggerate greatly. Get rid of or massively lower the corporate tax? Do away with many if not ALL regulations? Oh, I'm sure there is someone out there advocating that. But when you characterize an entire movement in that manner, it means that you must only watch MSNBC. You should truly get to know the movement before you criticize. Psst. Don't listen to MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, Newsweek, Time, NYT, LAT, and you will be more knowledgeable. On second thought, I detest preventing people from reading something.....so, go ahead and read that biased crap, but keep in mind that they aren't bring you the "news".
MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, Newsweek, Time, NYT, LAT
That is a long list... damn "lamestream" media
Yeah, it is a long list. I made my point, what the hell is yours?
So... Faux News and the National Review? Any other "unbiased" right leaning news sources I should investigate?
Why did you say that? What assumptions are you making?
My experience with unions is that the elected board members tend to be so stereotypically corrupt - they siphon off the membership dues to enhance their own lifestyle and promote their own personal future with very little actual benefit to the membership. But there are exceptions - teacher's unions have enjoyed so much success that many now believe that the educational establishment, through strength of public education, has pushed the envelop too far, to the detriment of tax payers.
And I can't help but wonder, if labor rights could not be more properly secured through force of law. Currently, even the FLSA is under attack. We've actually lost rights under the FLSA as employers fight in court to improperly redefine. The judge typically rules in favor of the polity.
In reference to the Tea Party, I think in its inception as an association of people of similar interest, it was much more rational organization very similar to the OWS. It has since been infiltrated and usurped, and it has adopted a much more radical agenda which many are unable to support.
I actually do agree that unions desperately need to modernize, and in some cases lay off on demands. However collective bargaining is critical in the labor market we've created where labor oftentimes has no leverage.
I just can't buy this "free market" thinking simply because labor costs are so artificially low and corporations have just gotten so much leverage to either ignore or dictate market forces. The more leverage they get the more we get a top heavy system that's just collapsing further and further.
Well, I'm not buying Free Market at all. We need a balance that favors regional economies rather than a justification through GDP to the benefit of international corporations.
Collective bargaining is a perpetual contract that is initiated when one begins employment. To allow municipalities to discard that contract and institute lower wages and minimize compensation packages is morally criminal.