Been away from my own thread for a couple days, but I wanted to respond to some of what's been said here.
1) I don't apologize for the Ron Paul reference. There are a lot of his policies that I don't agree with. But at least he's not for sale. And to me, that's the problem with this country-- the lawmakers are for sale.
----------------------------------------
2) "The country would most definitely be bankrupt right now if not for the Tea Party."
First of all, the country IS bankrupt. More than that, a huge part of our debt can be traced to a fiscally irresponsible Bush administration -- tax cuts for the super rich, the giant tax-dollar-giveaway known as the Prescription Drug Bill, two foreign wars that continue to hemorrhage hundreds of millions of dollars EACH DAY, etc.
And a lot of the people who supported those policies can be found waving Tea Party signs today.
Finally, I'm not aware of any spending that the Tea Party actually blocked. If they did, then good for them (and us).
---------------------------------------
3) "When by your marxist revolution you have nationalized all corporations you have certainly ended and reduced corporate personhood and influence."
I think this comment misses (in a big way) the major problem in this country. There is no Marxist revolution at play here. The government isn't seizing the industries in this country... it's the corporations that have seized the reins of government. Very big difference.
---------------------------------------
4) (In response to the summary of the Occupy movement's main goals of ending corporate personhood, reduce corporate influence, reduce the growing gap between the top 1% and the average American worker) "The first two are vague ideas and the third point would be meddling with capitalism. The OWS people are braindead morons who openly prefer socialism to capitalism. **** them."
Ending corporate personhood is not a vague idea. Unlimited spending by corporations in election campaigns should not be protected under the first amendment, imo. As for "meddling with capitalism," do you support child labor laws? Anti-trust laws? Should there be any minimum wage at all? Should chemical companies be allowed to dump unlimited amounts of mercury and benzene into the local river? Should CEO's be able to secretly buy and sell stock based on insider information and manipulative accounting (which fucks the average investor and removes incentive for others to invest in business)?
To be clear, I'm for capitalism. But let's not pretend that pure, unregulated capitalism is the ideal system. It's clearly not.
--------------------------------------------
5) "What is a fair share for the 1% to pay in taxes? Just give me a percentage of what they should pay?"
I honestly don't know. More than the 35% (?) or so that it's at now. Maybe 50%? 35% is pretty damned low compared to where we've been the past century.
Here's what I have a beef with: The CEO of Exxon who testified before congress about high gas prices, and lamented that "we're all in this together," and portrayed himself and his company as victims. Then a short time later, the dude retires and gets a retirement package of 400 million dollars. Think about that. A half a ******* billion dollars. If that happened in Poland or Russia or Venezuala... an oil exec poor mouths his plight before the governing body and then promptly privatizes a vast fortune... Americans would instantly and rightly recognize that as either capitalism gone awry or outright corruption.
Similarly, when the CEO of Wellpoint, which runs BC/BS takes home bonuses of 20+ million year after year, while slashing benefits, while denying claims, and while spending (along with other insurers and the pharmaceutical industry) a BILLION dollars manipulating public opinion against healthcare reform... that's corruption.
That's just a couple examples off the top of my head. How many bankers and traders bankrupted companies, bilked investors, and required massive government bailouts of the messes they created... this while personally pocketing vast sums of money such that their children's children will never have to work a day in their lives?
You tell me how much the highest tax bracket should be.
-------------------------------------------------
6) To restate my point of the original post, I think the main thrust of both protests have merit, and I think that their goals line up better than most people realize.
So to the tea party folks who want to cut government spending, I'm with you 100%. But let's be honest-- if you're going to accomplish that, you're going to have to get the checkbook out of the hands of the corporate lobbyists, because those groups are more powerful than ever in our nation's history, and in my opinion, it's going to be our undoing (if it hasn't been already).
All through the Clinton years, I heard Republicans (at the time, I identified myself as one) screaming for campaign finance reform and balanced budget amendments. But given complete power in 2000, those phrases weren't uttered again. Instead, we slashed taxes and spent money like a drunken sailor.
8 years later, Obama was swept into office under cries of "hope and change" and "ending business as we know it in DC," but those slogans became equally meaningless. Instead, we got a horrific health care "reform" bill which actually reforms nothing... it just takes a system that no one can afford, keeps it essentially intact, and sends the bill to the taxpayer. We're 3 years into the Obama administration and not only have we not ended our foreign occupations, he has pleaded with Congress and the American people to send even more troops and money to Afghanistan... Ugh.
The major parties are not going to get us out of this. That's pretty clear to me.
