A Tea Party Patriot tries to explain how our freedoms are in jeopardy. Though a little longer than the normal clip here, this is an interesting discourse.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Food & Wine, Arts & Culture
Click on icon for spring issue of Sierra FoodWineArt magazine, offering culture and entertainment news.
Facebook site is here
Smartphone app is here.
Sierra Geotourism map & guide
Click on icon to see map.
sacramento connect- NPR.org
- Derby Winner I'll Have Another Wins Preakness May 19, 2012
- Chinese Activist Takes A Sudden Journey To The West May 19, 2012
- Could Glass-Steagall Have Stopped JPMorgan Loss? May 19, 2012
Sorry, though I am a liberal (do not consider that a dirty word, and believe it best represents my particular political bent) i found this video too extreme, too far out on that narrow ledge to the left of the middle line that bisects the big political bell which represents U S voters, with 2/3 of us in the bell’s bulge, neither way far to the left or to the right. I do find serious flaws in what I have read, heard, and experienced of the Tea Party principles and values, mainly that it places too much emphais on generalities and negativity and fails in constructive criticism and positive solutions, but to bring in abortiion politics, gay issues, racism to the extent pictured, is in my opinion going too far afield. I also dislike the picturing of a Tea Party member as just some stupid, ill-informed, ignorant bubba, which perhaps some are, but then we find those also in the Democratic and traditional Republican folds. My major criticism of Tea Partiers is that they are, my opinion, carrying the flag for corporate America, and in so doing are far too often engaged in duplicitous and manipulative actions. I do not think their leadership are just a bunch of stupid bumpkins, but know exactly what they are doing and are out to preserve the position of the power and money elite in this country at the expense of the middle class and those living below the poverty line.
That is beautiful! Whatever it takes to help a cartoonish movement find reason.
Should be a “must view” before you are allowed to cast your vote.
The only problem is when someone(s) are so pig headed in their thinking this will not change them because facts have no meaning to them.
Frankly, Indigenous Tea People have not cornered the market on stuff in the USA to be angry about. Just about every non-Tea Person, including liberals, are angry about the same things.
But now that the facts are out, and it is clear they are nothing more than shills for Corporate USA and the Republican party, tis a shame that even the smart ones don’t see they are putting in motion to get more of exactly what they are angry about.
With the first posted video it was a little tough to tell who was using their talking points more
The second from Sharon was much more thought provoking and interesting. Francis Schaeffer has talked about one of the great sins of England and America being the failure to practice the compassionate use of accumulated wealth and this speaker and illustrator touched on this important point.
The problem with looking to socialism as the solution is that you cannot solve the problem of no wealth being created under a socialist system.
Without the security of private property, honestly in money and transactions and the discipline of market pricing how will you get people to take risk and work hard?
John
With all do respect John – please watch it again and when you do think of “The Church” along with American culture in terms of charity not solving the core problem.
When it comes to poverty and our good intentions we all seem to have it backassward.
Sharon,
When I say we failed in the area of compassion I am certainly saying that the Church is primarily to blame.
If the churches and families do not take responsibility for their appointed tasks the civil government is always happy to step in and do it for them.
John
No one is suggesting socialism as a solution here, and I think very few people in the American political system (probably less than 1%) are seriously suggesting socialism as a solution.
Conservatives regularly confuse the concept of the social welfare state, where the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens, with socialism, where the state owns the means of production.
Lets be clear, the definition of socialism is state ownership of the means (factories, tools, capital etc.) necessary for production of goods and services.
In every case where the US state has taken a position in a business as a result of the bailout (advanced by the Bush administration), the state has secured its interest with stock and either sold the stock back into the private marketplace, or held it until the company could repurchase it to maintain their ownership position.
Let’s be clear, that is not socialism, it is the opposite of the state attempting to own the means of production.
The social welfare state was not an invention of socialism, it was an invention of capitalism, with Germany under Bismarck being the first state to institute a social safety net. The social welfare state was a response to Marxism, its intent is too starve socialism and communism of its adherents, by providing a tool to stabilize the individual workers exposure to the capitalist systems inherent chaotic cycles.
Great video post Sharon!
Steve and John,
The word “socialism” gets used a little too much today, as you seem to point out. In my view, the meaning over the last two years has become far too politicized to be a useful descriptive term. At one extreme is the first definition Steve provides above, which roughly is what is in The Manifesto of the Communist Party. Steve’s second definition, that of a “social welfare state” seems relevant, and includes the United States where we socialize the costs of national defense, law enforcement, roads, old age insurance, health insurance for the elderly, poor, and disabled, etc. And indeed, it is an invention of 19th century capitalism, though it had strong traditions going back much earlier.
Unfortunately, few take the care to make this distinction like Steve does, and assume that you are either for or against “socialism.”
Even John is I am sure in favor of some types of social welfare; he does imply above that when the church and family fail, the government will step in to plug the gaps (does this mean John is supportive of social security, medicaid, and other programs where the government stepped in to address a social welfare need after the church and family did not)?
Tony, thanks for the thoughtful comment. My core point was that the social welfare state is not socialism.
If it is construed that way then let the conservative candidates proudly proclaim that they are going to advocate for the elimination of medicaid, social security, all public pension plans, veterans benefits, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, TANF, food stamps, all agricultural crop subsidies, the national school lunch program, and the Black Lung Benefits program.
Then lets see how many people are voting for Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Joe Buck, Marco Rubio, Joe Miller and Rand Paul when they are forced to tell the truth about what they advocate for. They are avoiding these questions right now because they know this will be seen as extreme, even by Republicans.
Not to mention that it has been mentioned on CNBC and even FOX that corporate interests have at least 1 trillion, with a T, John, sitting on the sidelines of our very capitalist system. The corporations are more than prepared to flood this market with capital…they’re just waiting to see if Americans get hoodwinked into putting their paid for butt butterers into office. They should be taking care of their employees and the working poor for a CHANGE…Kate Hancock
“Butt butterers?”
Wow, I like that a lot.
Carry on…
But NO ONE can play Sara like Tammy Feye!
John
Steve, Tony & Kate,
I did notice that NO ONE address what I actually said up above so I will repeat it:
The problem with looking to socialism as the solution is that you cannot solve the problem of no wealth being created under a socialist system.
Without the security of private property, honestly in money and transactions and the discipline of market pricing how will you get people to take risk and work hard?
This is a problem that must be addressed whether you have a Russian revolution that socializes everything over night or a slow burning social welfare state that simply takes more and more over time.
Kate rightly points out that we have a trillion plus sitting on the sidelines waiting to see what happens: If we don’t soon give them signals that we are ready to affirm what I have said above that money will soon go else where.
John
No one I know is looking to socialism as any kind of solution.
Red herring alert, Mister Stoos!
M.
Sorry, but control of the mortgage industry, much of the auto and insurance business, all the banks, and now one seventh of our economy with healthcare is not capitalism.
If you want to claim that the government does not want to own these businesses but ONLY wants to control what these businesses do for the good of the many, then yes it is not socialism, it is fascism.
John
PS: I am not calling anyone individually a facist, any more than I would call someone a socialist without knowing them well: BUT as Steve said, language is important and keeping a facade of private control while the government makes all the important decisions is the basic definition of fascism as opposed to socialism where you have state ownership.
BOTH have the problems I have pointed out above.
John,
Single-payer did not happen, the insurance companies are still doing business as usual, and ObamaCare is really nothing more than some well-needed tweaks that will probably be rescinded once the intrinsically dysfunctional two-party system once again enters a self-destruction process.
As a small business owner who has recently been informed that my rates are going up even more than they went up during the past 7 years, ObamaCare is a failure. But I put the blame for that squarely on the Republicans, not Obama.
This pooch is so screwed, there is no way out. I could select any number of functional health care systems from at least 10 different countries as a model for our own, and it would be better than what we have.
This will never happen due to our corrupt and broken political system. I will vote on November 2, but I will do so with a sadness in my heart, as I have done so since I was first able to vote in 1976.
If you don’t already know that America is broken, you are probably a be a big part of the problem.
Michael A.
John,
I did address your point, and so did Steve. First, socialism is a term which has been corrupted into being an epithet, that it is almost devoid of meaning.
Second, the social welfare state is, as Steve pointed out an invention of the capitalists because they saw that the markets did not provide for everything that was needed for a productive and prosperous society. Thus, the most productive countries in history have also had strong systems of social welfare like the United States’ social security system, medicare, public education, medicaid, public highways, shared defense, a justice system, and so forth.
As you pointed out in an earlier post, this happened because churches and other private institutions were not up to the task.
In short, in a modern state with a strong social welfare system (call it “socialist” if it makes you happy), there is plenty of wealth created.
Tony
You’d better hope that whatever conglomeration of politicians is elected, they can work together and drag the corporations and the Rich kicking and screaming into a successful meld to make most Americans competitive in the Global Economic Rat Race. This will require the best of all our think tanks and serious national discussions and debating.
Otherwise, China takes over.
Chanting “socialism” is just about as effective as using the blessings and dancings of Hari Krishna’s as an airport screening system.
Tony,
Sorry, the question was and is how do you create wealth when you undermine the rights of property, the honesty of contracts [like we did with the secure bond holders in the auto industry] and the discipline of market pricing?
What you are calling a “social welfare state” has done incredible damage to all three areas and the simple question I am asking is how do you know propose to encourage the creation of wealth? If we don’t address that soon, we will soon see the street scenes from Paris and Athens very close to home.
John
PS for Michael: Saying the 2,000 pages of “tweaks” was no big deal sort of confirms my point above.
“Without the security of private property, honestly in money and transactions and the discipline of market pricing how will you get people to take risk and work hard?”
Market pricing? Does that mean you are in favor of no minimum wage? Market pricing these days means getting it built by $2/day Chinese. Are you in favor of $2 a day wages in the USA?
Answer that question, no weasel wording, are you in favor of $2/day American market priced wages?
If you deviate from that notion one iota, then you too must be in favor of what you call “socialism.”
If all the money and energy spent promoting TPP, had instead been spent dealing with working out real solutions, we’d be way ahead of where we are now.
How much longer will the TPP continue to block, just for the sake of bringing down Obama? And how much longer will they do so, even if it means destroying or rendering the USA so weak that China can waltz in?
“the honesty of contracts”
Let’s see, does that have a footnote that exempts breaking the contract if it deals with government pensions?
“how will you get people to take risk and work hard?””
There’s a system that works for CEO’s.
It’s called, “Pay Them Enough Money.”
Douglas,
On the last point, yes pensions are a contract which is why we need to be much more judicious and careful about what we promise.
On the minimum wage, I don’t have to weasel, I have always opposed such laws, but let me follow the example of Jesus and answer you question with a question: If you believe that the government has the right and power to set the minimum wage, why not set it at $65 per hours and eliminate all poverty?
John
PS: Just so you know, the reason I oppose such laws is because they punish the poor who desperately need that first rung on the ladder of success.
What sort of a childhood will a kid raised by a parent making $2/day have? Is living in a tent conducive to a good education? You are aware this is already a reality in this country for some children, and that 110,000 in the USA live in group homes, awaiting adoptions that never happen?
What sort of a future are you building, with no minimum wage? Can you afford to build and staff enough jails? We are already #1 in incarcerates on this planet, by percentage of the population.
Douglas,
Yes, I did notice that you refused to answer my question so I will ask it again, IF you believe that the government has the right and power to set a minimum wage, why not set it at $65 per hour and end poverty?
As to your $2 comments, no a family cannot survive in our nation on $2 an hour so that would not be the wages paid in a free market because there would be no workers taking the jobs.
HOWEVER, someone might own a corner market that has some trash on the sidewalks and thus they might want to pay a local teenager $2 an hour to sweep it up in the mornings so their store is more attractive. This helps the neighborhood, it helps their business so they can pay better wages to their employees and MOST importantly it helps the young man or women with a little pocket change, an opportunity to learn some responsibilities and work habits and perhaps even catch the eye of the owner and become his next regular employee.
Now if that owner happened to be someone from a family like the Raleys or Longs where they went on to build a huge chain of stores, this young person might one day have become a Vice President, all because he or she could reach that first $2 opportunity rung on the ladder of success that your current “minimum wage laws” keep out of their reach in my neighborhood today.
John
Thanks for the post Sharon…and speaking of tea partiers, my daughter is going to a Halloween party tonight as none other than Sister Sarah Palin herself. Now John, how funny and civil is that
she’s her younger, prettier democratic twin right now…its a bit unsettling actually…Kate Hancock
The TPPatriots corporate masters aren’t even interested in americans as their slaves at ALL. Like HP, their interest lie in sending jobs to CHINA. Like Fiorina AND Whitman both did for their corporate masters before being scheduled to do the same thing to California. Did you SEE China’s numbers on Bloom berg.? California has jumped wise in the nick of freakin time….Kate Hancock
I hate to have to break it to you John, but most of Mayberry 1954 was outsourced during the Bush years to a factory in Bangalor, India. But don’t worry, whitman and fiorina made any working as street sweepers and urchins train their Indian replacements. The area you live in is being closed and downsized by Karl Rove and the Koch Bros. They’ll come back to traffic the young men and women of May berry to parts unknown…Dubai perhaps? Afghanistan? Why that sounds like a rw plan right there…mission accomplished. Kate Hancock