Log in

View Full Version : Tea Party protesters pick wrong target



Klaatu
11th March 2010, 02:51
Tea Party protesters pick wrong target
James P. Hoffa
Last Updated: March 10. 2010 1:00AM

Blame big conglomerates, not 'big government,' for fleecing taxpayers

When I listen to the Tea Party tax protesters, I hear that they're mad as hell. They're angry about deficit spending, and they believe that government is undermining free enterprise for the benefit of international elites.

But where were they just 18 months ago? These trends were all developing during the George W. Bush years. What suddenly sent the Tea Party protesters to town hall meetings last summer and to Washington in the fall?

It was our worsening economy. And I place part of the blame for our economic problems on conglomerates, especially banks, that are too big and doing too little to provide credit and capital to businesses to create good jobs in America.

Tea Party protesters are average Americans who are paying the price for the unrestrained power of corporations. They pay three-quarters of their income for fixed expenses. Those higher costs include taxes -- the cause of much Tea Party anger -- but they include mortgage, health insurance and transportation.

Compare that with their parents' experience. Fixed expenses only consumed half of their parents' income in the 1970s -- and it's likely only one of their parents worked.

Protesters blame "big government" for their woes, but their anger is misdirected. It's the big conglomerates that are fleecing them. The fact is that institutional power has moved away from government to Wall Street and large corporations.

Take the banks, for example. They've weakened government limits on their size to the point where five of them control nearly half of all bank assets in the United States today. It's the banks, not government, that are gouging consumers with credit cards that carry exorbitant rates, checking accounts with hidden fees and mortgages so complicated that they require an advanced degree to understand.

And when the banks that were too big to fail came close to failing, it wasn't the consumers who got relief. Banks got their bailout to continue lending money to businesses to create jobs. But bank lending actually decreased 7.5 percent last year.

The health insurance companies aren't much different. They've taken advantage of their exemption from antitrust laws, and hundreds of them have merged during the past 15 years. Now, one or two of them control 80 percent of the market in many parts of the country. Anthem has so much monopoly power that it's raising rates 39 percent in California.

Insurance premiums aren't soaring because of "big government." They're rising because insurance companies have too much market power -- and the government hasn't been able to control them.

Tea Party protesters unhappy with the bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler can also blame policies that allowed companies to become too big to fail. Automakers rely on just three companies for most of the iron ore that goes into the steel they use. They depend on the same suppliers for their parts.

So a shutdown of GM and Chrysler would have threatened suppliers for Toyota, Nissan, Honda and Ford -- and possibly the automakers themselves.

Some of the Tea Party protests are quietly funded by right-wing groups that in turn are financed by large energy and banking conglomerates. These corporate giants have no loyalty to America and no sense of public purpose. The Tea Party protesters are being manipulated by the very same conglomerates that are causing their problems.

James P. Hoffa is president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. E-mail: [email protected]

source
http://detnews.com/article/20100310/OPINION03/3100317/1008/opinion01/Tea-Party-protesters-pick-wrong-target

Red Commissar
11th March 2010, 05:54
Overall he makes a good point, and really I think anyone can see that the TEA party are astroturf, socialist or not (as in the case of Hoffa).

Klaatu
11th March 2010, 06:12
I really do not understand something here. Libertarians' solution to this crisis is to downsize government?

That's like saying that if we lay off half of the city police department, then crime will go way down. (?)

If we have a small government, (the ultimate Libertarian orgasm) what will become of the presently-bad
situation in the banking, health insurance, investment, energy (polluting) industries? I shutter to think of it...

vyborg
11th March 2010, 08:42
our solution is not downsize the government or the state but to destroy them!. tea party is a fake movement created to attack even the very mild "popular" laws that obama will be forced to do

Dimentio
11th March 2010, 08:48
James P Hoffa? Is it the son or grandson of Jimmy Hoffa?

Robocommie
11th March 2010, 20:55
James P Hoffa? Is it the son or grandson of Jimmy Hoffa?

Son.

CartCollector
12th March 2010, 04:19
If we have a small government, (the ultimate Libertarian orgasm) what will become of the presently-bad
situation in the banking, health insurance, investment, energy (polluting) industries? I shutter to think of it...

Well that's the thing. Generally these Tea Party libertarians (who are most often Republicans angry that Bush supported the current stimulus and not really "libertarian" in the actual sense) want government to cut their taxes and regulate everyone but them. They really do want small government... for themselves. Everyone else is either some lazy welfare leech, a job-stealing Mexican, or a giant government-controlling corporation who should be taxed more then they are. So I'm sure they'd support regulation of banks, health insurance, investment, and energy, as long as it benefited them and they didn't have to pay for it. In fact, a lot of these Tea Partiers complain that "socialized medicine" will take money away from Medicare and Social Security, which is an odd thing for someone who dislikes "the evil socialist government" to say.

chegitz guevara
12th March 2010, 13:57
The Tea Party movement is not libertarian. Libertarianism is socially liberal. The Tea Party is socially conservative. Libertarianism, by and large, tends to be atheist. The Tea Party, by and large, is right-wing, fundamentalist, Christianity, people who scare the jeebus out of atheists libertarians.

It is an astroturf movement, and that is what makes them fascist, the opposite of libertarianism.

Klaatu
12th March 2010, 19:04
I can't help but wonder if half of these "Tea-Party" people are paid to be there.

Paid for by whom? Fox News and Rupert Murdoch? The health insurance industry? Big Banksters? Wall Street shills?

Quite likely.




It is an astroturf movement, and that is what makes them fascist, the opposite of libertarianism.

That's right - if they were truly Libertarian, they would not be upset over what the free market is doing,
no matter what it is, as they have a "live and let live" attitude of capitalism, of any form. A libertarian will,
for example, legalize dangerous drugs, do away with health departments (restaurant-diner: buyer-beware)
and even legalize child porn (!) In other words, the "free market" can do no wrong.

But to them "the government" is nothing but wrong (never mind that the government's job is to protect
us from crime).

Lenny Nista
13th March 2010, 00:50
our solution is not downsize the government or the state but to destroy them!. tea party is a fake movement created to attack even the very mild "popular" laws that obama will be forced to do

This.

We should not analyze them based on their own "ideal", but on the social role they play.

They represent the enraged middle classes threatened with pvoerty, and they are useful idiots for the bourgeoisie, who use them as a pressure against the workers movement and the poor.

Nothing more. Their own "ideals" will never be implemented.

Robocloud
13th March 2010, 01:08
The Tea Party is a fascist group. They are motivated by racism, nationalism, and deep ceded prejudice.

(I have a link to a compilation of videos, but apparently I haven't posted enough to be able to post it. What is the logic behind that policy?)

chegitz guevara
13th March 2010, 04:04
(I have a link to a compilation of videos, but apparently I haven't posted enough to be able to post it. What is the logic behind that policy?)

Making sure you aren't a fly by night spammer.

Red Commissar
13th March 2010, 04:55
The Tea Party movement is not libertarian. Libertarianism is socially liberal. The Tea Party is socially conservative. Libertarianism, by and large, tends to be atheist. The Tea Party, by and large, is right-wing, fundamentalist, Christianity, people who scare the jeebus out of atheists libertarians.

Oh of course, but when they see Libertarian, they seem to associate it with low taxes, small government, and finally something that makes it seem that they are beyond the normal political spectrum.

One of my friends and arch-nemesis at the University I'm going to has complained that their Libertarian group has been hi-jacked as of late by these Tea bagger types simply complaining about taxes and "big government", but not much else. That and some bring in Ayn Rand books as a sort of "bible" to what they should be doing.

It is amusing. And I thought we had it bad when we got liberal activists in our group.

Raúl Duke
14th March 2010, 07:37
From what I gathered and read, initially the Tea Party movement seemed to lean more towards libertarianism. However, as it jumped to the spot-light it has gain in its ranks more usual Republicans, which a substantial amount of them are "social conservative" (i.e. religious values type people), since they are the largest section that disapproves with the Democrats/Obama. Thus, it began to gravitate closer and closer to the GOP and some articles have already stated that after their national convention its apparent that they're co-opted by the GOP as their auxiliary. In this case, If they're "fascist" than in a sense some faction in or the entire GOP has to be fascist as well.

The astro-turf allegations began with the fact that one of the founders was indeed getting money from usual right-wing (and not specifically ideologically libertarian) think-thanks; this caused a leadership rift and/or maybe a split...supposedly the founder who got money was booted.

Laughably, a similar opposite movement called the "coffee party" has been founded. I'm going to predict they're destined to become the auxiliary of the Democrats. If both are auxiliaries, than I believe these movements are actually "pseudo-movements" which aim is to keep the masses entangled with these false movements that are tied with the ruling parties (thus keeping the people in their grasp) so that they don't go "astray" and find some other alternative (like leftism).

On the situation, one could draw a parallel with the situations that brought fascism but in those situations there was a strong left movement that later became defeated/demoralized yet put the elite in panic (i.e. German revolution of 1919, it was defeated but its occurrence had reverberation across Weimar Germany); this situation has not occured in the U.S. (there wasn't really a strong left movement or some major event inspired by leftism/working class consciousness). Personally, I think these movements formed as a preventative measure to make sure that the people are distracted into these things instead of building up actual movements.