This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Tea Party Movement
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Which is funny*, Azazel, because many of those same folks will loudly proclaim that we're a Christian nation - which is a religious faith that stands in rather stark contradiction to the attitude of, "I got mine, now go **** yourself."
Which is what I find odd, rednecks are usually very conservative and very Christian, yet they want lower taxes for rich people and the like.
I'm going to address this train of logic in particular. I'm a very conservative Christian. I don't like the term "red neck", though. I live in Oregon, but I spent a lot of time in Oklahoma and Texas. My family has roots in Iowa. I suppose some people might think I'm a "red neck". I don't really know what the qualifiers are. I own a pickup and a pit bull, but I don't know how to change the oil myself. I shop at wal mart most of the time, but then again my favorite food is Thai. I eat more hummus and naan than I do hot dogs. But, I drink canned beer and like banjo music... so there ya go. I'm a hybrid.
So, that being said, I feel that I am what is being found "odd". Here I am, a monetarily poor, very conservative, very Christian, that wants lower taxes for "rich" people and the like. Further, I'd like to see corporate taxes go down.
Ok, so, as a religious conservative redneck, let me give you the logic:
27% of the US GDP is taken in taxes. That is more than any other % of the GDP since WW2. However, the huge deficits indicate that spending levels are out of control. The democrats (generally speaking) want to raise taxes and make slight cuts to spending. The republicans (generally speaking) want to lower taxes and make huge cuts to spending. I support massive cuts to spending. I think we not only need to balance the budget, but make it so we are taking in an income, AFTER lowering taxes. That much we agree on (at least, I hope so). Where we disagree is in tax cuts. Whenever a corporation pays a dollar in taxes, some poor conservative christian redneck consumer has to pay another dollar for whatever it is being bought. Most "rich guys" aren't some kind of elite club of lazy playboys. Most "rich guys" are business owners. That's how they got rich, by running a business in a way that attracted the consumers. If you increase his tax rate, he is going to turn around and put that right into the product, by either decreasing workforce, increasing price, or lowering quality. In the end, whenever government takes a dollar from anybody, it takes it from poor people, launders it, and gives 35 cents back to the poor person. If the poor person is lucky enough to keep his job after the rich guy lays him off, then he will be able to continue paying taxes through products. Due to high inflation rates due to increased amount of money in the system, his spending power is decreased, not to mention the lower value of money due to the borrowing against the dollar. Finally, many businesses will simply move to a different country, with the jobs, due to the burdensome regulations put on US businesses by the government, and the absolutely insane demands given by unions.
So, for us dumb redneck christian conservatives, we see the bigger picture than just "take from the rich give to the poor" romantic Robin Hood fantasy. We are also appalled that people think government is somehow that Robin Hood figure, as if it is an honorable force of balance in the economic world, instead of a havoc wreaking wrecking ball, tearing through the economy like a spoonful of botulism tears through the human gut.
Finally, I see a lot of this "Obama inherited this from Bush" and "Republicans spent just as much if not more than Democrats in the past". To this I say: that is why the Tea Party formed. Conservatives were so disenfranchised by the likes of Bush, McCain, and others, that they realized the Republican party was not going to make itself conservative all on its own. Conservatives felt that Democrats were the party of the far left, and Republicans were the party of the left. Who do we vote for? Obama, who's stated purpose is quite obviously going to be horrible, or McCain, the architect of the McCain-Feingold bill? Neither? John Kerry or Bush? We have a history of not having anyone we agree with being the front runner in either party.
First, the tea party was ignored. Then it was feared. Now, it is trying to be stopped by any means necessary, which usually means being mocked, which is what the left is good at. Even the President of the United States called them 'tea baggers', which strikes me as perhaps not the most professional and respectful thing I've ever heard. They are also painted as racists, even though they are voting for Hermann Cain at straw poles. Let's not forget how stupid they are (redneck etc). Finally, they are just crazy (wing nut). Most often this is what I see when I see the tea party criticized. It is like a big football game, where you have your team, and we have our team, and nothing matters but our team winning, right? I really prefer to see "The tea party believes X, which is not accurate, and here is the evidence why", than "Tea Baggers are just a bunch of crazy nuts that need to stop hating people and wanting them to die".
I think, in the end, if people actually examined the beliefs of the tea party, they would actually agree with at least most of the ideals. We would see a lot less of this:Racist? I'm sure a lot of them are. Bigoted? Certainly. Dangerous? Definitely. It is the scariest, most backward, reactionary political movement I've seen in the USA for a long time.See how this criticism offers no reasoning why. Imagine if the tables were turned, and someone were to say this about the Democrats. There would be an outcry of people asking for an explanation why.
But, Morgan Freeman goes on TV and calls the Tea Party racist, then a bunch of guys give each other high fives, put plastic cheese on their heads, paint their faces, go up into the bleachers, and root for the blue team.
Post by
Azazel
Racist? I'm sure a lot of them are. Bigoted? Certainly. Dangerous? Definitely. It is the scariest, most backward, reactionary political movement I've seen in the USA for a long time.See how this criticism offers no reasoning why. Imagine if the tables were turned, and someone were to say this about the Democrats. There would be an outcry of people asking for an explanation why.
For the racist part, black president.
Post by
xaratherus
I think, in the end, if people actually examined the beliefs of the tea party, they would actually agree with at least most of the ideals.
I think that's an incredibly assumptive statement, since the Tea Party is a sub-organization of the Republican party. If what you say were true then we wouldn't have two primary political parties to begin with.
I find it more likely that certain segments of the moderate Republican party would likely agree with many of their ideals, while others would not. Given the vast differences between the basic political stances and beliefs of the conservative parties and the liberal parties, I find it hard to imagine that Democrats would "agree with at least most of the ideals"; they would oppose them - or at the very least the suggested means of how to achieve them.
Regardless of whether I agree with some of the ideals of the Tea Party, I would not vote for one their candidates, if for no other reason than so far all of their candidates have espoused views of social conservatism to go along with their beliefs on fiscal conservatism. Since those socially conservative views would likely do massive damage to what I see as positive increases in equality, and I would consider that to outweigh any possible benefit they might bring, I would not vote for them.
Racist? I'm sure a lot of them are. Bigoted? Certainly. Dangerous? Definitely. It is the scariest, most backward, reactionary political movement I've seen in the USA for a long time.
See how this criticism offers no reasoning why. Imagine if the tables were turned, and someone were to say this about the Democrats. There would be an outcry of people asking for an explanation why.
Just because he did not provide reasoning does not mean the reasoning does not exist. So far there's only one major conservative candidate - not a Tea Party candidate, but Fred Karger - that has not voiced what I consider to be bigoted, or at the very least dangerously backwards, views on the topic of marriage for same-sex couples and homosexuality in general.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok- I will agree than many of the basic ECONOMIC tenants of the Tea Party movement are, in theory, a good direction to be going in. We DO need to find a way to get the government's budget to balance, and to start getting some of this excess spending under control. If we don't find a way to pull back from this constantly increasing deficit, we're going to collapse. My nephew just turned one, and I didn't get him savings bonds for college because, with the recent change in our credit rating, they're not actually a good investment anymore.
The problem we run into, is that everyone had a list of demands they want met by the government, and things they want to them to provide, that is a mile long. They also want to be taxed as little as possible. When it's physically impossible to provide what the public wants on the budget we have, we should be cutting things out until we can afford them. That's what schools do. It raises an outcry, but there is no other option. Money and resources don't materialize out of thin air- they have to come from somewhere. So many people think the government should do "XYZ," but don't stop to realize that all of the government's money comes from us. You have to accept that the government can't physically come up with all the money for what you want right now- they either have to cut spending, or raise taxes. If you're not willing to let them do either, then you're the kid in Wal-Mart standing by the expensive toys with your fingers in your ears going "I WANT THAT, I WANT THAT, I DON'T WANT TO USE MY ALLOWANCE- YOU BUY IT FOR ME"
Unfortunately, most people either don't understand economics well enough, or don't care to understand them, so they do demand both. And politicians, wanting to keep their jobs, give in. Eventually, people will stop lending us money, and it just won't be there. And then, instead of letting us prioritize so that the most essential social services still have funding, letting families who are depending on services we can't afford have time to try and find alternatives, instead of trying to consolidate programs and find a way to offer the same services at a lower cost- things are just going to dry up and end. Employees will just stop getting paid. Supplies will just stop coming. Checks will just stop going out. No one will be given a chance to prepare, or to make sure the most essential services will be preserved. And then people who aren't willing to give an inch one way or the other will be left getting nothing.
Unfortunately, their economic focus tends to be all wrapped up in an agenda that also includes getting rid of government regulations and financial incentives for businesses to protect the economy. They want to cut almost all government assistance programs, even those that are needed by people who physically cannot provide for themselves, and those that actually setup people to get education and job training that will allow them to provide for themselves. It's wrapped up in the argument about how the government shouldn't control anyone's personal lives- unless they're gay, and then the government shouldn't let them marry. A large portion of the memberbase of the Tea Party are evangelical Christians, who use the platform to push a return to Christian prayer in schools (regardless of the implications for non-christian students), and instead of arguing that Obama makes unsound financial decisions they tell me he's the anti-christ (True Story, personal anecdote). They tend to support laws that make racial profiling legal, as long as it will cut down on immigration.
And many of the people in the Tea party (some of whom I am related to), when you ask them what plans they have to facilitate cutting back spending, just say that they're going to stop. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of planning, or alternative solutions provided. It's not a party with answers- it's a party with complaints. I have never in my debates with tea party people ever heard a plan for how they want things to run- they just have a list of things that they don't like about how it runs now. And, in all honesty, they are more concerned with ending the spending on social programs so that their tax burden is less, than in trying to make the cuts where necessary but also preserve a standard of living for people who are receiving some assistance.
I have a lot of problems siding with any established political party. I'm financially conservative and socially liberal, with my idea about the area where those two collide (government social programs) being something along the lines of "Don't get rid of them- just do it in a way that actually gets people back to being able to help themselves." This particular party, though, seems to be playing on the angers and fears of people who are reacting to our most liberal president yet- be it because he's black, because he's borderline socialist, or because they don't believe he's Christian. They remind me, in some ways, of the Nader bid for presidency. Their goals were very different, but when I heard him speak it seemed like he had taken a bunch of un-researched ideas that sounded good to a number of fragment groups of the voters ($15 minimum wage, legalize pot, etc.), and spliced them together for a campaign platform.
In both cases, I think that these parties and candidates rely more on reactionary public opinion than on a common sense and realistic approach to the problems at hand.
Post by
MyTie
I think, in the end, if people actually examined the beliefs of the tea party, they would actually agree with at least most of the ideals.I think that's an incredibly assumptive statement, since the Tea Party is a sub-organization of the Republican party. If what you say were true then we wouldn't have two primary political parties to begin with.This is what I'm talking about. You immediately look at it as a party system, with your party and my party. However, most Americans believe in a decrease in spending. That is a staple of the Tea party belief. I don't know if most Americans agree with lower taxes, but a significant base does. It isn't difficult to see that the views given by the tea party are mainstream views, and not fringe crazy (as they are depicted).Just because he did not provide reasoning does not mean the reasoning does not exist. So far there's only one major conservative candidate - not a Tea Party candidate, but Fred Karger - that has not voiced what I consider to be bigoted, or at the very least dangerously backwards, views on the topic of marriage for same-sex couples and homosexuality in general.Views that you would disagree with, but at least you stated those views. I have difficulty empathizing with people who say "X party is full of redneck racist crazy idiots" (or similar words) without backing it up with any logic.
What I mean by all this is you have a group of people that want lower taxes and decreased spending. Those seem to be the two big staples of the group, without much other stuff that could be attributed to the movement. The response is vitriolic.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
xaratherus
This is what I'm talking about. You immediately look at it as a party system, with your party and my party. However, most Americans believe in a decrease in spending. That is a staple of the Tea party belief. I don't know if most Americans agree with lower taxes, but a significant base does.
It isn't difficult to see that the views given by the tea party are mainstream views, and not fringe crazy (as they are depicted).
I emphasized the part on which I'm commenting primarily.
To claim that their views are "mainstream" requires that you generalize them to such a massive extent as to make the statement pointless.
Of course the majority of people want the United States government to spend less money, and for people in general (the person making the statement, specifically) to have more money.
But that same statement applies to every one of the well-known political groups out there. There aren't a whole lot of popular political movements that are proclaiming the government should spend quadrillions of dollars a year; they all say the government should have a balanced budget.
The removal of all detail of
how
they propose to go about balancing the budget invalidates the idea that what they hold are mainstream political beliefs, because those details show that many people - about half of 'em, as an estimate, since we're a roughly two-party system - wouldn't consider them mainstream. The way you achieve a goal is often more important to the populace than actually achieving the goal.
As for fringe crazy? A number of the Tea Party candidates have suggested cutting social security completely and making crippling cuts to Medicare/Medicaid. From my personal political standpoint, that
is
a fringe crazy belief.
What I mean by all this is you have a group of people that want lower taxes and decreased spending. Those seem to be the two big staples of the group, without much other stuff that could be attributed to the movement.
Part of the problem is that people often act like the movement has some cohesive goal. It really doesn't. They're a very loose organization of conservatives who tend to hold three primary political beliefs - personal fiscal responsibility, Constitutionally limited government, and an end to what they see as an intrusion into the free market economy by the government.
If they limited themselves to those, then I'd still have a problem with it, because of the methods (which, as Elhonna pointed out, are frequently lacking in any real detail but filled with emotion-laden buzzwords - not that the Tea Party is unique amongst political organizations for that reason) they propose to achieve the goals - but it wouldn't be such a glaring problem.
Because they are such a disparate group, those
aren't
the only political beliefs they hold, and so those beliefs - things like criminalization of abortion, a federal amendment blocking all same-sex marriage, a discontinuation of certain educational services - must be taken into account when viewing the movement, since those beliefs could easily enter office.
Post by
MyTie
Because they are such a disparate group, those
aren't
the only political beliefs they hold, and so those beliefs - things like criminalization of abortion, a federal amendment blocking all same-sex marriage, a discontinuation of certain educational services - must be taken into account when viewing the movement, since those beliefs could easily enter office.
This may be bordering on off-topic, but I think it still applies:
What is the relationship between criminalization of abortion, and lower tax rates for the rich? Why do you think it is that these two views are often held in commonality?
Post by
gamerunknown
^ There are two hypotheses I've encountered. The first is a framing viewpoint from George Lakoff based on whether one has a strict father or nurturing parent morality, which encompasses seemingly discrepant views. The second one, preceding it and covering essentially the same ground, is the Just World Hypothesis theory, that those that want less intervention for the sick and needy believe that it's largely their fault for being sick and needy in the first place.
Post by
MyTie
I would say that the relationship is "personal responsibility". It is not other's responsibility to fix my problems. They can, and should, help others, but it isn't within society's scope to demand that they do so. In fact, it is society's scope to ensure that people are not forced to aid those whom have problems. This is not to say that those who need aid should not be aided, or as you said "it's their fault" mentality. The reasoning behind this is that if people are forced to help those who need help, people will do less to ensure that they take responsible measures to keep themselves from being in a position that needs aid. Further, the redistribution process is historically inefficient.
Someday, communism, socialism, and the redistribution scheme may be effective, but that will take vast advances in technology, to allow a near perfect AI to run the economy. Who knows, that may happen in our lifetime. Currently, turning the economy over to politicians who bend to the will of voters will result in more hands in the pot than money. Point in case: the entire history of humanity, up to and including the current world economic situation. Capitalism, for all its flaws, works. That's the big draw.
Post by
mindthegap5
Yes
I've read a bit about them and they come across as being a bunch of dumb *!@#s.
Post by
Patty
I know next to nothing about the tea party, but I do know that they're far-right, which is pretty opposing to me and that they include Sarah Palin (which is just funny). I don't know if the tea party is inherently racist as an organisation, but I can guess that it houses many racists and social conservatives within it, simply because racists have tended to have a more right wing view in the past.
Post by
MyTie
I don't know if the tea party is inherently racist as an organisation, but I can guess that it houses many racists and social conservatives within it, simply because racists have tended to have a more right wing view in the past.The same could be said about the Democrats, who were the party of segregation. Fortunately, there were enough Republicans (like Abe) to ensure blacks were given equal and the same treatment under the law. Do you think that the Democrats are still racist? I mean, is your line of logic here really that fair?
Post by
MyTie
Yes
I've read a bit about them and they come across as being a bunch of dumb *!@#s.
It sounds like all the research you have done is enough. I'm sure that the sources you have found are completely unbiased. This new fingle fangle interwebs with all the informanation on it that can do all this book learnin bout what people are talkin about dudn't need to be used er nething. Just read "a bit", come on this here topic, and call a whole swath of the populace "dumb asses", for their obviously "dumb ass" views... like... lower government spending... how stupid can they be? Have you heard their really dumb "lower taxes" idea... they are crazy I tell ya.
You know, more and more this is the kind of criticism I see. Has anyone seen the movie "Idiocracy". I feel like we are going down that road, fast.
Post by
gnomerdon
^ agreed
Post by
Heckler
The same could be said about the Democrats, who were the party of segregation. Fortunately, there were enough Republicans (like Abe) to ensure blacks were given equal and the same treatment under the law. Do you think that the Democrats are still racist? I mean, is your line of logic here really that fair?
A study of political history since ~1930 provides a clear answer about which Party is the current perceived "home" to White American racism. The Democrats may have held that title in the past, but when they decided they wanted to shed it off about 60 years ago, the Republican party was more than happy to take it up.
But we've had that conversation before.
As far as lower government spending, I have a hard time taking any discussion on this topic seriously unless everyone involved in the discussion is ready to admit that defense spending is the largest problem (followed by health care), and are prepared to take steps to remedy that. If that means higher revenues, so be it (and maybe that's how it should be, we are involved/recovering from two wars after all -- isn't the patriotic thing to pay off the debt that National Security demands caused?). But you can't say you want lower taxes
and
less government spending unless you're prepared to include
deep
cuts in pentagon spending in the plan. And with health care, GWB had his chance to do something about it, and we got Medicare Part D, and non-negotiable drug prices for Medicare, which were supposed to make the problem better (through trust in the 'free market') but instead made it much worse. At the very least, the CBO ranks Obama's ACA as helpful.
When everyone is prepared to honestly attack the problem, then a discussion can begin. But usually all we get is talking points and buzzwords (on both sides) with very little effort to actually fix anything. The "Tea Party" by and large has contributed to this rather than combating it since they're so vague and ill-defined (and above all, unwilling to compromise on anything, regardless of importance or political reality).
In my opinion, the "Tea Party" is largely just a label that
uninformed,
angry Americans were very willing to slap on themselves circa 2009, with grandeur visions of the Boston Tea Party in their minds as an expression of their abstract dissatisfaction with government in general (regardless of how analogous their situation actually was or was not to those in 1773). As time has gone on (and corporate influence has tried to 'own' the label, viz
Tea Party Express
), the Tea Party's favorability has dropped and dropped with the American public (25% in the most recent poll a 3 minute Google effort found). This can be blamed on a few things, namely the corporate backgrounds of the "Tea Party Express" people and the views of some of the more outspoken people who wear the Tea Party badge proudly.
My largest complaint about lower- to middle-class Right Wingers (Tea Party included) is their reverence and fear of Big Business. MyTie's reasoning perfectly personifies this:
Most "rich guys" are business owners. . . If you increase his tax rate, he is going to turn around and put that right into the product, by either decreasing workforce, increasing price, or lowering quality. In the end, whenever government takes a dollar from anybody, it takes it from poor people, launders it, and gives 35 cents back to the poor person. If the poor person is lucky enough to keep his job after the rich guy lays him off, then he will be able to continue paying taxes through products
I read this as: "You can't control the power of Big Business, and any attempt to do so will only incur their
wrath
. You're better off giving them complete free reign, and hoping that they do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts. For if you attempt to force them, they will punish us." This is one of the most ridiculous notions I can conceive of (if Wal Mart tried to raise prices or fire scores of people, there's plenty of new business ready to take their place, as an example.
Demand
dictates these things, not
supply
), but it's nothing new.
In the thread I linked above, I linked to
FDR's 1936 keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention
. If you're willing to ignore the partisan nature of the speech, and just read the transcript in search of objective truth, you'll see that the issues we're talking about have been present at least for the last 80 years. FDR's indictment of the "Economic Royalists" of the Republican party is timeless (partially quoted below, you should really read the whole thing though).
For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital-all undreamed of by the fathers—the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.
There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.
It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.
The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor—these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age—other people's money—these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.
Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.
Throughout the Nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.
Liberals who push for stronger Corporate regulation are not necessarily doing so to extend the power of Government over Business in general. They're doing it to
protect
American entrepreneurship from Big Business itself; from the toxic influence that
dynastic wealth
and
monopoly
has on Capitalism.
Lefties aren't necessarily against Capitalism (personally, I love Capitalism). I just recognize there's a correct and an incorrect way to do it (for a good example of incorrect, check out Somalia). That doesn't mean I agree with everything that is put forth by the Democratic party, some of it is ridiculous to be sure. But it means that I do believe the Government (of, by, and for We The People) has a proper role in the economy. And honestly, I would think most people would agree with this if they were willing to hear each other out and work together towards a common goal -- when industry is allowed complete and total free reign over itself and Government, you end up with Feudalism and the Dark Ages.
Post by
gamerunknown
For a fun example of capitalism, check out Nestlé's operations in Ethiopia. They bought out an industry after it had been nationalised, then after a regime change, they sued the country for lost revenue. The World Bank said $1m was a fair estimate, Nestlé rejected the figure.
I can see analogies in the 99% protest with the Tea Party, people are exploiting other's vague ill defined sense of political dissatisfaction, which was in turn engendered by anyone that wanted to push their ideology. No matter how impractical the aim, or ridiculous the cause, people will adhere to it. Like in Network. How many political problems have been resolved by people shouting out of their windows?
Oh and have you seen "The High Cost of Low Prices"? Pretty good documentary in my opinion.
Post by
MyTie
As far as lower government spending, I have a hard time taking any discussion on this topic seriously unless everyone involved in the discussion is ready to admit that defense spending is the largest problem (followed by health care), and are prepared to take steps to remedy that. If that means higher revenues, so be it (and maybe that's how it should be, we are involved/recovering from two wars after all -- isn't the patriotic thing to pay off the debt that National Security demands caused?). But you can't say you want lower taxes
and
less government spending unless you're prepared to include
deep
cuts in pentagon spending in the plan.
I would agree with this. I think we need to close about 90% of all military bases, and reduce personel by about 75%. We need to keep the funding for technology research, and eastern Europe and west Asia bases. We also need about 6 solid bases in the US. Beyond that, sell it all. There is no reason to keep squadrons upon squadrons of outdated jets, such as the F-16. We don't need as many training bases as we have, that are bloated and designed for a larger military than we need.
Now that I have made that "concession" (I actually consider it more of a truism than a concession) would you concede that larger revenues can be gained through lower taxes?I read this as: "You can't control the power of Big Business, and any attempt to do so will only incur their wrath. You're better off giving them complete free reign, and hoping that they do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts. For if you attempt to force them, they will punish us." This is one of the most ridiculous notions I can conceive of (if Wal Mart tried to raise prices or fire scores of people, there's plenty of new business ready to take their place, as an example. Demand dictates these things, not supply), but it's nothing new.I don't think business (as a whole) has a father-son mentality with with consumers. I don't feel that they will 'punish' us for our taxing them. What I feel is that businesses are more "common sense" than that. They know they can make a dollar from the consumer. They know that if they produce the goods in the US, the consumer will tax 30 cents of that dollar. They then produce the goods in other countries with better tax incentives. Let's not forget high wages demanded by US unions. They don't see this as a "punishment" for us and our taxes... they see it as good business. What would you do if you could either produce goods for a dollar, or produce goods for a dollar and pay 30 cents tax? Which would you pick? Let's be honest about capitalistic businesses, and not try to paint businesses as immoral for making the good business choices. Bottom line: I don't fear the wrath of business, I fear for the US economy if it makes itself unfriendly toward businesses, which it is.
Post by
MyTie
For a fun example of capitalism, check out Nestlé's operations in Ethiopia. They bought out an industry after it had been nationalised, then after a regime change, they sued the country for lost revenue. The World Bank said $1m was a fair estimate, Nestlé rejected the figure.
Capitalism is not perfect, and not an absolute. You can point to case studies on any political ideal, and attempt to paint the entire ideal as equal to that case study, but logic doesn't work like that.
Any socialistic argument you would like to make (public health care, public retirement ie Social security, public education) I can compare to USSR, and explain how the brutally murdered millions of people. However, that is not a good and whole representation of socialism.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.