Radio Smart Talk for Thursday, November 3:
Based on observations, many have concluded that the Tea Party movement and Occupy Wall Street have very little in common. The Tea Party is seen as a no tax, small government conservative movement while the Occupy protestors appear to angry about more liberal causes like corporation earnings and the disparity between the richest Americans the other 99%.
There is some truth to those depictions. However, neither group can be painted with such a broad brush.
For example, at an Occupy demonstration, there are many signs protesting government bailouts of big business. Sounds like a complaint you would hear from a Tea Party follower, doesn't it?
That's just one example of a commonality. On Thursday's Radio Smart Talk, we'll feature representatives of both movements to compare how they're alike, and of course, how they differ. Overall, what do they want?
LISTEN TO PROGRAM:
comments
I don't agree that change in America has to come violently, although that is what many in Occupy are calling for and most of us in the Tea Party vehemently disagree with it. In fact, I have never heard any one of my fellows in the movement speak of violence. America can peacefully push government back to its rightful place and make sure it exists only within the confines laid out in the Constitution, but it will be an effort on all our parts. The Tea Party has moved beyond anger to action. And we've been quite successful as well.
We need government to promote and protect the common good. And the Tea Party has it all upside down. For all the faults of politicians and bureaucrats, they are answerable to the people. The non-governmental associations that Ron Paul and many Tea Partiers and Libertarians claim would do a better job would not be answerable to the people.
Are you saying that it would be freedom if someone were forced to care for you with their services or wealth? There is indeed a responsibility to take care of the sick and the elderly, but why should that be handled by the Federal Government? What does government do that is efficient and cost effective?
Quoting Jim Gawn:
No one is suggesting the privatization of roads. The ability to move about freely is part of being free.
Quoting Jim Gawn:
It is your choice to do business with whomever you wish. Why isn't it your responsibility to look in to who you do business with? Why don't you support businesses who's practices you support?
Quoting Joshua: Really? That is the logical conclusion to be drawn from what libertarians espouse. I'm actually not against private entities operating roads, but govt has to have the prerogative to make sure it serves the public interest.
You ask what govt does that is efficient and cost effective. This is an example. We live in a world of specialization. Oversight, auditing and forensic accounting are specialized activities best done by specialists. Of course, there is always room for improvement, and regulators have seriously fallen down on the job in the past decade. But a failure to regulate is not an indictment of the fundamental need for government: it's an example of WHY we need it.
We pay for roads now...both with our taxes and then with a toll and they are not privatized. While I'm not supporting privatizing roadways, what I'm saying is everything has a cost. Government run healthcare is not free and having things that are free should not be confused with freedom. When the government controls things, it controls it completely. When a private industry controls something, it controls it only to the point they can convince others to partake. For instance, if you had paying Verizon for your cable and phone, you stop paying them and either get rid of both and live without or get a new provider. Try doing that with your taxes. Try not paying or finding a new "provider".
I completely agree. I believe a lot of the problem with health costs arises from the fact that from the forties to the eighties people got used to employers bearing the cost of insurance. I'm not promoting govt-run health care. I'm saying that we need government agencies to level the playing field a little in individuals' dealings with large enterprises.
This radio show is meant for civil conversation and
Small amounts of debate. Not outright speeches and
Open ended arguments. Both guests today need to grow up
And create real defenses, not go on and yell at each other.
I'm sorry smart talk, but find some guests who can hold themselves
To higher standards.
Tony I couldn't agree with you more.
The other guest is a genuine grassroots activist who has not been groomed by any corporate funder or organization. This guest spoke intelligently, and yes, with passion when it was warranted.
The moderation was what could be expected considering WITF, in its corporate-sponsored wisdom, invited a well-funded Koch lobbyist against a local citizen-activist.
NOBODY expects guaranteed "equal results" we - the 99% - do demand equal rights, equal opportunity, and an equal voice in OUR government! OUR GOVERNMENT. OURS. We demand a functioning democracy that is REPONSIBLE AND RESPONSIVE TO ITS CITIZENS RATHER THAN TO THE SOURCES OF LARGE CAMPAIGN FUNDS AND THE FORCES OF GREED THAT HAVE NO DECENCY OR SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMMONG GOOD!
INDIVIDUAL liberty is NOT corporate liberty!
Liberty is NOT the law of the jungle, and no amount of disinformation can re-make our forefathers as the defenders of unrestrained inequality & exploitation.
There is NO liberty for the 99% when energy companies are given free rein to pollute the air & water we all depend upon for life.
There is NO liberty for 99% of us when we have a government so corrupted by corporate special interests that our politicians can enact their stated goal TO DESTROY OUR FAITH IN GOVERNMENT!
The Constitution is sacred ONLY because it establishes & institutionaliz es the principle that GOVERNMENT IS THE MEANS BY WHICH PEOPLE ACT!!!!!!
The deliberate destruction of faith in government that the funders of the "Tea Party" organizations enact IS MEANT TO REPLACE GOVERNMENT WITH CORPORATE RULE.
When government no longer protects our water & air, corporations will charge us to breathe.
They interrupt; they attempt to overcome the conversation.
It does not the job of the moderator to tell one party they are speaking too much when they allow the other to dominating the conversation.
Do does WITF serve?
Don't we have the right to choose which products we buy and from what companies? Research them and don't buy from those you don't agree with.
We all have options...if you are blind to them and just buy this or sign up for that, don't be upset when you find out the truth. Who thought they could buy huge houses with no income and afford them? We must think for ourselves a bit, it isn't the government that makes you buy an imported product, pay bank fees, or over extend yourself with mortgages or college loans. Go to a trade school...get a job that doesn't need a degree if you can't afford one.
Take personal responsibility!
The banks, financial institutions, lenders, title clerks, lawyers, realtors/brokers knew the home buyer was doomed. Did they, as organizations, speak up or did they stay silent and collect a check. Where was their personal resposibility? After a few years and the dust settled, it's the 99% who are taking it on the chin. Large Corporations are doing just. The other 1% found a way to put more money back in their pockets.
The good lady makes an excellent point that banking & Wall St. campaign money is buying most of our politician.
It is very telling, however, that she focuses SOLELY upon the funds Obama accepted, and doesn't mention AT ALL the corporate money that fuels the right wing politicians in Congress.
Please stop allowing her to dominate the conversation.
They are commited, intelligent, compassionate people. I have never met their like.
Like the typical right wing spokesperson, she takes her talking points from a script that demonizes anybody that disagrees with them.
Like bullies in the sandbox, they throw sand in the eyes of everybody around the box, and never deal with real diaglogue.
OWS = opposed to capitalism, espouses Marxist redistribution of private wealth, mostly violent, anti-Jewish statements in all of the locations.
There is no comparison between the two groups.
Like the Heritage people, this is a rationalzation for impoverishment, and it's "ok" as long as we have food and TV? Back to the future, back to hunger and homelessness and hopelessness, that is what the right wing offers us.
The tea party needs to stop enabling these forces.
SOMEBODY NEEDS TO INFORM THIS LADY THAT, WHEN OUR GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY FUNCTIONS AS A DEMOCRACY - NOT A SOCIALIST OR COMMUNIST SYSTEM - WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
I feel we desperately need a third party, since it's very unlikely in our current partisan antagonistic system, that any one person will switch from left to right or vice versa. We all hate the other side so much, and it's become so emotional on all issues (not just the traditional hot-button ones), that changing our views or parties now is nearly impossible. And so is the ability to reach any compromise.
While corporations, no matter what the Supreme Court says, are nameless faceless entities whose primary goal is increasing profit.
employment. The fact that unions may have practiced racism at one time or another reflects the overall racism of the United States as a whole. I would welcome the overturn of the Citizens United ruling. I don't believe corporations have the same rights as a citizen, in that corporations cannot cast a vote in the ballot box. Corporations exist
solely to make a profit. Unfettered capitalism brought us to the place
we are today.
Might I also point out that the Boston Tea Party resulted in the vandalism of privately owned tea being dumped into the ocean? How is that protest any different from what we are seeing with OWS?
Government exists to protect the freedom and liberty of the People. Politicians do what they want to do and to claim they answer to us is ridiculous. Rarely does Government do what is in our best interest, so why should Government have more control? Instead, shouldn't you have more control over your own life?
garding the collapse of wall street - I think it began with GRIFF. could you please send me or post the name and author
of this book.
If one is disturbed at the vacuousness of the OWS youth, he'd better get used to it. That's what education funding cutbacks will exacerbate.
Corporations exist to make a profit any way they can. They must be regulated to make life for their workers and the rest of us safer. Despite regulations we still have coal mine tragedies, oil spills, poor construction, toxic mortguages, pollution, etc. due to shortcuts and greed. What would happen without regulation, especially by the EPA and OSHA? Read the novels of Charles Dickens to find out.
Get a job? Recently in my husband's office one entry level job had almost 200 applicants on the first day, and many employers won't hire the unemployed!
Why do you need government to decide for you and enforce rules for what is and isn't safe? Why are you not responsible for making the choice of whether or not to assume the risk?
If there are unacceptable work conditions, why is it not the responsibility of those employees to voice their opinions and concerns, both through words and actions.
Who would be willing to work in those conditions and if they are willing, is it not their right to decide to do so?
Furthermore, is it not our responsibility to avoid supporting such corporations both here and abroad, by not purchasing their products or services? If no one supports them, the lack of demand will drive them out of business.
If property rights were enforced as they should be, pollution wouldn't be an issue. You state yourself that despite the EPA we still have pollution problems. Regulation continues to accomplish little in this case with the minor exception of draining our bank accounts. Property rights already protect your property and public property from pollution and provide recourse. What need is there for additional law/regulation/agencies to enforce this? The only need is for the people to proclaim their rights and protect them.
Freedom is not slavery.
By their fruits we know them.
WE are the government when we have a functioning democracy.
Those who hate government desire to stifle our voice so that deregulation and the law of the jungle are paramount.
And we have no voice at all.
Her idea of a conversation no more than a shouting match with whoever yelped loudest the winner.
Strangely enough, the representation By from the two groups by Jeff and Jennifer was an accurate reflection of the deeper sentiments espoused by both groups with the chasm separating them clearly manifest.
So, . . .a success.
RSS feed for comments to this post